"You were claiming economics made it impossible for Capcom to spend more on games on Wii"

I did NOT. I neither claimed it was impossible, nor that being on the Wii was the cause.

"hence raising the budget to a ridiculous amount for a game already made"

See that? That means that IS possible, but ridiculous. Why? The end of that quote doesn't mention the Wii. It mentions another reason.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your reply because it's based on thinking I claimed something I didn't. Respond to the points I actually made, not what you think I'm claiming, and I'll respond to that.

Fun game; bashed for lame reasons.

The 360's version had an arrow to guide you, too.........Still, the game did look a lot better than I thought it would. "Wii only" owners probably won't be let down if they don't know what they're missing. And if Otis isn't calling every five seconds (I swear he's Roman from GTA IV), then the game definitely fixed my biggest gripe!

So the game wasn't a big budget title. It's a fallacy that ports are expensive. There's a user here who thinks those Gamecube ports from Nintendo are costing loads of money that "should" be spent on original games (as though those aren't being made somehow).

At least on video shows you walking up to Otis to take missions. As in you take them when you are good and ready.

Maybe you should follow your own advise there buddy and read what I write instead of what you think I write.

Don't try that mirroring crap. You directly wrote that you thought I was claiming something I wasn't. Why would you write a comment like "You were claiming X" if X wasn't what you meant?

You read my comments wrong and are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. Grow up. I've admitted plenty of times when I read a comment wrong, but those people pointed it out directly.

I directly pointed out the relevant comment to my point. I'll put it here again.

"hence raising the budget to a ridiculous amount for a game already made"

Nothing in that comment has to do with the Wii. Stop claiming it is.

Aye. It's obvious ports are cheaper. I guess some people want bigger budget games right now. I've been very happy with the Wii line-up so far. I'm not too fussed by missing out on some of the so-called blockbuster games. If I did care I'd buy another machine to compliment my DS and Wii.

People as a whole get their knickers in a twist over anything. It's just different people have fits over different things and you can't please everyone all of the time. So why bother to try?

Moaning. It's grrrrrrrrrrrreat.

Lets look at this for a moment:

"Taking the budgets they spend on HD games into account your argument really makes no sense."

I did not do that. Where in that comment did I mention HD games? 

I was taking the budgets on HD games into account, then you claim you never mentioned HD games. I however never said you did, I mentioned them to show Capcom is still producing plenty of games with high budgets.

But more importantly, you initially replied to my comment that wasn't even directed at you and reply didn't even touch the subject of my comment. I stated that consumers shouldn't accept short development cycles and small budgets and definitely shouldn't encourage those and then you started talking about that it was just economics and it wouldn't pay off for Capcom to spend a lot more money on Dead Rising. However I didn't mention Dead Rising Wii or wanting Capcom to spend more money on Dead Rising Wii. So basically this whole argument started with you projecting this only on Dead Rising Wii while I was talking about games in general.

Anybody think this game will hit 500k? Word of mouth will be important, because Capcom didn't advertise this one bit.