Dead Rising 2 Comments by Tom Bramwell

Stop trying to westernise your games, Japanese developers. They don't need it.

Looks good though.

Cock rising.

Erm, wasn't this out on the ps3 as well?

major want

"Single-player alone is not going to cut it."

How very, very wrong they are.

Still, the game sounds like it will be great and I loved the first one. Looking forward!

Chuck looks like Steve McQueen crossed with Desperate Dan!

It's coming to PC! Right?

Stop trying to westernise your games, Japanese developers. They don't need it.

Japanese gaming sales vs. west suggest otherwise :-

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9809-ninte...

The first one would have been an absoulte classic if it didn't have stupid boss batlles and a borked save system. I loved the game but hated it in equal amounts, if thats possible.

"Single-player alone is not going to cut it."

WRONG! Make a high quality single player game, tell a decent story, and let us have fun in the game and you can often make a game that is far more entertaining than the multiplayer component that devs are needlessly tacking on to games these days.

is this actually going to be on the ps3?

woo!

Glad it wasn't just me that saw that comment about how single-player action doesn't cut it any more.

WTF is wrong with these developers? How can they all be getting it so wrong? Lots of us DON'T want pointless death match games tacked on at the expense of the single-player experience!

is this actually going to be on the ps3?

i'd assume it is considering they mention the engine is multi-platform "designed by Canadian developer Blue Castle Games. Combined with more widespread use of Capcom's feted MT Framework multi-platform engine technology"

For the love of god, DONT have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE. I hate timed bits in games and thats what completely put me off dead rising, the fact that the whole damn game is timed... eurgh.

Being a recent 360 owner I've not picked up Dead Rising as comments suggested it was very much a first generation title, however I love the concept and will likely pick up this sequel.

I do agree wholeheartedly that the single player experience is a must. I generally hate playing online so couldn't give a flying feck about multiplayer, unless it's local.

These "tacked on" multiplayer experiences cost little resources. Single player campaign content is locked down early. It's like when people moan about DLC. Fallout 3's extras are pretty lengthy, but they come out soon after release of the game. How? Because they were already working on the DLC before the main game was finished. Because the content of the main game was locked down much earlier.

"We realised this was the kind of company that would be able to make the compromises and work with us to make the perfect blend between East and West that would be necessary for Dead Rising 2."

So in other words, they were the lowest bidder?

Nice bullshots.

"For the love of god, DONT have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE"

Agreed. Forcing you to run around in order to complete objectives on time sapped the fun out of exploring and messing around.

"WTF is wrong with these developers? How can they all be getting it so wrong? Lots of us DON'T want pointless death match games tacked on at the expense of the single-player experience!"

I remember reading comments like this seven years ago!

Is this thread about putting some dough in an oven?

The weirdest thing is that Blue Castle Games only did so far baseball games.

"For the love of god, DONT have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE I hate timed bits in games and thats what completely put me off dead rising, the fact that the whole damn game is timed... eurgh."

So do I, but when the time limit is roughly 2 hours to do a 5-20 min quest, you can hardly complain can you?

Plus there is the fact that you didn't have to do beyond the second mission to unlock the whole mall, which took all of 1 of the games 72 hours, so was it really that bad? Oh no, only 7.1 hours (game time was 10x real world time) to explore a mall, whatever shall I do?

For the love of god, DONT have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE. I hate timed bits in games and thats what completely put me off dead rising, the fact that the whole damn game is timed... eurgh.

For the love of god, DO have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE. It was a massive breath of fresh air to be told someone required urgent help and actually have to get there urgently. It generated a kind of tension I've not seen much in other games.

This didn't detract from the fun of exploring and messing around one iota - you just didn't do it in the same playthrough. Do a messing around playthrough. Do an exploring playthrough. Do a rescuing the survivors playthrough. Do a finding out the story playthrough. Do a killing as many zombies as you can playthrough. Then and only then, do a do-it-all-in-one perfect playthrough. It's a wonderful system.

It would be a massive step backwards to muddy my 'messing about and exploration' with the occasional bit of plot exposition, and then gum up what is supposed to be an exciting race against time by me deciding to wander off for three days experimenting with weapons while the whole sinister plot just stops and waits for me.

They need to do a much better job of communicating the idea; but this isn't a film or a book. You don't start at the beginning, carry on until you get to the end and then stop. Or at least you don't have to. It's a toy, that you can play with in a number of ways. Compartmentalising them makes each one more distinct, and more pleasurable.

Edit: Basically, anyone who tried to 'complete' the game on their first playthrough played the game wrong.

Pretty much everyone I know who played Dead Rising either loved it because they clocked the idea that they weren't supposed to even try and find out the story until they had played the game through a few times, or hated it because they tried to do everything on their first go and got frustrated when they couldn't.

And you have to lay that one firmly at the door of the devs, who neglected to tell anyone that that was the idea, so you either chanced upon it or missed out on one of the most original game experiences in years. DON'T CHANGE IT, JUST DO IT RIGHT NEXT TIME.

Thry don't say enough about fixing the save system. That was a massive problem in the first game and stopped me playing it. I played the demo more than the actual game because it was FUN

PC and Xbox 360?

Capcom, get your knob out of Msoft's arse.

@PacManAte My Wife

It still looks better than most of the games that come out....a lot better...think Resi5 levels of sheen...i'd certainly check it out if i were you as it's aged pretty damn well, games that look better than DR = only a handful

So they ship the development out to Canada, and the main character ends up being called Chuck.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

+1 million to what PlugMonkey said, DR is one of my favourite games of this generation.

Please don't fuck up the sequel Canadian Devs!

Not Canadian enough! The protagonist should be either:
a) A Mountie
b) An ice hockey legend
c) A bitchin' snow boarder
d) Mike Meyers

Well the first one was shit and the inclusion of the multiplayer/ co op is bad news ... It truly is the curse of this generation

Absolutely spot on PlugMonkey. The only thing that really needs fixing from the first time is the survivor AI.

The broken AI was what put me off the first one, stupid f***s wouldn't follow me or run when their life depends on it.

Chuck looks like a nob. At least we'll be able to cover him up with an assortment of stupid hats.

Was always going to be a must have buy. This preview did just what a good preview should, it made me moist.

""For the love of god, DONT have the 72 hour mechanic again PLEASE" "

It's a zombie game, based off the many zombie movies. That's the main mechanic for a reason and it should return again.

edit: also, the save system was perfect because it instilled fear into the player and made it more than just reloading if you die.

"Single-player alone is not going to cut it. "

That's a lie. Stop wasting resoureces on slapping on half-baked multiplayer features. If you're going to do something - do it properly. A split-screen co-op mode, for example, would be heaven.

I bought Too Human thinking it was a decent hack-and-slash RPG that I could play with my mates, only to find out there was no multiplayer - except for online, which is frankly uninteresting in games reliant on cooperation and lengthy play sessions..

Okay - "something quintessentially Japanese in the mechanics - the photography hook, the secret bonuses, the caricatured badguys and their indulgent cut sequences. Surely going west risks the loss of so much of what gave the game its unusual flavour?"

Let's not forget an awkwardly implemented attempt at social commentary mostly lost in a fragmented and illogical narrative. This is what made the game moronic and tedious, and it's loss can only improve the franchise. Remember how the front of the game box bore a warning about how this game didn't have anything to do with Romero's "Dawn of the Dead"? That wasn't a marketing ploy, it was a recipe to improve the game. Watch "Dawn of the Dead," loose the idiotic boss battles and terrible survivor AI. Come up with a better hero then a motocross driver. You ramped up the zombie count from 500 to 7000, surely this stuff can't be that hard!

As a Canadian, my disapprobation towards this game being developed in a slipshod way in my homeland is somewhat displaced by the fact that George Romero, Praise Be Unto Him, decided to immigrate to my country.

@PlugMonkey, you are the poster I most want to be like. If it is possible, I love your post like no other post ever on Eurogamer. Defending one of my favourite games against some of the stupidest complaints ever. The only thing that I thought was a bit crap in the game was the AI of the survivors. Nothing else.

7,000 zombies? I cannot wait.

How does one fit 7000 zombies into one screen?

Only one thing absolutely needed CO-OP

He looks like Aaron Eckhardt

Keep 72 hours, keep the save system. The sense of urgency and tension more than makes up for having to replay bits, and for once if a video game character dies then they stay dead. I found myself running out of time and having to make the choice between saving different survivors. "Sorry mate," I'd think as the zombies began to chow down, "I just couldn't make it." Awesome.

God this should be great.

So:

"The bucket returns, only this time it has three handheld powerdrills stuck through the sides. When Chuck slaps it on a zombie, it shreds its head in a shower of gore and then falls to the ground once the skull pops."

and yet MadWorld sold about four copies relying on the same over-the-top, improvisational kill-mechanic... Hmmm....

Am I the only westerner who really liked the save and levelling system in Dead Rising?

It meant you got to continually replay the game, with bigger and better skills, trying different ways of playing out the story. I loved it the way it was.

The boss fights were incredibly annoying though, and the main reason I stopped playing.

sounds like it may have lost some of the humour for the sake of gore: attaching a chainsaw to everything doesn't necessarily make it a better game

Sounds great and do want, but some of his comments make me sad. Especially the bit about pure single player not being possible. Bullshit.

Once again, exactly as Plugmonkey puts it.

There really wasn't much at all wrong with Dead Rising once you got used to how it works, really all I want from the sequel is an expansion of what made the original so great and a refinement of some of its rough edges. This preview is being worryingly vague, are we getting Dead Rising 2 or generic zombie mashup 3,000,000?

It wasn't the Japanese elements, the photography and such that annoyed me in the first.

It was the time limit something I have never wanted for even a small section of a game let alone a full one. The save system compounded this, it wasn't the real problem.

+ Just saw the single player doesant cut it comment and have lost all faith. Anyone with half a brain realises that multiplayer is only a draw in those games where it's wanted or the focus, developers really need to realise they aren't going to win from multiplayer because players already have games they go to for that.

Co-op is perhaps different in that i reckon more games need it and not over the internet either, a lot of games could be enhanced by co-op but not traditional multiplayer.

But I always think twice when buying a game I want for single player, that is advertised specifically as having multiplayer as Im paying for something ill never use.