{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/12/2013 3:40:57 PM
2
This is just a developer choice. They decided to focus on getting more on screen and getting rid of loading times, rather than resolution and graphics. The game is rendering hundreds of zombies at once, and running AI for each of them. That takes a lot of power to do, and the scale of the game would not be doable on the last generation systems. The Dead Rising games have never really been the most amazing looking games, but they've pushed how much the systems can handle by putting a lot of stuff in the world. The same game on 360 or PS3 would run with far fewer zombies, long loading times, and lower-poly models.
If Dead Rising 3 would have been developed for the PS4, it would probably have the same problems. It could probably run at 1080p, 60fps if the devs lowered the number of zombies on screen (or if the devs were more accustomed to the system and could optimize better).
-Large open world with no loading
-Large hordes of zombies
-High Resolution and framerate
pick two of the above
English
-
This is definitely true. The developers made it clear that the "next-gen" focus would be creating an experience without load times and with lots of zombies-- both not possible on current consoles. In return, they had to compromise on a high resolution and/or FPS. What the article shows is that they weren't even able to meet their tempered expectations, with a game that looks and performs worse than the compromise standard.
-
I think they just aimed too high for a launch title. They don't know how to get the most out of the hardware yet, but they tried to do it anyway. They should have made something else as a launch title, and waited until they could get the power they wanted to get DR3 out. I think they were just too ambitious for a launch title.
