@avery

U quoted the wrong person :p

Thanks for the heads up arsenal. Beer is bad for you!

Thanks for the heads up arsenal. Beer is bad for you!

Please dear lord tell me somebody hacked your account and posted this. To compare an obviously simplified version of a minorly popular game to a game featuring the two biggest gaming icons in history is beyond absurd. I mean you are a really well respected poster, why sink to such. I just bought the game, see my impressions. Frankly you are putting a lot of your credibility in a very leaky raft. This game is not worth what you the effort putting into saving it.

Did I compare the games, or the popularity? I did not. Do you even know what happened after Sega stated they predicted 4 million sales? I don't think you do.

Wow where to start. First off I bought the game (and yes I can prove it), its mediocre, not terrible- which was obvious to most all of us for months, apparently not you however. 

And yes I know about what Sega said, first off that was combined Wii and DS. Secondly to compare a totally new game featuring 2 of gamings top sellers, centered around the world's #1 sporting event to a hacked down port of a game that only sold modestly is quite a stretch. I really hope you realize that as it seems pretty painfully obvious. I didn't expect M&S to sell 4 million but 3 million certainly seemed reasonable.

"its mediocre, not terrible- which was obvious to most all of us for months, apparently not you however."

No, many here and elsewhere were calling it outright horrible, without even playing it. That was what I called on. If you aren't pleased with it, you don't have to like it. That's not obvious. That's personal taste.

"first off that was combined Wii and DS."

And a lot of gamers did state even combined sales that much was impossible.

"Secondly to compare"

I'm not comparing the games. I'm just pointing out people scoffed at both comments, and their scoffing at the first one was dead wrong, and we don't even know if this scoffing is going to be right.

It has nothing to do with the games. The sales predictions aren't even the same.

^^^ I accept that people have different taste, people like different genres for instance. But a poorly made game is just that. The reason the game is still OK is because the subject matter is decent to begin with. But the game itself reeks of lack of effort. I mean some of the textures would put a Dreamcast to game to shame, the number of zombies is far less than promised and shown. These are not a matter of taste, they are lazy programming. I know the Wii can do more than this.

You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth, I never expected this game to suck- I expected it to be about what it is, a lazy port of a really cool game. I wouldn't have bought it if I though it was gonna be total trash.

People like to complain and blow things out of proportion, that is where all the whining came from. Its not that people thought the game would be terrible, but that they were angry that Capcom would not put in the effort to make it great, which they surely could have. They could have made it a unique game, that better addressed the Wii's shortcomings, but instead choose to take a $20 game, rip out a ton of the content, not enhance it in any way and sell it for $40. I understand the anger. Things like pulling out the camera and not really adding an Wii exclusive stuff just hit the point home.

"But a poorly made game is just that."

That I have to call. Some reviewers aren't impressed, but poorly made implies loads of glitches and poor performance.

If you mean the game doesn't look that impressive, so what? This isn't a 5th year game on the system, and the team has only done a direct port because of this. Their focus was fit what they could on the Wii. That was their job. You all decided there were more things they were required to do, not Capcom.