Dead Rising for Wii
- Thread starter sfried
- Start date
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Even without watching the video you can say that's just stating the obvious. Even if capcom bother making a good Dead Rising game for the wii it would still look worse than the x360 version.
Exactly.It's not even worth it to spend a lot of time optimising a direct port because all it takes is one set of screenshots or one comparison video to blow all that effort out of the water. People who are concerned with having best graphics for a specific game can buy a 360 for less than a Wii.
So you do what EA is doing with Dead Space. Make a great game with high production values and capatlizes on the Dead Space name,but in a way that mitigates direct comparisons and offers a new perspcective.
If you going to make put %150 into a mature Wii game make it something new and unique.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Though Dead Space atleast looks like it has some effort put into it, its still a how can I cash in cheap game. Why else make it on rails? That is what's happening to alot of ''mature'' wii games right now. They still dont want to put the effort in making a 15+ hour game. OTOH how can you ever expect games like this selling on wii if you keep doing things half assed?
It remains to be seen whether it a half assed effort. Just because it's a rail shooter,doesn't mean it can't be a very very well done,high production value rail shooter. I still think it's a strategic move rather than a case of trying save time and money. Like I said it mitigates the chance of direct comparisons on a screenshot-screenshot and video-video way,which the Wii obviously would fail. It's a different way to play the game which gives a reason to buy the Wii version over the 360/PS3.
If you take away on one hand(graphics) you have to give back on the other(unique gameplay perspective). And I understand it will be a new story line.
And seriously, what does the length of the game have to do with anything?
Dead Rising looks like a half assed effort not worth the time,Dead Space looks like it could be good.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I think by default a onrail shooter is being half assed if you are developing for a console/pc. Yes ofcourse it does not mean it has to be a bad game made as cheap as possible but I do see it as a big indicator that somebody was not willing to go all out. Afterall a onrail shooter means you can save time and money on the lenght of the game to begin with. I believe RE:UC was around 6 or 7 hours and that is by far the longest onrail shooter on Wii, less than half of Dead Space. Also you can skip on what you do actually show as you are the one deciding what the player will see so no need to build your levels the same way as when the player can walk around.
Onrail shooters belong in a arcade. Once in a while a console onrail shooter is nice but there is no deining that on Wii its only done because devs/pubs dont want to spend the money to make the game like they would have done on pc/x360/pc.
Because at the end of the day when I have to spend my 50 or 60 euro's and I got the choice between a onrail shooter which will be far less long, will allow me far less freedom and gives me less replay value or a other game which takes longer to complete, lets me walk around and gives me more replay value as I can explore more than the first run for me, and probably alot of others, that is a easy choice. If its a populairity thing than why dont we see onrail shooters on x360/ps3? Because its a money thing. Still no real money for Wii so they still need to do it as cheap as they can. That is why the Wii already has more than half a dozen onrail shooters and the others consoles dont.
Onrail shooters belong in a arcade. Once in a while a console onrail shooter is nice but there is no deining that on Wii its only done because devs/pubs dont want to spend the money to make the game like they would have done on pc/x360/pc.
Because at the end of the day when I have to spend my 50 or 60 euro's and I got the choice between a onrail shooter which will be far less long, will allow me far less freedom and gives me less replay value or a other game which takes longer to complete, lets me walk around and gives me more replay value as I can explore more than the first run for me, and probably alot of others, that is a easy choice. If its a populairity thing than why dont we see onrail shooters on x360/ps3? Because its a money thing. Still no real money for Wii so they still need to do it as cheap as they can. That is why the Wii already has more than half a dozen onrail shooters and the others consoles dont.
If you wanted, you could spend more on an on-rails shooter than the most expensive free-roaming game to date. It's all a matter of content. In an on-rails, streaming in the level, you could model zillions of different locales and inhabitants, all viewed for a moment before disappearing behind you.
Um..the answer is simple really. The Wii has a pointing device as the default controller while PS3/X360 don't. Who the hell plays onrail shooters with a thumbstick controller to aim? These types of games originated in the arcades with lightguns and the Wii controller functiions exactly the same way. It's completely logical for the Wii to get all the "lightgun" games vs the other two consoles. Many people still enjoy a pick up and play "lightgun" game and considering the average Wii gamer are not "hardcore" it makes sense.
