I think a on-rails game would've been cool if there weren't already too many. :(

Oh my goodness...all they did was develop a game. It probably wasn't even their decision.

I would have loved a spinoff with Frank as a professional zombie hunter, going to different locations in the world and fighting zombies.

It should've been a ground-up spinoff.

It should've had true effort put into it.

I have yet to play the game, but you can imagine the impression already....impressed upon me.

You know what a good spinoff would be, you play as the escape convicts, busting out of prison then going for a joy ride on the jeep gunning down zombies before going to mall.

IMO They should have made it on rails.

to many theres only 5 i now of (i could be wrong)

house of the dead 2&3,house of the dead overkill,resident evil UC,Nerf N-Strike,Ghost Squad and Target: Terror

how is that to many

"It really shows that they did not put any effort in the game."

Wrong. They remade every asset for the Wii. Every asset. Just because the zombie count isn't as high (but it's only truly low in the early missions) and just because it doesn't have all the graphical bells and whistles (which were not that much on the 360 version either) does not mean this was something easy or cheap to do.

And I have a problem with this thread. It's basically saying that the entire value of a game is being specifically made for a system, not about the actual substance of the game. By that logic, Contra sucks because it was made for the arcade first. It wasn't made for the NES, and even has loads of flicker with all the bullets flying. Clearly they did a horrible job, and should have done the whole game over for the system.

Do you realize porting has been done with less powerful systems since the days of Atari and Commodore?

Capcom promised to put Dead Rising on the Wii. They didn't promise to do the entire game over. And if it was, I know you all would have complained about that.

You don't have to like the game, but the basing for this thread is still BS. It's not like Chrono Cross, where Square promised a direct sequel, and still made piss poor connections with Trigger. Capcom delivered what they promised.

And before anyone goes "they promised 100 zombies on screen", they said they were shooting for that. And we just know the groups are smaller than that, not that 100 won't fit (enemy corralling, anyone).

EDIT: I'm not saying the game's any good. If you find the gameplay is not to your tastes, you don't have to like it. If you think it's more fun mowing down hordes from the beginning, you don't have to like it.

But criticising it for things not true (little effort to make, Capcom being obligated to do the entire game over) is just being pig-headed.

Ironically it will be Capcom themselves, through MH3, that will show why technically the Wii is more than capable of doing much better than Dead Rising Wii.

OT, it should have been a new engine, or outsourced 3rd person engine that had already proven it was capable, but they didn't bother to make one because they don't want to make 3rd person action games for Wii.

How dare they make a fresh MH3 engine, knowing its limited multi use capabilities, and yet ignore the potential that a ground up Wii engine could deliver. They are still ignoring it.

LTNK, dude you have a problem with every Capcom thread.

"Ironically it will be Capcom themselves, through MH3, that will show why technically the Wii is more than capable of doing much better than Dead Rising Wii."

Last I checked, Monster Hunter games don't have loads of characters either on screen or in an area. Nor does the series have the same art direction as Dead Rising (either version).

"LTNK, dude you have a problem with every Capcom thread."

No, I have a problem with people spouting ignorant drivel, while thinking they know better than people who've actually made games.

You spouting about the engine doesn't have shred of proof that the RE4 engine was the fault the game looked like that. No, looking at games is not proof. I mean something in the actual game data.

Also, I remember spouting drivel myself about Ubisoft. I was wrong. I admit it. My problem with you people is you won't here.

RAIL SHOOTER!

And to get the importance of this point across, there should be 20 other threads in here that also say "RAIL SHOOTER!" at least half of which created by me. This way, it is proof you can't have too many rail shooters.