Advertisement
Blue Castle making Dead Rising 2 News
Xbox 360 News by Johnny Minkley
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.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Dead Rising 2 on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Dead Rising
Dead Rising 2
Latest Features
-
Dead Rising Review [93]
-
Dead Rising First Impressions [114]
-
Dead Rising First Impressions [92]
-
Dead Rising Preview [19]
Latest Videos
Dead Rising - Webisode 6 [1] 11 August, 2006
Dead Rising - Webisode 5 [2] 11 August, 2006
Latest News
-
Capcom reveals X360 triple bundle [11]
-
Capcom wins Dead Rising lawsuit [24]
-
Dead Rising beheading to Wii? [47]
-
Dawn of the Dead Rising spat intensifies [51]
-
Inafune denies Dead Rising 2 [42]
Latest Screenshots
25 August, 2006 [31]
Release Date Out now!
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
farticusmaximus
07/11/08 @ 10:22
0
The brilliance of placing lego heads on zombies cannot be overstated.
More headwear for the dead! |
|
0
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.
|
|
Shakey_Jake33
07/11/08 @ 10:27
0
Wonder why Capcom farmed out one of their bigger selling titles of recent years?
|
|
asphaltcowboy
07/11/08 @ 10:34
0
Hmm, obviously incredibly excited about DR2.. but who the heck are Blue Castle?
|
|
DoctorZoidberg
07/11/08 @ 10:40
0
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
07/11/08 @ 10:43
0
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. |
|
Shakey_Jake33
07/11/08 @ 10:46
0
@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.
|
|
muscleblade
07/11/08 @ 10:51
0
"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. |
|
PlugMonkey
07/11/08 @ 10:56
0
"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. |
|
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 07/11/08 @ 10:59
|
|
0
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
07/11/08 @ 11:19
0
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. |
|
PlugMonkey
07/11/08 @ 11:30
0
@ 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
07/11/08 @ 11:35
0
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
07/11/08 @ 11:45
0
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. |
|
DoctorZoidberg
07/11/08 @ 11:52
0
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
07/11/08 @ 11:53
0
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
07/11/08 @ 12:02
0
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. |
|
0
@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
07/11/08 @ 12:06
0
@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 1 times,
most recently on 07/11/08 @ 12:09
|
|
muscleblade
07/11/08 @ 12:11
0
@Plugmonkey and ZuluHero
Thats the game in a nutshell and why its one of my favourite games ever.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 07/11/08 @ 12:16
|
|
0
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. |
|
0
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
07/11/08 @ 13:32
0
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
07/11/08 @ 13:47
0
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
07/11/08 @ 13:51
0
"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
07/11/08 @ 13:54
0
@Plugmonkey, ZuluHero, Muscleblade
Well said peoples, Dead Rising is one of my favourite games of all time! |
|
0
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
07/11/08 @ 14:26
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 07/11/08 @ 14:27
|
|
muscleblade
07/11/08 @ 15:04
0
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
07/11/08 @ 16:51
0
@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 Ł5). |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
