Topic: Resident Evil 5 Skipped Wii Due to Developer Ambitions

[Kairon]

Kairon is bumming me out...

T_T I'm sorry, is it my fault I still salivate at the thought of Area 51?

[Stratos]

In the last paragraph of the newspost are you implying that Capcom is lying, due to the game starting development prior the Wii's official reveal?

TOTALLY misreading. &P

I think it goes to show that Capcom started planning for something on a grand scale, and by the time the Wii was revealed their project was on a course that couldn't be changed.

And yet they pull out a Dead Rising port. How is that any different?
I'm agreeing with those predicting an RE 5: Wii Edition. If anything Capcom will force the devs to make it due to the sales of the 4th on Wii.

Oh man, an RE5:Wii edition would be sorta amazing to hear about. Then afterwards, they could make a sequel to Umbrella Chronicles! ... or not. Please don't kill me.

At least UC was a fresher edition to the series then RE5! BURN

I'd love to see RE5 Wii Edition, but honestly I think I'd rather they go back to their roots a bit and make a RE game specifically for Wii that cuts out the co-op, uses the RE4 engine but uses the atmosphere of games pre-RE4. Even a game that is more like a sequel to RE4 would be fine too.

But co-op is what interests me the most...maybe it's my Left 4 Dead obsession speaking. I got to play it again with my friend in the internet cafe. I love how cooperative the co-op is. Maybe that's why I loved the big three GBA->GC link cable required games back in the day.

[KDR_11k]

Since when do companies listen to the wishes of the developers?

[UltimatePartyBear]

I seem to recall that developer ambition was the reason RE4 was supposed to stay a GameCube exclusive.  If Mikami's suicide threats weren't enough to stop Capcom from announcing the PS2 port before that game's original release, why do the hacks working on RE5 deserve any better treatment?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Funny, how Mikami pushed the GameCube RE4 to make a new NEW NEW RE game and produce a more refined experience than what would've been delivered on PS2.

These RE5 devs ambition so far has been to make a prettier, shorter game with co-op and copy-pasted AI.

[Ian Sane]

Ultimate problem?  Actually, this is really the only problem with the Wii.  However, if Nintendo hadn't chosen this route, the Wii would almost certainly be no more successful than the GameCube was (marginally more successful at best).

I disagree.  The PS3 was a complete disaster at first.  Nintendo could likely have beaten Sony by merely being competent.  I think Wii Sports has enough of a mainstream hook with the real-time racket swinging and such that Nintendo could still have sold buttloads of hardware with it at a higher price point.  iPods are really expensive for example and yet sell like hotcakes because they're got that "it" factor that people just love and thus cost no longer becomes a concern.  The Wii could have cost as much as the Xbox 360 and I think it still could have had near identical success due to the widespread appeal of Wii Sports.  The Wii has "it" and it isn't because it's cheap.  People had to wait up to a year to find one in stores.  The demand was such that it could have cost a good $100 more and I think it would have been fine.

Now that the Wii is the unquestionable market leader, publishers will start forcing their developers to make Wii games.

I assumed this too but the Wii has been the market leader for quite a while now.  We got Dragon Quest X and that Monster Hunter game that gets lousy review scores and no one in America ever gave a **** about before it was announced to the Wii but we still get bullshit like that Dead Space spin-off rail shooter crap.  I think if we were going to see a real improvement, like PS2 level support which we SHOULD have, it would have happened already.  The "well no one assumed the Wii would be so huge" argument no longer makes sense.  Now third parties like Capcom here are looking for excuse to not support the Wii.  Well there has to be some reason for that.  That's why I assume it will never change because it's taken WAY too long.

[ThePerm]

idk Ian, the cheaper price point improves the It factor, had the wii been 300 dollars it would have been "i want this game, how much is wii? 300 - 400 oh well..nevermind" instead of actuall quote ""i want this game, how much is wii? 250..thats not so bad!"

[Stratos]

I agree with Ian that price wouldn't have made that much of a difference in my opinion. One of the reasons that the Wii was cheaper was because Nintendo knew they were taking an awful risk. If they had assurance that the Wii would be where it is today, they would have given it better traditional tech to supplement the new tech. Never underestimate the force of popular culture. If something is 'in' like the Wii has been then nothing short of a $1000 price point would have deterred many people, especially if the system offered more that it does at the moment. iPods and iPhones are great examples of high cost product that sells extremely well. 'Course, hind sight is 20/20.

Though, we should actually take this article as a subtle hint that RE 5 is coming to Wii. They said RE 4 was Gamecube exclusive and the that went multiplatform; they said there would be the Capcom five and that didn't happen; Guess saying that RE 5 is not for Wii means that it will be coming shortly.

[KDR_11k]

Why are we complaining about the Wii being cheap when it's Nintendo's most expensive console to date?

[Rize]

Ultimate problem?  Actually, this is really the only problem with the Wii.  However, if Nintendo hadn't chosen this route, the Wii would almost certainly be no more successful than the GameCube was (marginally more successful at best).

I disagree.  The PS3 was a complete disaster at first.  Nintendo could likely have beaten Sony by merely being competent.  I think Wii Sports has enough of a mainstream hook with the real-time racket swinging and such that Nintendo could still have sold buttloads of hardware with it at a higher price point.  iPods are really expensive for example and yet sell like hotcakes because they're got that "it" factor that people just love and thus cost no longer becomes a concern.  The Wii could have cost as much as the Xbox 360 and I think it still could have had near identical success due to the widespread appeal of Wii Sports.  The Wii has "it" and it isn't because it's cheap.  People had to wait up to a year to find one in stores.  The demand was such that it could have cost a good $100 more and I think it would have been fine.

Now that the Wii is the unquestionable market leader, publishers will start forcing their developers to make Wii games.

I assumed this too but the Wii has been the market leader for quite a while now.  We got Dragon Quest X and that Monster Hunter game that gets lousy review scores and no one in America ever gave a **** about before it was announced to the Wii but we still get bull**** like that Dead Space spin-off rail shooter crap.  I think if we were going to see a real improvement, like PS2 level support which we SHOULD have, it would have happened already.  The "well no one assumed the Wii would be so huge" argument no longer makes sense.  Now third parties like Capcom here are looking for excuse to not support the Wii.  Well there has to be some reason for that.  That's why I assume it will never change because it's taken WAY too long.

The problem is that Nintendo couldn't predict that it would be popular enough to sell at a higher price.  And you can't predict that it would definitely have been just as well off at a higher price because it turned out to be in such high demand.  Part of the high demand was no doubt due to the lower price

You may be right about the third parties to an extent.  The problem is that a large part of Wii's customer base are non-savvy consumers who will buy anything.  They're not checking the magazines and websites nearly as religiously as the PS3 and 360 fan base.  However, a percentage is, and that percentage has the power to lead the non-savvy consumers into better purchasing decisions.  This just means that the Wii needs a higher customers base than a normal platform before third parties feel comfortable.  I think that time has come and you will start to see the games flow.  However, they need to finish being developed first.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think that time has come and you will start to see the games flow.  However, they need to finish being developed first.

That is why I think a game like Monster Hunter 3 is so significant, there is a game that has high production values along with being more traditional. When companies, like Capcom, are starting to bring their biggest franchises to Wii in their purest form that is a good sign. Also games like Madworld are no slouches either!

[Kairon]

Looking at the economic situation, I wouldn't be willing to risk the Wii being more expensive.

[mac<censored>]

the "well no one assumed the Wii would be so huge" argument no longer makes sense.  Now third parties like Capcom here are looking for excuse to not support the Wii.  Well there has to be some reason for that.

Hmm?  Capcom is trying to justify a development decision made many years ago, when they assumed the ps3 would inherit the ps2's dominant position and nintendo's next console would be an also-ran -- obviously the "no one assumed the wii would be so huge" reasoning applies to decisions made before it became clear the wii was a hit and the ps3 was a flop.

I don't know what their attitude to future games is; capcom's management has always been kinda brain-dead.

[NovaQ]

It sounds like with RE5 that the development started long enough ago that Capcom didn't think it feasible to shift consoles so late in the game's development. But for the overall feeling like many prominent 3rd parties aren't supporting the Wii nearly as well as they should, I think it's because the Wii is such a clear change for gaming "philosophy." Nintendo's little white box, more clearly than many of their previous systems, epitomizes innovation over excess (to borrow the phrase from Enner). This conflicts with the conception of video games and game development that developers and publishers (and gamers) have been operating under for decades, so it makes sense that many of these game makers would be so reluctant to shift to the Wii.

I think it'll be interesting to see the results of some of these companies forcing their developers more toward the Wii. I wonder if at least some of the resulting games will be lacking in "soul" and/or quality because the developers still wanted to focus on excess over innovation.

[mac<censored>]

But for the overall feeling like many prominent 3rd parties aren't supporting the Wii nearly as well as they should, I think it's because the Wii is such a clear change for gaming "philosophy." Nintendo's little white box, more clearly than many of their previous systems, epitomizes innovation over excess.

I dunno, surely there are devs who are so desperate to create the next crysis that they'd have a breakdown even considering the wii ... but I don't think everybody's like that.

It's perfectly possible to make huge, technically excellent, and "conventional" games on the wii -- just look at RE4!  Sure the models have to be a bit lower poly, and the sweat might not glisten quite as brightly, but those are the sort of restrictions that game developers have always worked under.

Look at the PS2 -- it was notably inferior to the other systems (PS2 versions of games pretty much universally looked worse), but because of its popularity, the game companies bit the bullet and did what they could, and the result was that the PS2 had lots of excellent games, despite its hardware inferiority.

Another example is many PC games, where it's very common to support a wide range of hardware by gracefully degrading the graphics at runtime.  Doing it at runtime is hard work, but merely supporting different platform ports should be far easier, given sufficient planning.

Examples like those are why I don't really buy the "whining devs" excuse.  I think the problem falls squarely on the shoulders of the people doing the planning, and that's management.

[Stratos]

It's perfectly possible to make huge, technically excellent, and "conventional" games on the wii -- just look at RE4!  Sure the models have to be a bit lower poly, and the sweat might not glisten quite as brightly, but those are the sort of restrictions that game developers have always worked under.

I'll add to that by pointing out games like Conduit, Winter (even as a tech demo), Overlord and Cursed Mountain, among others, are very advanced for the Wii.

[Nick DiMola]

Capcom could've fixed this whole situation by simply saying, "Yes, we are going to be porting the game to Wii." I'm sure it will happen, and it would've sounded better than simply dancing around their bullshit like they did here.

They were too deep in development to convert to Wii development, fine. However, they should've allocated a small team to start porting the models and the environments to the RE4 engine, and catch up to the PS3/360 versions in order to release at the same time, or near the same time.

But anyway, I'd rather have the 360/PS3 keep this POS. It looks terrible, and from the demo, it plays terrible too. When the creator of the series refuses to play the game, you know it has got to be a real pile.

[NovaQ]

Examples like those are why I don't really buy the "whining devs" excuse.  I think the problem falls squarely on the shoulders of the people doing the planning, and that's management.

Do you suppose, then, that the "bigger is better" development mindsets from the past decades are also now ingrained into the mindsets of these companies' higher-ups?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

That's what happens when last decades' devs become this year's higher-ups.

[Smash_Brother]

The biggest problem I see with all of this is that games seem to be following a trend of trading off hours of gameplay for prettier graphics and overall less content.

If what I hear is correct, a basic walkthrough with RE5 is 7 hours. That's half of RE4's 14 hours.

I know that older gamers have less time, but a game that can be beaten in a day with little replay value? Really? And given the $60 pricetag, that's $8.50 an hour you're paying for entertainment. The game is begging to be rented instead of purchased.

And WHY is the game only 7 hours long? Because it costs so damn much to have HD textures on every model in the game and it's so time consuming, that's why.

Are we really willing to trade-off hours of gameplay for prettier graphics? I know I'm not, but it's a trend a lot of so-called AAA titles have been following, like Heavenly Sword, Lair and now RE5.

It's not worth it. Spending 7 hours in a pretty game with mediocre gameplay is not an ideal situation when we could've spent 14-20 hours in a game with average graphics and decent gameplay.

[Luigi Dude]

The biggest problem I see with all of this is that games seem to be following a trend of trading off hours of gameplay for prettier graphics and overall less content.

If what I hear is correct, a basic walkthrough with RE5 is 7 hours. That's half of RE4's 14 hours.

I know that older gamers have less time, but a game that can be beaten in a day with little replay value? Really? And given the $60 pricetag, that's $8.50 an hour you're paying for entertainment. The game is begging to be rented instead of purchased.

And WHY is the game only 7 hours long? Because it costs so damn much to have HD textures on every model in the game and it's so time consuming, that's why.

Are we really willing to trade-off hours of gameplay for prettier graphics? I know I'm not, but it's a trend a lot of so-called AAA titles have been following, like Heavenly Sword, Lair and now RE5.

It's not worth it. Spending 7 hours in a pretty game with mediocre gameplay is not an ideal situation when we could've spent 14-20 hours in a game with average graphics and decent gameplay.

Don't worry, with the magic of DCL, RE5 will end up getting more hours of gameplay added to it.  The only problem is, be prepared to probably spend another $30 to get it.

After Megaman 9 and Street Fighter 4, Capcom has shown us that they have no shame when it comes to outright scamming the consumer.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Why are we complaining about the Wii being cheap when it's Nintendo's most expensive console to date?

[Ymeegod]

Love it. 

First Capcom leaves Sony to develop for the Gamecube and Nintendo fans rejoice but when it does the opposite they pound-their-fists and cry like little babies. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see this title ported to WII 2. 

[NWR_insanolord]

Love it. 

First Capcom leaves Sony to develop for the Gamecube and Nintendo fans rejoice but when it does the opposite they pound-their-fists and cry like little babies. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see this title ported to WII 2. 

The reason we're complaining is that Capcom eventually caved in and ported RE4 to the PS2 despite its hardware limitations because of its massive install base.

[Ian Sane]

Why are we complaining about the Wii being cheap when it's Nintendo's most expensive console to date?

In Canada it actually launched at a lower price than the Cube did? 

Regarding RE5 being ported, can it be?  The difference between the PS2 and the Cube was not nearly as significant as the difference between the Wii and the other consoles.  It's very likely that Capcom had every intention of porting Dead Rising to the Wii but then realized the hardware difference was so great that they couldn't do it!  So they came up with this Chop 'Til You Drop thing to work around the limitations.  The market may be such that it would make a lot of sense for Capcom to port RE5 but they may have to severly alter it to make it work.