It already has--I was referring to the fact that, if you compare screenshots, this game looks miles better than it did last month.  Substantially more zombies, somewhat better textures, the first signs of good lighting--and they still have at least two months before going gold.

First of all, fixed. Second of all, you clearly missed posts I've made, where I state my that jumping to conclusions about Ubisoft is the very reson I'm calling for not doing it now. I was wrong, to assume then, and those assuming now are wrong.

And speaking of fast improvement, how long was it before that "N64" Dogz trailer, and that "Shading over textures and Bloom" Dogz trailer?

Thank you for the fix. Much appreciated. Also, don't get so bent out over the quote. I'm just trying to mess with you. I know about the beginning, middle and end of the Ubisoft Boycott fiasco. Just wait when it tops the year end Shame-A-Thon at VGChartz.

At the overall line of thinking, maybe just tone it down a notch. I think what most people see is you on a personal quest to save this one game, as I haven't seen you poke your head into the other 934 threads featuring assumptions made on games months or years away. We all do it, and it's not wrong. It's simply discussion, and that's the point of these forums. If Game A looks like shit today and gold tomorrow, I will call it shit today and gold tomorrow. It's the developer's responsibility to present their work in a good light. It's not my job to sift through sloppy work and hold my tongue on something that currently looks below average by last generation standards.

Yes I know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, but that's Capcom's problem, not mine. Plenty of games come out in alpha builds looking like masterpieces graphically and the Dead Rising Wii team should be able to do better, or just stop releasing trash publicly. They didn't show off the original Dead Rising in this half-assed shape now did they? Nope. It looked wonderful since screenshot one and trailer one. Most of us just expected the same level of professionalism from this new team to have enough pride in their work to not show it off with it's pants down.

They didn't release early pictures of the first Dead Rising because it wasn't a hit yet, therefore there wasn't a need to show people the game was coming along.

And I don't have a lot of time to search for threads where everyone is jumping to conclusions, but when I do, I attack the bull#$%^ there.

There's a thread where everyone is just assuming Call of Duty 4 will sell better. Okay, 4 sold a lot, so it's hard to see that World at War will sell as well, but there are assuming it's foregone that 4 will sell better, and their reasoning for it are faulty. They assume that WaW will be no better than 3 and made by Treyarch instead of Infinity Ward, but, ignoring that 3 was rushed, and this won't be, and they actually think most of the audience thinks the way they do. I called them on that. Not that it worked, but I'm not singling out this game. I'm attacking BS that I see.

I should add that given that hardcore Wii games sell over the long term, word of mouth is very important. If this game turns out shoddy, that would hurt long term sales. And considering the RE games on the Wii took months to reach platinum, that's a risk I doubt Capcom is taking with this game.

Now you may thing, "But it's being made a low cost. Of course it will make a profit."

Look at this link.

http://kotaku.com/5048780/capcom-want-to-be-global-devs-not-japanese-devs

Capcom wants to expand their western sales. Zombie games sell in the west. Even if this game is almost guaranteed to make money, it's also meant to help in this goal. If they can successfully port HD games to the Wii, that means more sales, and this game is just the first step in that.

I could be wrong, but it just seems likely Capcom wants this game to be good, since all the core Wii gamers would easily help expand their western presence. Core 360 and PS3 owners too, but all three at once are better.

Only a cold!!!!??????

May 17th 2005-14 months before release:

Like I said, media came out for this game early also. Many months earlier than the Wii version, and already looked great. They already had in the first shots the garage areas with the thousands of zombies at once. This is what I expected from the Wii shots and trailers. Not the same graphics, but the same work effort. I see it in the early Dead Rising shots, and I do not see it at all in the Dead Rising Wii shots.

Actually, I read your comment differently than what you meant. But you're thinking pics that show more than the game could actually do isn't disappointing?

And the Wii at best it's a single core processor with a few vector units (integer units specifically), not a multi-core processor like the 360. One of those cores was for the AI. The Wii would have to turn a chunk of the main core, and a vector unit to that, which means there isn't even a "better than the final build" option. They have to work with what they can work with.

The Wii can do lots of zombies. They're just making sure the game runs smoothly with what they have.

Has Capcom actually confirmed that? I'm not doubting you necessarily, but a link would be helpful to back up that statement. Remember, no assumptions sir.

I do agree with you that the Wii should be able to do lots of zombies. Frankly, Dead Rising looks like straight ass(even in the new pics), so for it to look that bad, I expect at least as many zombies as the 360 version, if not more. If it can't handle nearly as many zombies in the final build, I question why Capcom would choose such a demanding game, one that truly did use that extra horsepower the 360 posseses, to make a Wii game out of.