Blue Castle making Dead Rising 2

By Johnny Minkley Published 7 November, 2008

Canadian zombie-source confirms.

A source close to Canadian developer Blue Castle Games has told Eurogamer that the studio is making a sequel to Dead Rising.

Rumours that the Vancouver-based outfit was working on the zombie project first emerged last year, but neither the developer nor publisher Capcom has confirmed anything on the record. But while Eurogamer was on a secret mission in Vancouver last week, we were told by a source familiar with the project that Capcom has indeed farmed out development to the Western team.

The source said: "Everyone's really excited; the team has obviously seen the rumours and it's been hard to keep quiet, but they can't wait to show off the game."

Unfortunately, they wouldn't give us any details on the title or when we're likely to see it. Boo.

Blue Castle has so far released two baseball titles with 2K Games, including The Bigs, and announced MLB Front Office Manager earlier this month.

The company describes itself on its website as "a full-service, multi-project and multi-platform 3rd party developer located in Vancouver, Canada", where: "We are well underway on three new projects - an unannounced Action title and two Sports titles one of which was just announced."

Our source confirmed that the action title is a sequel to the deliciously enjoyable zombie romp, which released on 360 in 2006. The studio is currently hiring for its action project, with one job listing stating: "It's getting around - there is something amazing being built here at Blue Castle behind locked doors."

A spokesperson for Capcom Europe refused to comment on the matter.

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Eurogamer TV's Johnny Minkley is a veteran journalist with a lifelong passion for games and the games industry. He uses Twitter more than most people use air.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • the_dudefather #1 3 years ago

    lumberjack zombies confirmed

  • bad09 #2 3 years ago

    Hmmm, DR had potential and was fun but I tired very quickly (probably to retreading thanks a silly save system!). Still I'll keep my rotting eye on this.

    "Brains...."

    / shuffles off

  • peterfll #3 3 years ago

    Vancouver is lovely. Anyway, back to subject, I played the first game for a solid 10+ hours and then just gave up because I kept getting shot by those guys in the jeep. And thanks to the retarded save system I was stuck with this never ending cycle. A shame, cos it's a really solid, enjoyable game otherwise.

  • Ninja_Tino #4 3 years ago

    Blue Castle? Frank Castle!!!

  • Shakey_Jake33 #5 3 years ago

    Wonder why Capcom farmed out one of their bigger selling titles of recent years?

  • Fleisch #6 3 years ago

    Lego dead rising ftw!! would be genius.

  • nevernow #7 3 years ago

    Try to make the saving/progress system less convoluted, please!

  • asphaltcowboy #8 3 years ago

    Hmm, obviously incredibly excited about DR2.. but who the heck are Blue Castle?

  • DoctorZoidberg #9 3 years ago

    Hooray, Best news for a long time! Loved Dead Rising, simply still one of the most fun games on 360!

    Any how can people be complaining about the save system??? You simply travel to a save point (At least one in every area)! Same as pretty much every game ever!

  • Triggerhappytel #10 3 years ago

    Good news indeed that a sequel is on the way (although I reckon a good 12 months or more until release), but it's odd how Capcom have chosen a developer with absolutely no relevant experience to develop it. I think I will wait and see before getting too excited.

    I hope it comes to PS3 and 360 this time, although expect it will do.

  • consignia #11 3 years ago

    I pretty much bought an Xbox360 for Dead Rising, so this news pleases me. I'm sort of cautious that the original development team isn't working on it though.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #12 3 years ago

    @DoctorZoidberg - The bigger issue was that you could very easily save youself into a dead end with no time to get to the next objective. I adore the game, but it takes while to get used to the fact that the game wants you to restart with your newly levelled character.

  • mazzl #13 3 years ago

    i must agree with Triggerhappytel , i'm very exited about this title, i just hope the developers are up for it.
    just lead develop on 360 and release ps3 when done, then i will be happy enough.

  • t8yman #14 3 years ago

    for me the only thing that stopped DR being a 9/10 or a 10/10 game was the ridiculous save system.

  • muscleblade #15 3 years ago

    "probably to retreading thanks a silly save system"

    The saving system was what made the game challenging and rewarding imo. Capcom used this form of saving system for a reason and too me it felt like the right decision. My second favourite 360 game in 2006 right behind Gears.

  • mikeck #16 3 years ago

    Lego dead rising ftw!! would be genius.

    As crazy as that sounds, that could be damn good fun.

  • menage #17 3 years ago

    "Oh thank God. If a Western dev is making it, it might actually not be BROKEN. "

    Looks at the new Silent Hill, shuffles on.

  • PlugMonkey #18 3 years ago

    "Hmmm, DR had potential and was fun but I tired very quickly (probably to retreading thanks a silly save system!)."

    "And thanks to the retarded save system I was stuck with this never ending cycle."

    I hate to say it, but you were playing it wrong. If you let go of the idea that a game is something you start at the beginning and play through to the end in one go, and realise it can be something that you play with in a dozen different ways, then the system works just fine. It's inspired, in fact.

    Shame the devs never really pointed this out to anyone, so hardly anyone got it. And the wording of the "Save and Quit" option was fucking atrocious.

  • Xerx3s #19 3 years ago

    "The saving system was what made the game challenging and rewarding imo. Capcom used this form of saving system for a reason and too me it felt like the right decision. My second favourite 360 game in 2006 right behind Gears."

    The saving system made the game unplayable and broken. I loved the game but could not be arsed to finish it because the numerous catastrophic gameplay errors. Hopefully a western dev will be able to actually implement some interaction design, a concept japanese developers seem completely unknown with.

    "I hate to say it, but you were playing it wrong."

    Hate to say it, but no, the save system was terribly broken.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 10:59

  • Lebowski #20 3 years ago

    Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnn ntastic!

  • bad09 #21 3 years ago

    I get what you guys are saying but I dunno I'm with Xerx3s.

    While I enjoyed the game, I found it difficult to play to the end (but hey horses for courses). Like I said it had potential and I had a lot of fun with what I did play and recommend everyone try the first, but it fell just a little short of being really great classic for me thanks to the game design.

  • PlugMonkey #22 3 years ago

    Hate to say it, but no, the save system was terribly broken.

    My first playthrough I just killed zombies and experiemented with weapons, got about half way and got stuck and started again. It was great fun. If the save system wasn't how it was, I wouldn't have done this. I'd have kept reloading and replaying bits until I got it 'right' like I do with other games.

    My second playthrough I couldn't follow the story and save the survivors. I felt bad just leaving them to die, so I tried to save as many as I could. It was great fun. If the save system wasn't how it was, I wouldn't have done this. I'd have kept reloading and replaying bits until I got it 'right' like I do with other games.

    My third playthrough I'd levelled up my character and knew my way around the mall. I thought 'screw the survivors, I'm getting to the bottom of this thing'. Because of the time based nature of the missions, and the way the save system worked, I was actually under genuine time pressure. I had to run, run, run from one mission to the next with whatever I could lay my hands on, rather than having the luxury of being able to wander off to the other side of the world to restock all my items, like I do in every other game - safe in the knowledge that when I'm told to do something urgently it actually means whenever I get round to it. This was AMAZING fun. I was back to living off my wits like the first time I played it, and it was the closest any game has ever got the nail-biting final act of a good action film where the hero is chasing from pillar to post saving the day in the nick of time. Needless to say, if the save system wasn't how it was...

    My fourth playthrough I had a pretty good idea of what survivors appeared where, and where I had to be and when to complete the storyline, and I had a pretty good mental schedule of how to do it all. I missed one survivor, but it was unbelievable fun. Just enormously satisfying as everything slotted into place. Once again, if the save system wasn't how it was...

    My fifth playthrough I will get them all.

    I say it was the most original and enjoyable game of this generation. An absolute blast of fresh air and constantly serving up new challenges through dozens of hours of non-stop entertainment. You say it was broken.

    Well, I say you were playing it wrong, and I've got dozens of hours of enjoyment to back that sentiment up. All you have is a narrow minded whinge and the fact that you've MASSIVELY missed out on something very, very special. Go you.

  • ZuluHero #23 3 years ago

    /applauds Plugmonkey

    I couldn't be bothered to say all that myself, but thats exactly my experience also.

    +1

    hell,

    +1,000,000

    :)

  • HolyJebus #24 3 years ago

    I fuppin love Vancouver

  • PlugMonkey #25 3 years ago

    @ ZuluHero

    \o/

    Glad to see someone else got it. The devs clearly knew how they wanted you to play the game, and it wasn't like other games. The save system may have appeared harsh, but if they hadn't done it people would have played the game the same way as they play every other game. Due to a psychological phenomenon known as 'blocking' if you already know one way to do something it inhibits your ability to learn a new way of doing it. They HAD to make it IMPOSSIBLE to play DR like any other adventure game.

    Unfortunately people are all to quick to assume that the devs are stupid, rather than assuming they actually might know what they're doing and trying to see the reason behind it.

  • Penguinzoot #26 3 years ago

    Lego dead rising ftw!! would be genius.

    I'm with you 100% on that one, Fleisch. Lego Dead Rising would be awesome. But failing that, DR2 will suffice!

  • DoctorZoidberg #27 3 years ago

    I'm with PlugMonkey.

    Is a game, where your NOT actually meant to do everything in one go, thus the save system is perfectly logical.

  • bad09 #28 3 years ago

    "Unfortunately people are all to quick to assume that the devs are stupid, rather than assuming they actually might know what they're doing and trying to see the reason behind it."

    Still doesn't mean everyone will like it......

  • DoctorZoidberg #29 3 years ago

    Still doesn't mean everyone will like it......

    You can't please everyone. Its people who think that you can and should that cause a lot of problems.

  • tomjoadsghost #30 3 years ago

    I didn't have any problem with the save system either, but then im not the kind of player who will revert to a previous save if things dont go exactly my way anyhow.

  • kangarootoo #31 3 years ago

    My first thought was thank christ, maybe this time there will be less of the infuriating "my way or the highway" game design that Capcom seem so keen on. FUN is the most important thing Blue Castle, please remember that where Capcome seemed to forget.

    The game wasn't broken, but it was far from perfect. Some of it was utter genius, which is what made the occasional retarded ludicrous narrow minded and plain idiotic design decisions all the more galling.

    It could have the greatest game that year by a country mile, but it was continually held back by moments of utter frustrating madness.


    "I hate to say it, but you were playing it wrong"

    Rubbish rubbish rubbish ruuuuubish excuse.

    Dead Rising was a game that COULD have been played many different ways, and all of them would have been awesome fun. Instead they tied its hands behind its back, kicked it in the face, stole its cars keys and THEN put a gold bar in each of its pockets and stuck and awesome hat on its head.

    The result was a game that was ONLY fun if you played it a certain way and infuriating if you tried any other approach. Again I say, a clear example of "my way or the highway" game design. Not. Good. Enough.

  • ZuluHero #32 3 years ago

    @plugmonkey

    Exactly. That save system was put in place to enhance the element of survival. You really had to plan what you were going to do before you did it and it required that understanding of how long it would take you to physically travel to that place - which lets face it doesn't take long as you can do a complete circuit of the mall in the opening hours of the game.

    The whole game is based around time with events and stuff happening at specific times for heaven's sake. They even gave you a watch, which you should keep looking at! What i don't get is people wouldn't leap off a death drop and save over their only save, so why can't they get their head around this! :S

    Its not like events happen that close together timewise anyway - the game is more than lenient in that regard and there's more than enough time to fit other stuff in between them.

  • muscleblade #33 3 years ago

    @bad09 and Xerx3s

    I actually played it to the end (true ending with the boss on the tanks) and loved it all the way. If the saving system had been different the game would have been totally different too. I thouth the saving system was genious but i do understand that you didnt get it. Many thouth it was somekind of a Sandbox game. It wasnt. The time challenge in the missions made it very exciting imo.

    But then again i prefer a real challenge and Capcom is my all time favourite developer. I love their design decisions in most of their other games too.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 12:09

  • muscleblade #34 3 years ago

    @Plugmonkey and ZuluHero

    Thats the game in a nutshell and why its one of my favourite games ever.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 12:16

  • muscleblade #35 3 years ago

    @NickD09

    Im afraid youre right.

  • kendoji #36 3 years ago

    I think the zombie genre is really crying out for a more openworld approach - I tried DR but got immediately frustrated with the time limits. Hopefully they'll create something where you can wander at your leisure.

  • Razz #37 3 years ago

    OMFG Beilliant news

  • osbald #38 3 years ago

    Yeah ++1 to PlugMonkey

    While exciting it's a shame the same team won't be working on the sequel. Especially Keiji Inafune I doubt anyone else could have made such brave ground breaking design decisions without being so high up inside capcom. So an unknown development team troubles me because it'd be so easy to create yet another mediocre unreal engine FPS.

    Bittersweet news while dead rising is far and above my favourite games of the past few years and I'd love more. I worry that the squeal and new team have a lot to live up to.

  • consignia #39 3 years ago

    I think the zombie genre is really crying out for a more openworld approach - I tried DR but got immediately frustrated with the time limits. Hopefully they'll create something where you can wander at your leisure.

    There really is nothing stopping you dropping the storyline if you want to wander around mall and sand box it. In fact, the time limits are no where as constraining as many were led to believe, only the 2nd and 3rd day are storyline heavy. The only time you need to really plan your time is if you are going for an ending A saint acheivement.

  • Madafunkola #40 3 years ago

    re: "Blocking"
    I think that's the same problem Assassin's Creed had. People thought it was gash because you COULD just go up to a target and fight it all out, and that was how to play the game because that's how all other games played. However if you TRIED to play it differently and efficiently it could be quite fun. Killing a "boss" with one hit and escaping undetected was a hoot!

  • theindustrialone #41 3 years ago

    I want to be really excited about this, but I'm worried NickD09 will be right.

    Please don't cock this up, Dead Rising was great!

  • PlugMonkey #42 3 years ago

    "Rubbish rubbish rubbish ruuuuubish excuse. "

    @ kangarootoo

    How is it an excuse! I (and many other people it seems) played the game one way and had amazing amounts of fun, you (and many other people it seems) tried to play it another way and found it incredibly frustrating.

    Unless you play games to be frustrated instead of having fun, I would say you were probably playing it wrong.

    And as I said before, it's simply not as easy as giving people the option. If you give people the option to play the game like any other adventure game then 95% of your audience will do exactly that. If you want people to do something different you have to MAKE them do something different, and as long as the player doesn't try and subbornly stick to their tried and tested gaming conventions, it really does work very, very well.

    I think DR will prove to be a very influential game and will be looked back on as a classic in 10 years time. When you decide to move in a new direction, your bound to upset a few people. But if you always play safe, you'll never move in a new direction.

    Ultimately, I think Dead Rising is a victim of a common complaint I have with games critics the world over. When people critique a film or book they generally do it in the context of how well it achieves what the creator is trying to achieve. With games, people generally do it in the context of how well it achieves what they would have done if they had made it themselves, and any deviation from this is governed to be 'broken'.

  • TheLittlestHobo #43 3 years ago

    @Plugmonkey, ZuluHero, Muscleblade

    Well said peoples, Dead Rising is one of my favourite games of all time!

  • Xerx3s #44 3 years ago

    PlugMonkey: I only played story quests, was in time for everything, then had to get to an endboss but by the time I could get there (and I have tried this roughly a 100 times - that's no overestimation - in all possible methods) I had just one minute on the counter left to defeat him (which I couldn't because I had no time to pick up health potions, time and weapons). It forced me to completely restart again from 0.

    Well, I can say two things about that: A) That's a broken game system if i ever saw one and B) No fucking way that I'm going to do it all again (and again, and again, etc.) just because the developers thought it would be a nice idea. If the same system is in the sequel, they can just kindly fuck off, I'll spend my money on another game that ISN'T broken.

  • PlugMonkey #45 3 years ago

    "It forced me to completely restart again from 0. "

    Once again, for the people in the cheap seats:

    You are SUPPOSED to restart again from 0. Several times. You are not SUPPOSED to be able to play through to the end of the story on your first go. That's why your character keeps all all of his exp and skills when you restart.

    Many, many people on this thread have already attested to the fact that this game system works very well and allows you to explore the game in multiple different ways, that are all fun, if you just play the way you are SUPPOSED to. The game is NOT broken. You are just playing it the wrong way. I can tell you're playing it the wrong way because you are complaining about having to do something you are supposed to do.

    No, that's not the way you are supposed to play other games. Can different games be played in different ways? I'd like to think so.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 14:27

  • muscleblade #46 3 years ago

    PlugMonkey wrote: "You are not SUPPOSED to be able to play through to the end of the story on your first go. That's why your character keeps all all of his exp and skills when you restart. "

    Exactly!!! The game would have been awfully short too if it wasnt for this system since (if i remember correctly) it takes 3 hours to reach the end of the story.

  • kangarootoo #47 3 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    My issue is purely with the suggestion that if someone plays a game and finds it not to be fun at times, it is their fault for "not playing it right". I realise that no title can please everyone, and that some players will simply have to go find something else that suits their tastes. But the players that don't enjoy the game are not at fault. They paid their money for a game, so the game should be going out of its way to entertain them. I've played plenty of games in my time, and I know the difference between me not making the effort and a game just being a bit shit in places.

    I have to say, DR is NOT a shit game. Its a great game and a f*ck load of fun, but parts of it are quite simply terribly designed.

    The save system is clumsy. I completely understand what they were trying to do, but they did not go the best way about it.

    The boss fights are for the most part a joke. Very old school "impossible if you don't know the secret method, and then trivial once you do". The main issue being that the whacking zombies mechanic relies on great numbers of opponents to provide its challenge. Consequently it does not suit a single opponent as it would make the boss fights a cake walk. Instead of finding inventive solutions to this issue, most of the boss fights are just individual characters made hard as nails, and most of the time the way to beat them is not to utilise the skills you have developed up until that point, but to find a secret "way of doing it" (often bordering on being an exploit) after which there is barely any challenge at all.

    Not being able to do anything once you have answered the phone. A minor issue, but christ did anyone test the thing?

    There are a handful of others, but the point is much the same. You talk of having to "play the game properly", but it seemed to me that playing the game properly in that context involved not playing through the game but actually just sandboxing hours of play away to build my character up to a point where he was tough enough to take all the fuckups on the chin and only THEN coming back to the game proper.


    Xerxes last post sums up what I am talking about very well. There should NOT be some secret method that plays have to discover to avoid repeated frustration during play. A game should be consistently fun straight out of the box, and the more tricks the player learns from that point onwards, the more fun it gets. Starting the player off with annoyance and frustration, and then asking them to persist before it stats to get fun is simply bad design at its very core.

    Now that last comment is not entirely fair, as DR was immense fun right from the off, but then it got annoying, and then eventually got fun again. Any game needs some core mechanics, which are housed within a meta-game. The zombie bashing core mechanic of DR was ace, but the meta-game that housed it was bloody awful. People need to be able to seperate the two. If whacking zombies wasn't as much fun as it is, nobody would have accepted the poor housing in which it resided.

    Thats my 2p anyway (plus change from £5).

  • kangarootoo #48 3 years ago

    "if you just play the way you are SUPPOSED to"

    Grmmble, mmmble.

  • asphaltcowboy #49 3 years ago

    PlugMonkey's got it right! It was quite interesting how the game got easier as you played... I agree it was punishingly difficult to try and save all the survivors, but what a superb game!

  • kangarootoo #50 3 years ago

    "Exactly!!! The game would have been awfully short too if it wasnt for this system since (if i remember correctly) it takes 3 hours to reach the end of the story."

    We just to be piling one excuse on top of another. What we have here is a meta-game that people describe as broken, but in its defense people say that if it weren't built that way the game would be too short. How is that a defense?

    "Well your honour, if I hadn't strangled him he would have called the police and reported me for burglary"

  • ZuluHero #51 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Out of interest, how would you have liked the save system to be done to make it a better game? Forced or automated checkpointing?

    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 16:57

  • kangarootoo #52 3 years ago

    Here is a thought? If DR had done things in a different way, would it have been less fun? People seem to suggest that it was the buggered save system (I know, I know) that brought the fun.

    I say for the defense that it was the awesome zombie bashing mechanics that were actually responsible for the massive amounts of the fun the game was able to provide during its best moments.

    What do people think about that? Change the save system, bung something more traditional in there, same zombie whacking joy, would the game be better or worse and why.

    The why bit is important. You have to say why or you aren't allowed to play ;)

  • ZuluHero #53 3 years ago

    ...but the zombie bashing was secondary to the game. The primary goal is to spend 3 days in a mall with a specific time line of events...

    The game is trying to tell a story after all. Amidst all the zombie bashing ;)

  • kangarootoo #54 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    Off the top of my head I wouldn't like to say. That sort of thing needs proper time spent working out the pros and cons.

    But while we are in top of the head mode... what about a mission system such as that used in GTA, SR, et al? Little chunks of action, with all the time limits you want, but each of them independant from the rest. If you bugger something up, try again. If you decide to do something else instead, go right ahead and come back later. Its not original, but it works until you find something better.

    Give freedom to the player, so they can play the game ANY way they want and still have fun smacking up zombies. It seemed that the current system allowed players to either go apeshit bonkers in a sandbox and have awesome fun, or focus on the main missions (and perhaps also have awesome fun), but not both at the same time. HOW can that be a good thing? How can it be a good thing that if you want to make proper progress through the story missions of a zombie game, you have to stop just smacking zombies whenever you feel like it in case you run out of time?

  • kangarootoo #55 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    You seem to have pre-empted my answer to your previous question.

    "...but the zombie bashing was secondary to the game"

    HOOOOOW can that be good, or even acceptable? Its a zombie game. Its ALL about the zombies. You show me a single zombie film that wasn't all about the zombies.

    I suppose that is the root of my big gripe. People talk about playing the game the right way, and I've only just realised why I object to that so much in this case. It would seem that the "right way" to play is to stop focussing on the zombies... IN A ZOMBIE GAME.

    Good lord, what has the world come to :)

  • ZuluHero #56 3 years ago

    if we're going to split hairs, i'd argue that, in a zombie movie, survivors go out of their way to avoid the zombies, unless they get in the way of something they are trying to do ;)

  • PlugMonkey #57 3 years ago

    My issue is purely with the suggestion that if someone plays a game and finds it not to be fun at times, it is their fault for "not playing it right".

    Not every game, this game. And not finding it not fun, finding it not fun because you're trying 100 times to do something your not supposed to be able to do yet, which was the criticism I was countering. If this isn't your personal criticism of the game then fine, but you did join in the argument on the side of people making that criticism using my points to them against me by applying it to a totally different critieria of your own unrelated opinions.

    If you're playing DR in a non-linear manner and just don't like it, bully for you. BUT if you are playing it like a linear adventure game where you start at the 'beginning' and play until you reach the 'end' and then stop, and then you are complaining that it doesn't work as the linear adventure game it was never meant to be, then I'm afraid you are playing it wrong. That's what the criticisms were and that's what I was countering. If this doesn't apply to you then don't reply to it.

    We just to be piling one excuse on top of another. What we have here is a meta-game that people describe as broken, but in its defense people say that if it weren't built that way the game would be too short. How is that a defense?

    Because the game wasn't 'short', it had dozens and dozens of hours of gameplay crammed into it. To reach it all you had to loop through the game three or four times, but doing different things each time. It was basically non-linear. Films are by their very nature linear beasts, as are books, games seem to have inherited this legacy but there's no need for them to be.

    DR is basically a non-linear adventure game. If you can imagine the game had a menu at the start where you selected "Zombie Death Game", "Survivor Rescue Game", "Story Mode" and "Perfect Mode" from the start. It does tell you not to try and jump straight into story mode from the get go, but it will let you try if you want. If you then try and play it like a standard linear adventure game, instead of playing it in loops as intended, it's not really the games fault.

    If you try and play Mass Effect as a first person shooter, keep dying and get frustrated, that is not because Mass Effect is broken. It's because you're playing it wrong. If you're playing as a half turn-based, half-real time squad based RPG and just don't like it then fair enough. The same applies to Dead Rising.

    "Here is a thought? If DR had done things in a different way, would it have been less fun? People seem to suggest that it was the buggered save system (I know, I know) that brought the fun. "

    Yes, as I said in an earlier post, I think it would have been less fun. I would have instinctively played it like a generic linear action adventure game and would have discovered only half of the content. Also, playing each loop in isolation liberated them from being bogged down by each other and actually saved me from the frustration of constantly reloading saves and repeating bits to try and get it perfect first time. Instead of one 20 hour game that I was expected to complete perfectly first time through or play for another 20 hours, I got a 5 hour game that I completed a different 30% of on three different run throughs, and then tried to finish 100% in one go. To my mind, a much better structure for a game than turning it into a 20 hour film that I play.

  • spudsbuckley #58 3 years ago

    Can't wait for this.

    The first one was great and anyone complaining about the save system was just shit at games and far to coddled by the modern 'autosave-every-5-seconds' thing in most games that eliminates the fear of getting killed.

  • PlugMonkey #59 3 years ago

    "HOOOOOW can that be good, or even acceptable? Its a zombie game. Its ALL about the zombies. You show me a single zombie film that wasn't all about the zombies. "

    How can it be acceptable for a game to differ from your pre-conceptions? Jesus! How DARE it! And I'd point you to the pinnacle of all zombie films, Dawn of the Dead, which you think is all about zombies, but is actually a satire of consumer culture. ;)

    Or indeed Day of the Dead, which is about a group of survivors pushed to breaking point and turning on each other. There's hardly even any zombies in it.

    If games never differed from your pre-conceptions, how would anything ever develop? And you remember the thing I said about people judging games against what they would have made?

    Why can't a zombie game be about uncovering the sinister truth behind the infestation in a breath-taking race against time? Why can't it also just be about hacking zombies to pieces? Or trying to get as many survivors out alive as you can?

    Or indeed, all three, both independently and simultaneously, like Dead Rising. Which is actually rather clever, if you'll let it be.
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/08 @ 17:40

  • Wyrm #60 3 years ago

    DR would have been amazing if they had made it more realistic and less like and arcade game.

  • penhalion #61 3 years ago

    Yay! Dead rising 2....Nay why the frak aren't Capcom doing it?

  • Bulbatron #62 3 years ago

    Yes, but the limitations imposed, are the point of the game, and lots of people enjoyed having those limitations. You are not supposed to be able to play it any way you want. I think the reason lots of people are so annoyed about this game, is that they bought it expecting a GTA-style sandbox game (and the crap demo did nothing to suggest the game was anything but).

    However, I don't think the argument that you should be able to play the game however you want, is valid. I don't buy racing games for example, because I don't like racing games. I don't buy racing games and then say, 'Why can't I create spells?'

    Also, I had no problems with the save system - even when I was at level one. And if I remember correctly, you didn't HAVE to start again if you died, you were offered the choice of loading the last save.

    Having to constantly take phonecalls from Otis was a pain in the arse though, admittedly. Especially since you were completely helpless while doing so. This made no sense.

  • Super_Zee #63 3 years ago

    Ooh, they're just down the street from me...

    /prints CV

    Wish I'd known there was an EG visit in Vancouver, sounds like a missed beer opportunity.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #64 3 years ago

    Unfortunately people are all to quick to assume that the devs are stupid, rather than assuming they actually might know what they're doing

    The evidence for the former over the latter is conclusively summed up in one word:

    Otis.

    Dead Rising without some of the totally braindead fuckups in it (Otis, regenerating jeep twats) could be one of the greatest games of all time.

  • Mr.Gordons #65 3 years ago

    i really hope they don't time everything this time round...

  • Daymare #66 3 years ago

    aaaand let's not forget the unskipable beginning! Whilst I'd never say the game's save system was broken or that it was objectively brilliant (whatever happened to "I liked that" or "I didn't like that"?), annoying Otis, unskipable introduction and some other bits sure were an annoying design decisions, no matter what kind of a gamer you are.

    I like to think of Dead Rising, with all its flaws and charms, as a cult classic material. Not for everybody, but still loved to bits by somebody. :)

  • consignia #67 3 years ago

    aaaand let's not forget the unskipable beginning!

    Are you talking about the bit in the helicopter? That's skippable. Else, you quickly jaunt through all the opening stuff.

  • Dark_Wolf_1991 #68 3 years ago

    Please do online co-op for Dead Rising!!!!!!!!

  • evilboo #69 3 years ago

    one of my fav games. Plugmonkey is right in all he says about it. I really liked this article:

    [link url=http://www.gamecareerguide.com/f eatures/376/dead_rising_a_trope_down_memory_.php
    ]http://ww w.gamecareerguide.com/features/...[/link]

    The biggest problem imo is the unbalanced mini-chainsaws that (if you find them too early) can stop you from being inventive and seeing the best of the game's fights. will be v interested to see what's done with 2 but not high hopes with this designer.

  • evilboo #70 3 years ago

    and the beginning is completely skippable btw (as long as you've done them the courtest of watching it once!)

  • RazorObsession #71 3 years ago

    fingers crossed that its a GTA style open world, with a shopping mall slap bang in the middle of an entire town this time.

    I dare say hunting down guns, ammo and survivors, finding a safe place to hole up, in a full on city, trying to find a vehicle that's working, but with a much wider scope of environments would be something pretty special.

    this time, the camera should be video as well as artistic, if bloody photos, to upload to the in game youtube or something, instead of just being a still camera shot reporter. again some elements of the internet should make it into the game, ala GTA4.

    naturally with left 4 dead occupying the zombie space, you would expect it to be at least 2 player co op if the current trend is anything to go by. 4 player would be nice tho.

    keep the WORKING save system, but explain it better to the brainwashed gamers who cant snap out of the traditional save system, as it made you feel a sense of urgency, and made things feel more tense. it also adds re-playability.

    You had one life to play with, much like you would have if this zombie apocalypse were real, but please do fix the utterly BROKEN survivor AI, as its no fun trying to herd brainless zombies through a crowd of brain hungry zombies. go figure.

    ultra hardcore mode for the zombie fans amongst us. if you get bitten, GAME OVER.