I felt that this one summed it up pretty neatly, and it made me laugh pretty hard.
I thought hotlinking would probably be bad, but yeah, the copyright is at the bottom there.
The word couldn't be used enough.
[url="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21384"]Interview: Capcom's Nakai On Remaking Dead Rising For Wii[/url]
[quote]So, basically, you're taking the chance of making the remake as a way to put a little polish and balance into the game, where maybe the original version didn't, and try to make it a little more fun basically. It's a chance to rebalance the game?
MN: This time, we really wanted to make it more for the casual users. The original version was much more for hardcore users, so it's just been a transition of trying to make it more fun and easier and accessible, even to casual users.
...
On one hand, a Wii game should have very Wii-like controls and be very fun to play -- but on the other hand, Dead Rising was originally designed to be played with button presses, which are more precise and faster. Can you talk about how you were able to change the controls and still make the game feel accurate and fun to play?
MN: Last time, with the Xbox 360, we had buttons, and it was very complex. Of course, you could do whatever you wanted at the press of a button, but the controls were very difficult, so they were really more for hardcore users.
For casual gamers, we wanted it to be easier to understand and easier to use, so of course, even hardcore gamers will be able to point and do whatever they want to do very quickly, but this also makes it more accessible for the casual users.
Is anyone with a 360 seriously getting this game?
I have it on 360 and I've only even played that one for about an hour :(
This is actually kind of insulting. I didn't buy a Wii to get games for retards, thanks.
[QUOTE=S
I liked it better when Platforms were just game specific, you'd buy a platform because it had the game titles and genres you liked. Now it's just "hardcore" and "casual." **** that.
Ah yes, my old PS2. I bought it solely for FFX. But yeah, the more money they can make, the better.
a game can be casual but still be freakin difficult why dont developers get this ****
example: my dad is a casual gamer. He knows how to play Super Mario Bros and Space Invaders and Galaga and **** because there isn't much complexity to the gameplay and you don't need to commit long periods of time to that ****. But the games are still freakin challenging and have good design.
jesus christ game developers
To Capcom, RE4 is more casual than previous Resident Evils. Perhaps they don't mean it's going to be as simple as shallow as Wii Sports?
Probably more casual in the sense that it's easier to survive. Or well, not run out of ammo, anyway. The cut-scenes can be a *****. Like the one with Krauser.
Control scheme: no
Difficulty: no
Hordes: no
Graphics: no
Nonononono
Whatever happened to difficulty settings?
The difficulty settings would be like this:
Easy - ONE zombie
Normal - TWO zombies
Hard - THREE zombies
Impossible - THREE zombies and NO weapons
Difficulty settings:
- Really Casual
- Casual
- Kinda Casual
You have to beat kinda casual to unlock Easy mode.
[quote=Fate;917461][COLOR=skyblue]The difficulty settings would be like this:
Easy - ONE zombie
Normal - TWO zombies
Hard - THREE zombies
Impossible - THREE zombies and NO weapons[/COLOR]
This reminds me of a hilarious conversation I had with someone where they stated that Left 4 Dead was "obviously" better than Gears of War 2 because there were more zombies at any one time than enemies in Horde mode. Nevermind that, you know, in Gears they have tactics and weapons and in Left 4 Dead they're mindless, defencless zombies. Actually interesting enemies VS boring, human-shaped targets.
I feel this applies to the topic somehow.
the wii zombies are still gonna be dumbasses
Anyone who compares Left 4 Dead to Gears of War is a dumbass.
Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead = Strength in numbers. ****load of zombies that, while suffering enormous casualties, may bring you down. Kinda like Russians.
Gears of War = Tactical shooter, strength in making use of cover in order to avoid damage. Kinda like any other army but the Russian.
So, basically, if the Wii version lacks that great number of zombies, they'd better be less stupid or hit harder, or it's going to be one of those yawner games.
[quote=#061402;917509]Anyone who compares Left 4 Dead to Gears of War is a dumbass.
Why can't I compare them? I'm interested in the enemies of both games, shooting Locust is a lot more interesting that shooting defencless zombies or swarms of defensless zombies. In fact, the latter feels a lot like vacuuming up a pile of sand. I find it absurd that two games can be rendered incomparable because of some arbitrary lables. You could compare Chess and Formula 1 Racing if you understood both games well enough.
[quote=The X;917501]the wii zombies are still gonna be dumbasses
The Wii zombies are quite literally RE4 zombies. They are much more interesting enemies than the 360 zombies.
I don't really see this as "cut-down Dead Rising", I see it as "RE4 in a mall that just happens to look like a 360 game of the same name". The 360 game is pretty much an RPG for all intents and purposes, the Wii game is a straight-up action game that may or may not turn out to be bad. Bashing it because they've changed the design to account for the Wii's hardware smacks of fanboyism. I fail to see what is so hilarious about what essentially amounts to seeing the difference in the two system's hardware. I would go so far as to say that if you do find it funny you're probably a greater nerd than I am and a gay virgin.
Should've just released a patch for the original that opens unlimited mode or whatever it's called from the get go and gets rid of the strict timelimits from the campaign. Maybe then it wouldn't be a ****ty game.
RE4 had badass guns and other tools to kick *** with
dead rising has a 9mm and an SMG
What the hell was wrong with my post? Geez.
Nothing. Accurate.
And an old rifle exactly like the one from RE4.
[IMG]http://residentevil.planets.gamespy.com/images/pages/re4/weapons/rifle.jpg[/IMG]
that? It looks like a springfield. One of the most famous bolt-actions.
All the releading animations are the same, and the other two weapons mentioned are also in RE4. And the game runs on the RE4 engine. It's likely that there will be more RE4-like weapons in the game.
Firearms versus gardening tools for killing zombies. Gardening tools win.
So you'd rather play RE4 with a shovel.
the comedy weapons worked in dead rising though
Since that's one of the few appeals of Dead Rising, yeah.
I felt that this one summed it up pretty neatly, and it made me laugh pretty hard.
I thought hotlinking would probably be bad, but yeah, the copyright is at the bottom there.
They also thought Brawl would be without Captain Falcon, VGCats don't know nuffin'.
Half the gaming world thought he wasn't going to be in it. Enjoy your One dangerous zombie.
VGCats is as unfunny as Ctrl-Alt-Del, his only saving grace is that he can draw stupid faces.
Zombies were never dangerous in dead rising...
In fact, they probably will be in Chop til' ya drop, making up for the lack of zombie crowds.
They're more aggressive apparently. But when they're spread around in little pockets, how much of a threat can they really be? Not to mention combat is more gun-focused so you likely don't even get all that close.
Anything would be somewhat dangerous when there's like 30million of them...
And they're just mildly dangerous, if even that.
And yes, I has played.
Just what I've been saying. Great numbers but not so dangerous alone. Fall into a bunch of them? You're ****ed.
So yeah. It'll basically be GTA: Retirement Home, since from the looks of it the zombies just stand still until you get within a meter of them. And then you blow their heads off. Game over.
Whatever, I won't condemn it until I've seen and tried it.
I don't expect it to be awesome.
Just something to pass time with.
Oh wai, that's pretty much what the original was. :3
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;922488]They're more aggressive apparently. But when they're spread around in little pockets, how much of a threat can they really be? Not to mention combat is more gun-focused so you likely don't even get all that close.
You have literally just described why RE4 wouldn't work in theory, because the zombie AI is exactly the same.
Except, you know, a massive mall to run around in compared to small shanty village streets.
I'm sure level design based around moving between and fighting in individual shops is a COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE CONCEPT. Likewise, you never fought on long stretches of land like cliffside boardwalks, cemetaries, giant underground caverns etc in RE4. Not even once.
I hope you're trolling.
WHY ARE YOU EVEN COMPARING THE TWO? The two games are entirely different. If you're trying to be an *******, it's working. It's not that hard to see that Vamp is talking about how the AI and mechanics work in this game, not just games in general because-- DUH-- that's how A LOT of games are. A LOT of games are made with enemies that ambush in pockets. Did you play Dead Rising, Speedy? I'm guessing that even if you did, you don't remember one of the biggest appeals of the game: the tunnels. The tunnels had zombies from wall to wall, as far as you could see.
Resident Evil had stronger single enemies and just one could kill you. Dead Rising has many, many weak enemies that focus on attacking in giant groups where typically, MANY have to gather to kill you. It doesn't make sense to compare the AI or mechanics of Dead Rising to Resident Evil, or any other game that has pockets of enemies. To put it simply, Dead Rising is about zombies attacking en masse, not one by one. It's gimped and anyone who has played the original knows it.
If it does indeed play like RE4, isn't there going to be nil challenge? RE4 only hit you with run-of-the-mill zombies for the first leg of the game, then you started dealing with regenerators, dr salvadors, fast zombies, zombies with explosives, etc.
Yeah, that's a legitimate reason why it might be shit. I just don't buy into this fucking nonsense that the game automatically sucks because it's not like the 360 game in any way other than looks. It could still quite easily be bad, just not for that reason.
Well the 360 version sucked, only thing that saved it from **** was the mass horde of zombies. Sans horde = ****. Wii game = ****.
Because that's the only thing that has changed.
Pretty much everything they've changed is for the worse. Save for the fact that you can play unlimited mode from the get go and the save system isn't borked. Still the same story, same location. It's just focused on guns, no camera, less enemies, more aggressive AI. 3/4 is bad and one remains to be seen.
Gears of War is focused on guns, has fewer, more aggressive enemies and no camera.
= BAD GAME.
Hahaha, you've got to be kidding me.
Basically, your reasons aren't reasons why it's bad, they are reasons why it's different. For instance, why does being focused on guns automatically make it bad when there are so many good games focused on guns?
The whole appeal of DR was hitting hordes of zombies in the head with random objects and then taking pictures of it. Take that away and add guns and it's a below average shooter. If this wasn't a stripped-down version of the 360 game and instead a completely new IP built from the ground up for the Wii then maybe it might be an all right shooter. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
If Sega ported Sonic the Hedgehog from the Mega Drive to the NES and they had to slow it down to make it work, and then decided to make it a completely different game and ended up producing something exactly like Super Mario Bros 3, by your logic it would be a bad game because the whole appeal of Sonic is going fast. You would be ignoring the fact that Super Mario Bros 3 is fucking awesome.
I cannot make this any simpler, your reasons for it being bad are nothing more than ways it is different. You are assuming that, despite the different features, this game is still trying to be the exact same game as the 360 version. Obviously if that were the case then yeah, it would fail pretty hard. But it clearly isn't, the developers have said so, if it had a different name and characters no one would bat an eyelid.