@Akuma587:Well said,this port is looking troublesome by now,Capcom could improve the game but not for much,Wii's capabilities have a limit.

You just took the words from my mouth ^^

Stop feeding the troll.

@akuma--i think most people are in agreement that this game wont be as flashy as teh 360, the facts don't change just b/c its someone pointing out in another game...we understand the wii inst as strong as the other two systems, i don't see people trying to fight that what we are tired of is teh wii doom crap that keeps popping up about a game that only has dev screens out and still looks pretty good compared to most of the third party crap the wii has seen so far, personally i am looking forward to some wii beat 'em up controls that could be put into this game and the graphics are taking a back seat b/c i could just pop the game into my 360 if i need to have eye candy at teh expense of game play

so yeah....once again i am going to go with this,

And I have countless times made the writers at Kotaku look like amateur bloggers and this will be no exception.


Starting with a basic bit of logic I already posted about.

Wii is more powerful than GC.
GC in 2001 powered a title that had over 100 objects on screen at once.
Each object was composed of 3,000 fully textured and lit polygons.
Each object also had it's own A.I. path.

Gears of War has more detailed enemies than Dead Rising.
Basic Gears of War enemies are composed of 10,000 polygons.
It can be safely assumed that Dead Rising zombies are composed of far less than 10,000 polygons.

Wii can render more than 100 objects at 3,000 polygons each.
Or Wii can render 100 objects with more than 3,000 polygons each.

By this very basic and incredibly simple exercise in logic and deduction, it can be safely assumed the Wii can render more than just a dozen very low polygon zombies.


Next point.

Development time. Kotaku's supposition suggest the Wii will only render a dozen zombies on screen at launch based on the early development build magazine screen shots.

As has been the case with nearly 100% of all games ever developed, the game is optimized throughout the development cycle and either allows for more on screen, more effects or increased frame rate but usually a matter of all of them.

Kotaku's article is nothing more than a poorly conceived instigation as a means quickly gains traffic and raise revenue.

One screen? You are going to judge the entire game on one pre release screenshot? Boy people sure are getting critical these days.

Who cried foul when someone said "the Wii isn't as powerful as the X360 or PS3?"  You missed a point entirely since everyone knows that the Wii isn't as powerful.  That argument is only coming from you as you just invented it.  When it comes to raw power, it's leagues ahead of the PS2 (which is, unfortunately, what many of the games strive to look like), twice as capable as the GameCube (which was never fully utilized), and arguably more effecient (and therefore, seemingly more powerful) than the original Xbox.

The thing here is that the Wii is much more capable than the released images of Dead Rising Wii would have us believe.  The Xbox360 version of Dead Rising was mostly a up-scaled Xbox game as Capcom fully admitted building it originally designing it for that system, then moved to Xbox360, more or less, to add more zombies with somewhat higher poly counts. 

I'll reiterate, it's just stupid to dismiss a game this early in development based on a few released screenshots.  Everyone knows the Wii isn't as powerful as the Xbox360, but then, Dead Rising was a LONG way from pushing that system to any limits of any kind.  When Dead Rising Wii does launch, I'm sure it'll surprise people with how shockingly similar it is to the Xbox360 version, graphically.  And just because one person from Kotaku has a similar uneducated opinion based on screenshots of a game which is far from completion, doesn't make it fact.

I think you guys are missing the point.

I think the best part of Dead Rising was the sheer number of zombies (much better, brighter-looking zombies as well) that you could plow through and have a good time.

With only a dozen around you, you'll kill them and be left with nothing. I'm sure there will be...enough...but these screens don't bode well at all.

I'm not condemning the game, but this is not at all a good indication of what the game will end up like...it just seems to have no colors or anything interesting compared to the 360 version.

And I'm not at all saying the Wii can't handle a sh*tload of zombies.  I do think that if the game is made poorly, it can't though.

You can disagree, but I think you're a little full of it if you say this is what you expected. "Uneducated opinion based on screenshots of a game which is far from completion"? Basing an opinion on these screenshots is the most educated opinion you could have at this moment.

People poked at Left 4 Dead because it started a little rough around the edges...gradually it's improving and I'm proving people wrong, because I know Valve will do a good job.

I don't know if Capcom will do a good job.

Who here actually thought the Wii version would be as good as the Xbox 360 version in terms of graphics? The Wii can do impressive graphics but the 360 IS more powerful so porting software from 360 to Wii IS going to cause downgrading in some areas, although Im sure the Wii has yet to really prove its realy graphical prowess, wait till Rogue Squadron 4.

Shameless, exactly that, shameless posting. =)

There are a few key elements that are traditional marks of what is known as "alpha stage" screenshots. As you could figure on your own, alpha comes before beta, and beta is the stage screenshots for gaming sites USUALLY come from.

This is far from what the release will look like. What it looks more like is an AI test that was taken in a screenshot. When developers test different code and mechanics, they shut off 90% of the rendering and lighting, since they are not focusing on the graphics. In fact, the only time full graphic rendering is used is during the end of alpha stage and heading into beta.