Wii is for SD demos of real games. Confirmed.
How about spending a little more money, and giving us some new IPs with some good gameplay and graphics, 3rd parties? Stop with the quarter-HD budgets already.
Wii is for SD demos of real games. Confirmed.
How about spending a little more money, and giving us some new IPs with some good gameplay and graphics, 3rd parties? Stop with the quarter-HD budgets already.
| Procrastinato said: Wii is for SD demos of real games. Confirmed. How about spending a little more money, and giving us some new IPs with some good gameplay and graphics, 3rd parties? Stop with the quarter-HD budgets already. |
That would make it about right for Wii development costs. Didn't you hear the head of EA stated that Wii games cost about a third to make?
And as for more money, they will spend it on original games. DR was a redux of an already made game. You don't blow loads of cash on that. It's bad business.
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
@ LordTheNightKnight
I won't pick it up mostly because I'm poor. Very poor. Like too-poor-to-rent-a-game-unless-it's-guaranteed-to-be-awesome poor. So I have to be very choosy about what games I even play to begin with.
So if the 360 version is generally considered to be a decent game, and the Wii version is generally considered to lose much of what made the 360 version great, and I didn't care for the 360 version to begin with ... then I'm afraid I'm just going to have to pass on this one.
I'm not "blindly following reviews". I just knows what I likes.
| foont said: @ LordTheNightKnight |
The only thing is that a lot of the consideration was made up before they even played this. So it's not really a way to tell.
But if you can't even afford to rent, then that's a reason not to bother.
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
| KylieDog said: Do Capcom pay you? I am curious. |
I would recomment buying it outright. Notice I stated if he can't even afford to rent, he shouldn't even bother.
And I'm doing this for one of their games, not all of Capcom's work.
My problem is people are prejudging the game. Sure it's not racism, but the bullshit logic is still there.
Another problem is all of you thinking Capcom was obligated to blow more money and time on this because you think that will somehow overcome the spec limitations of the Wii.
Capcom is trying to see what they can do on the Wii. This is not a grab and run, because they could have ported to the PS3 and PC for that, in even less time and budget.
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
| 11ht11 said: no im pretty sure this is a "grab and run" |
You can be "pretty sure" all you want. That isn't proof Capcom is going to hold back further Wii development if this makes loads of money.
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
Here's the CVG review you started the other thread for
Ever since the first screenshot of Dead Rising on Wii appeared, we all wondered whether the technically inferior console could render the same number of flesh-eating zombies as the 360 version.
The quick answer is 'no'. But while Chop Till You Drop does manage to retain much of the same gameplay mechanics (the mall, zombies, missions etc.), it fails to push the Wii hardware anywhere near its potential.
It's no secret that Wii's little microchips don't pump out as much polygonal power as the beefier Microsoft console. And we expected a downgrade in visual quality. Slightly fewer zombies too. But otherwise we expected the same game we first played two years ago.
Chop Till You Drop, however, under-performs not just in comparison to the 360 game, but even compared to other Wii games. It feels rushed, cheapened and does the console an injustice in just about every way.
The Wii version appears to have been softened since its 360 debut - but not in the wisest of ways. For example, the first boss on 360 was a battle of wits, as the guy you're trying to shoot skips from one shop rooftop to another, staying behind cover while trying to give you the slip.
In the Wii version he just runs around at ground level, stopping now and then to take a few shockingly inaccurate shots at you, while you stand right next him and blast bullets into his face. He's dead within moments and you needn't use any strategy.
The zombie hordes of the 360 version adhered to the traditional principles of zombies - they only pose a threat in numbers. This, of course, goes out the window with a greatly reduced zombie count.
The buzz of entering the mall area with a sea of zombies and the challenge of plotting your route through certain shops, grabbing anything to hand with which to defend yourself, was what made the original worth playing. Now you just skip past the dozen-or-so zombies in your way, waggling the Remote to break free if one grabs you.
Capcom's made up for the lack of zombies by streamlining your path through the mall with stupid impassable strips of red tape that block off certain areas, forcing you to follow a more linear path , usually towards the zombies. For me it ruined the sense of freedom and diversity you had before. You can't just smash through shop windows, walk through pools of water or climb ledges. It's invisible wall hell.
Ammo (which appears where killed zombies fade away) is plentiful too. So using different objects as weapons is no-longer necessary. This isn't what Dead Rising was about.
To offset the now not-so-threatening zombies, the game has been bolstered with an infinite supply of ravenous poodles and parrots - because that makes perfect sense - that are faster-moving and harder to shoot.
These annoying additions somehow strafe bullets, too. How does that make sense? If human zombies are too stupid to dodge bullets, how come dog and parrot zombies have increased intelligence?
But it's not just the zombie count that appears to have gone to the pits due to the technical downgrade. The physics on the zombies are poor - there's little impact when you clobber them. Running them down with the lawnmower isn't fun anymore.
The game takes ages to load different areas, even if that area is a single, empty, pointless room. The cutscenes look so blurry it's offensive, and we're pretty sure there are sharper textures in GoldenEye 007 on N64 than on some surfaces in this.
It doesn't do the Wii justice at all. Not even in the control stakes. You can clobber zombies with objects by swinging the Remote, but it doesn't always work and the swing takes ages to happen in the game. You hold B - the trigger-like button on the Remote - to aim, and A to shoot. Erm...
And to interact with objects and people, and open doors you have to hit A on the Remote and Z on the Nunchuk together. Why they chose such an awkward combination of buttons is beyond us.
It's a real shame because, even on the less powerful Wii, this could and should have been a lot better than it is. You'll still enjoy it if you can't get enough zombie shooting in your life.
Even if the 360 version didn't exist, Chop Till You Drop still underperforms and underdelivers in almost every area. If you had high hopes, lower them and you just might see past its faults.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=209222
I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do.
Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.
Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!
Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.
"Here's the CVG review you started the other thread for"
From the second comment he made, it seems he just wanted to make loads of negative threads to make the game look bad.
As for reviews, I stopped trusting them when I realized developers actively courted good reviews.
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
| LordTheNightKnight said: "Here's the CVG review you started the other thread for" Seems he just wanted to make loads of negative threads to make the game look bad. As for reviews, I stopped trusting them when I realized developers actively courted good reviews. |
>_> if this game got good reviews i still would of made threads for it
Brett please add a ignore user function