""an original game" =/= "big/mid size budget""

It has to be. I asked if it was low budget, and I was told that wasn't the case.

The thing is that money wasn't the reason the game didn't turn out so well.

And the game was announced in July 2008, released Feb 2009, which means we have to add that to "how far the game actually was when announced", so it couldn't have been developed in under a year.

I'm not trying to excuse the game. I'm just stating time and money were not the reasons it didn't turn out so well. RE5 got loads of both, and it still got mixed reviews (especially among user reviews).

Another Dead Rising game, given all that was learned from this game, and given a fresh base instead of the foundation of the first game (which was off even according to the game's creator), would turn out better.

When the game was first announced, the engine wasn't even complete.  Back then we still had Capcom reps talking about how they'd manage 100+ zombies onscreen and that it was being made by the RE4 Wii team (neither turned out to be true).  Honestly, the game pretty much looks like budget shovelware.

Also, were you told literally "no" or "not low budget"?  Because "cost nearly as much as an original game" reeks of PR diversion.  Original games can be CHEAP, especially when they're developed in China.  Can you link me to this interview btw?

"When the game was first announced, the engine wasn't even complete. Back then we still had Capcom reps talking about how they'd manage 100+ zombies onscreen and that it was being made by the RE4 Wii team (neither turned out to be true). Honestly, the game pretty much looks like budget shovelware."

Not to me, because I notice all the details they included, not just the overall look. The look needs work, though, but those were about design choices, not money. Like the color palette. That wouldn't have cost anything to make it more vibrant (unless there is a reason I'm not taking into account).

And just because the game doesn't look expensive to you is not proof it isn't. With all the arguments about how much a game cost until we get word of the budget, it's clear visuals do not indicate that (I mean, if we didn't know Gears cost a fraction of Too Human, would you know it just by looking?)

"Also, were you told literally "no" or "not low budget"? Because "cost nearly as much as an original game" reeks of PR diversion. Original games can be CHEAP, especially when they're developed in China. Can you link me to this interview btw?"

It was on the Capcom boards, and a thread I made, and Sven (a vice president of the company, just in case you didn't know) answered, stating that ports in general are not as cheap as we think. So it's not just that game, but any port is not cheap.

Even if the code and data were not optimized (which I do agree with), that does not change the fact that they had to do it all over again. Seriously, what do you think was cheap and easy about this?

Nope the 360 has 90 games that sold a million or more.

That post was corrected pages ago.

Sorry about that.  I'm pretty sure the 360 will get to 100 million seller before the Wii does.

"Sorry about that. I'm pretty sure the 360 will get to 100 million seller before the Wii does."

Yeah, that will be a close one.

Congratz to Ninty!!

I love you !!

most epic correct i have seen in pages.

Why was this thread brought back from the dead? No new information has been added.