"When the game was first announced, the engine wasn't even complete. Back then we still had Capcom reps talking about how they'd manage 100+ zombies onscreen and that it was being made by the RE4 Wii team (neither turned out to be true). Honestly, the game pretty much looks like budget shovelware."
Not to me, because I notice all the details they included, not just the overall look. The look needs work, though, but those were about design choices, not money. Like the color palette. That wouldn't have cost anything to make it more vibrant (unless there is a reason I'm not taking into account).
And just because the game doesn't look expensive to you is not proof it isn't. With all the arguments about how much a game cost until we get word of the budget, it's clear visuals do not indicate that (I mean, if we didn't know Gears cost a fraction of Too Human, would you know it just by looking?)
"Also, were you told literally "no" or "not low budget"? Because "cost nearly as much as an original game" reeks of PR diversion. Original games can be CHEAP, especially when they're developed in China. Can you link me to this interview btw?"
It was on the Capcom boards, and a thread I made, and Sven (a vice president of the company, just in case you didn't know) answered, stating that ports in general are not as cheap as we think. So it's not just that game, but any port is not cheap.
Even if the code and data were not optimized (which I do agree with), that does not change the fact that they had to do it all over again. Seriously, what do you think was cheap and easy about this?
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Essay Pro