When Resident Evil 5 was announced for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC, everyone asked -- how about a Wii version? At the time, it didn't seem likely. In fact, the words "not possible" were thrown around. One of the game's producers, Masachika Kawata, even joked that the Wii couldn't handle the title screen. Well, now it sounds like they're eating some crow.
In a recent online Q&A with Capcom's product manager Matt Dahlgren, it was revealed that the Japanese producers of Resident Evil 5 were pretty impressed with Cavia's visual work with the Wii-exclusive Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles. So much, in fact, that they think it could be possible to bring Resident Evil 5 to the Wii.
"Whether it's going to come, I don't know the answer to that question," Dahlgren said, in order to avoid confusion that he was confirming anything. "But, it has been said that now at least it is possible."
There was little doubt that, in some form, the game could have been ported to the Wii. Even Capcom's Jun Takeuchi admitted as much, but suggested it wasn't likely because of technical limitations.
"Honestly speaking," he said, "we're kind of pushing the 360 and the PS3 to their limits right now, so it would probably be pretty difficult to create a Wii version of Resident Evil 5."
Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop says "hi." Anything's possible.
[Capcom Blog via Nintendo D-Pad]
Contest:
12:40 PM on 11.13.2009
| 
I love it when developers spout this crap.
Also, I think they should make the next Wii RE game NOT be a rail shooter. Not that DS Chronicales looks bad....it doesn't. Just RE4 played so damn SLICK on the Wii, I'd love to see them remake an old RE with that style, or even make a new one.
I think he meant a brand new RE game, not the first one.
Got a one track mind, do we? Not every game needs to be a twitch shooter like Modern Warfare 2 or Halo 3. I rather appreciate the pacing and tension that comes from RE4/RE5's combat. Do I want to see it in every game? Not in the least. Do I like it in occasional doses? Yes. A shooter does not require circle strafing.
Wii has enough GC Wiimakes (RE 4 being the only good one) as well as 2 spin-off on-rail FPS titles.
Capcom's even doing RE 5: Alternative Edition for the PS3 Wiimote.
They've gone porting crazy!
As said so many times before, they could have used the PS3 to it's limits at that time, but then they will optimize the code so they get more out of the power.
take note game dev's, wii gamers have no interest in rail shooters, and ports. could we get a game with depth, please? shit, what do i care, nsmb wii is out next week, and it's going to put all the third parties to shame.
Yes, but when your game is creating an artificial fear because of horrible controls. Then it just seems idiotic. Since most former air force, or secret service operatives would have such an ability. Especially when engaged with melee combatants. It's like when you hit a wall that you could easy jump over, but the game wants you to find a key or a ladder. In fact, a game called Cold Fear did this quite well. You could walk backwards, while shooting into the monsters. Because you needed too! If you didn't you died. Which was a great improvement. I didn't say Circle strafing, I mean just begin able to move AT ALL, instead of being a cement block.
But even so, if your game is "scary" because of horrible controls. Then your game isn't really scary, the player just doesn't want to die and restart all over again. By the 5th time the player plays the section again, he is no longer afraid and now is just irritated.
More here.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6715-You-Dont-Scare-Me
It's not so much about twitch shooting, its about as unresponsive as a cow, when you would except the character to be moving all over the place. I'm playing a human avatar, yet I can't do very basic functions a normal person could do? If you don't want the player to be so active, add a stamina bar, or various other ideas.
And holy shit, people are STILL complaining about the moving and shooting thing?
Did they ever stop? It seemed like such a flawed gameplay design aspect that most reviewers questioned why they stuck with it. If they characters in questioned weren't combat savy, veterans then it would have made more sense. But heck, Harry Mason could fire a Pistol while moving, and that didn't ruin the tension in Silent Hill.
Anyway, perhaps I have said too much.
Are we separated at birth? My thoughts exactly.
Really? Did I say scary? No. I said it was a design decision to create "tension," so citing articles on Escapist doesn't really do anything for you. Resident Evil 5 wasn't scary at all. And your instance on movement while shooting doesn't show some higher level of thinking, it shows that games need to fit into some neat little mold for you, which only shows that you are indeed instead, utterly close minded.
The use Stop and pop game play was willful decision, not a glaring omission, and I would go so far as to argue that a Resident Evil with run and gun is even less Resident Evil than #5 already was.
Also, that there are plenty of "bro" games out there to satiate your need to constantly feel like a bad ass like every Call of Duty, Halo, Quake, or Unreal Tournament.
Let me get this strait. You're talking about a game world with zombies, parasites that control humans, and various mutations/monsters, and you're whining because a Secret Service Agent and members of a counter bio terrorism unit that doesn't run and gun isn't realistic enough for you? Reread that a few times until the absurdity sets in, "bro".
@ pedrovay2003
Yep. Isn't it sad? A few games aren't about feeling like a bad ass at all times and they fly off the handle.
Forcing a player to stand still while shooting is a poor design decision with no basis in reality. Why not allow you to move but decrease your accuracy as a consequence?
I don't even think it's because they were trying to make it more intense/scary/whatever (doesn't help that RE5 was scary in the least bit, but that's not the point here), but rather that Capcom is stuck in an era where controls couldn't be as advanced/streamlined as they can with today's technology.
Look at Dead Rising (which, for the record, I adore): where is the logic in forcing the player to aim his/her weapon with the left joystick (also while standing still)?
I just don't get it.
actually, in real life strafing isn't possible. the re4 controls do a very good job mimicking the real world. to hit a target, you have to be standing still. this is coming from a ground combat school grad. i think the re series is very good at showing what it's like to hit a real target. the limitations are what give you the thrill. anyway, before we start talking about what is and isn't realistic, you'll have to actually fired a weapon before.
I would agree with you and Lockgar, if it weren't for the fact that the creators of Resident Evil cannot live in a vacuum.
The games control's obviously aren't for everyone, but its not as though Capcom has a team of guys who have been sealed in vault since 1996 and are not allowed to experience the other products, good & bad, that the industry creates(though I will give you mapping of controls in Dead Rising, those were a pain). I do think though that the decision to keep the combat in these static instances is a deliberate decision that makes sense within the context of the series, though that's up to each and everyone to decide on the merit of that decision themselves. I like the game for what it is, in spite of a some flaws, and even considered it a welcome breath of fresh air.
People might have like the first 1 or 3 games when they came out, but were willing to accept it then in the context of the limitations of the technology of the era. RE4 showed that the team was willing to take some nods from FPS culture, like precise aiming and contextual enemy damage, and for better or worse, adopting co-op play, but currently, that's as far as they are willing to take it way from its rots of being in claustrophobic, in door environments with characters that steer like Sherman tanks. And that could change as well, whats the point of having Resident Evil if it plays like Left 4 Dead? Left 4 Dead is already Left 4 Dead. I love it too, but not every game needs to fit that mold either.
I guess there are 2 questions each player need to consider when facing a quandry like Resident Evil.
The first is, do you not like RE5, or do you not like Resident Evil, period? Obviously, there's no right or wrong answer to this question. But the impression I'm getting is that the series is not going to move in the way that is concurrent with the tastes of many players, or at least as quickly as they'd like.
The second being, there enough room in the industry for a series that stubbornly clings to its old design decisions, when they feel that sluggish movement is one of the things that define the series? It sold well enough, so on the surface, the answer seems to be yes, but I'd love to see how the next game will be. And if it doesn't advance the ball toward contemporary shooter conventions, will people still buy it?
Wow, your a jerk, I was being civil the entire time.
Well ok then. Since you already pegged me as some type of frat boy shooter fan. "I disliked Halo 3 and I hardly ever play modern Warfare, my name should have been some type of hint as the type of games I play Mr. Sabin avatar." I was talking about the actual content of the game itself. The story places you as a counter bio weapon specialist. AKA, he is use to this. Zombies? Seen it!
So your argument is tension? That went out the window in RE4 the moment I got a shotgun. Are you saying there is some higher form of gaming that must rely on navigating through cumbersome menus. Did I mention you had to feel "uber powerful" simply because you can sidestep? A function they actually added to resident evil 3?
You know what would be good tension? How about knowing that no matter how many zombies you kill, no matter how fast you run, it won't matter. There are just too many of them, and no matter what you do, they just keep on coming. You know, like what most of George A. Romero movie was like, but what would he know about zombie movies.
Are you saying tension is impossible unless you make the player completely vulnerable for arbitrary reasons because the developer mapped the aim function to the same stick that use to be move? So your artsy "tension" argument is nothing more then your character being stupid?
When did I mention being a bad ass "brah" I meant simply moving out the way. Nothing is more badass then running away in terror from zombies "brah". But even so, you have unreasonably low standards for the human body.
But again, lets take WHO your actually playing. Chris, Jill, Clare Leon. About the only one who has a valid excuse of being inept is Clare. Being a College student "in her first appearance as well as Leon being a rookie cop", but that's going to far back where hardware limitation was more the issue as well.
Next you'll be telling me that the only good games are turn based, and that anything that's in real time is already for the closed minded masses. "brah"
@bobyoko
Most shooting ranges through a big fit over this, no doubt your accuracy should probably decrease dramatically. However, you can still point a gun at them while walking backwards. ouched here is under the impression that I think it should be all “Bunny hopping and circle strafing”, which is a liable way to get your arm broken, and would be silly to see.
Like here is a compromise. You don't have to drop combat stance, there for, forgoing your accuracy while moving backwards "in terms of game mechanics, your still going to be less accurate then if you weren't moving", but when you do shoot, you have to stop dead in your tracks for that one shot, and when your done shooting, resume moving in a combat stance, and not losing your aim.
Ah, didn't see the next post after that, sorry there is no edit button on the comments. Yes that does sound sensible. I did enjoy RE4 but that was always a pressing matter in the back of my head, where I would die due to the fact that I had to drop my combat stance before I could resume running. So when RE5 showed up, I thought they would have resolved this. To reduce the amount of me repeating my self, I have stated other reasons already, perhaps a bit too harshly.
As for the moving while shooting thing, there are a lot of old game design tricks that should die.
Invisible walls, short walls you cant jump/climb over, not being able to move while shooting, inability to take cover, ledges you can jump on but not grab, weapons you can equip that does not change appearance of weapon, weapons taken not from dead soldier but from monsters remains, the list could go on and on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyeemtS1jII
"actually, in real life strafing isn't possible. the re4 controls do a very good job mimicking the real world. to hit a target, you have to be standing still. this is coming from a ground combat school grad. i think the re series is very good at showing what it's like to hit a real target. the limitations are what give you the thrill. anyway, before we start talking about what is and isn't realistic, you'll have to actually fired a weapon before."
Not that it matters, but I HAVE fired weapons before, though never anything automatic. I've fired a few different kinds of pistols, shotguns and rifles, and been with my friend while he was firing his dad's uzi (I wasn't about to shoot that thing). I've also been hunting--for animals, not zombies--plenty of times, which means I understand how IMPORTANT it is to be still while aiming.
Of course I've never tried strafing while aiming at anything (who would in a real life situation?), but I have a very hard time believing that it "isn't possible". Really? You can't take a step to the side while you're holding a gun? I made it perfectly clear in my post that moving while shooting should carry a consequence of poor accuracy--just like it would in real life--but I still think it should be allowed.
So, to clarify, I never said that it wasn't BETTER to stand still while shooting, but rather that it IS possible to move while shooting. And nowehere was I implying that we should allow circle-strafing or bunny hopping or anything ridiculous like that, only that you should be able to move and pull the trigger at the same time.
I happen to think a game like RE5 would have benefited from this, because let's face it, it was an action game through and through. Did you not notice how big Chris' muscles and Shiva's breasts were? Exactly.
@ouched
To answer your first question, I'd say "mostly". RE5 was pretty fun for an action game, and I played it through from beginning to end (and again for most of the achievements). I also played through RE4 on the Wii and had a pretty good time, but honestly didn't think it was as genre-defining as most people. Hey, to each his own. I'd never bash somebody for liking it or not, and I would definitely agree that both are worth playing. (I've never played any of the others.)
Your second point is completely fair. I agree wholeheartedly that of course there's room in the industry for a game that clings to its roots. I just think that when a game tries to be something it's not (like RE5 trying to be both a big muscles big tits action game and a Resident Evil game game) it ends up lacking in both departments (as an action game, it lacked in the controls department, and as a RE game, it lacked in the horror department) which is why I can only say that I "mostly" liked it.
It also would have been interesting to see how DR:CTYD would have sold if it looked as good as RE4 Wii Edition.
In fact, it would be interesting to see how well any 3rd party Wii game would sell if it at least looked as good as a nearly five year old Gamecube game. The one that probably comes closest is Dead Space Extraction, but even that didn't quite measure up to RE4. It was also in a genre that no one seems to like (on-rails) and shorter than most people's required game length (12-15 hours).
no problem. I apologize for the frat charaterization. Though you must admit your first comment didn't do as good of a job demonstrating a complete thought as your later ones. I think we have a common dissapointment in RE5, in that it did move toward being an action game though it kept a horror-esque control scheme which satisfied neither completely.
I think we can all agree that the game would benefit from clarifying it's direction. Either move towards an action game or keep to it's rots, not a middle of the road amalgamation that neither impresses enough to satisfy or stunk enough to write off completely.
Apologies if this looks like a wall of text. Commenting on a mobile makes even just editting for appearance sake impossible.
I'm both disappointed and proud of you for this.
<a href="http://www.howtogetyourexbackv.org/">How to get your ex back</a>