ZombiU looks surprisingly awesome.

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I would really, really like to play this...on PC. It is set in my town of birth and looks grim as hell. The one bite and you're dead thing should make it pretty interesting. The second I saw the London ambulances I knew and recognised I thought "I am buying this fucking game". Then I saw it was on the WiiU, and I'm just not going to buy a whole system just to play 1 game. Balls.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

I can't say I hold ZombiU in high regards based from what I've seen in the trailers and E3 demos. It doesn't sell me on the gimmiky controller because I can't honestly see myself playing "core" games on a controller that large and clunky that has to be rechared every few hours.

Also, this is being made to showcase the potential of Nintendo's new "Magnum Opus", like RED STEEL. ZombiU is being published and pretty much developed BY THE SAME PEOPLE....

Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Red Steel: Ubisoft Paris

ZombiU: Ubisoft Montpellier

And guess what Ubisoft Montpellier has worked on? Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil and From Dust. They definitely aren't a bad developer. Being published by the same company that made a crappy game does not a bad game make, it's who's developing it.

Sorry I meant to say "Pretty much the same people", but I don't really think that would make for a retort. But the thing with the great games that Ubi Montepellier has made is that they weren't trying to showcase grand new hardware. They were working with comparitavely standard tech.

And those games weren't made from the will of Ubisoft being determined to get in on the exclusives early. Those were games made with the intention (IMO) of simply being good, not because the suits wanted in on a new playground early.

That still doesn't mean the game will be bad. It just means it has a higher chance it may be bad. And really, the developers would have had more than enough time to get used to the Wii U, so I don't think them making it for a new console will make it bad.

Maybe I'm just cynical as a result of Red Steel, but exclusives made for the express purpose of showcasing a new console rings alarm bells as a rushed out cash cow. But yeah, I guess it has a higher chance of being good because of a descent team behind it, that still doesn't sell me.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I would really, really like to play this...on PC. It is set in my town of birth and looks grim as hell. The one bite and you're dead thing should make it pretty interesting. The second I saw the London ambulances I knew and recognised I thought "I am buying this fucking game". Then I saw it was on the WiiU, and I'm just not going to buy a whole system just to play 1 game. Balls.

Perhaps wait for more games to come out. There's already quite a few launch exclusives that are looking quite good. For example Rayman: Legends looks like an improvement on the already amazing Origins, and Pikmin 3 just looks awesome. And you'll be able to get a lot of other multiplatform games that the Wii just didn't have, and with improvements. For example Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U will run at 1080p and 60fps instead of 720p at 30fps because of the better hardware.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I can't say I hold ZombiU in high regards based from what I've seen in the trailers and E3 demos. It doesn't sell me on the gimmiky controller because I can't honestly see myself playing "core" games on a controller that large and clunky that has to be rechared every few hours.

Also, this is being made to showcase the potential of Nintendo's new "Magnum Opus", like RED STEEL. ZombiU is being published and pretty much developed BY THE SAME PEOPLE....

Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Red Steel: Ubisoft Paris

ZombiU: Ubisoft Montpellier

And guess what Ubisoft Montpellier has worked on? Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil and From Dust. They definitely aren't a bad developer. Being published by the same company that made a crappy game does not a bad game make, it's who's developing it.

Sorry I meant to say "Pretty much the same people", but I don't really think that would make for a retort. But the thing with the great games that Ubi Montepellier has made is that they weren't trying to showcase grand new hardware. They were working with comparitavely standard tech.

And those games weren't made from the will of Ubisoft being determined to get in on the exclusives early. Those were games made with the intention (IMO) of simply being good, not because the suits wanted in on a new playground early.

That still doesn't mean the game will be bad. It just means it has a higher chance it may be bad. And really, the developers would have had more than enough time to get used to the Wii U, so I don't think them making it for a new console will make it bad.

Maybe I'm just cynical as a result of Red Steel, but exclusives made for the express purpose of showcasing a new console rings alarm bells as a rushed out cash cow. But yeah, I guess it has a higher chance of being good because of a descent team behind it, that still doesn't sell me.

You know what was an exclusive made to show off a system's new capabilities? Mario 64. Think about that for a second

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Perhaps wait for more games to come out. There's already quite a few launch exclusives that are looking quite good. For example Rayman: Legends looks like an improvement on the already amazing Origins, and Pikmin 3 just looks awesome. And you'll be able to get a lot of other multiplatform games that the Wii just didn't have, and with improvements. For example Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U will run at 1080p and 60fps instead of 720p at 30fps because of the better hardware.

I'm not really enough of a gamer to bother with a console. I have a PC, it is useful for internet, work and the few games that I like the look of. There just aren't enough console exclusive games that I am interested in (in fact, this is the only one I can think of) to justify the price. Also lack of mods. Multiplayer is irrelevant for me. Games are something I play when there is no one else around, if there's other people to interact with then for me there is no point.

Edit: Shit, sorry, I read multiplatform as multiplayer.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

I can't say I hold ZombiU in high regards based from what I've seen in the trailers and E3 demos. It doesn't sell me on the gimmiky controller because I can't honestly see myself playing "core" games on a controller that large and clunky that has to be rechared every few hours.

Also, this is being made to showcase the potential of Nintendo's new "Magnum Opus", like RED STEEL. ZombiU is being published and pretty much developed BY THE SAME PEOPLE....

Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Red Steel: Ubisoft Paris

ZombiU: Ubisoft Montpellier

And guess what Ubisoft Montpellier has worked on? Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil and From Dust. They definitely aren't a bad developer. Being published by the same company that made a crappy game does not a bad game make, it's who's developing it.

Sorry I meant to say "Pretty much the same people", but I don't really think that would make for a retort. But the thing with the great games that Ubi Montepellier has made is that they weren't trying to showcase grand new hardware. They were working with comparitavely standard tech.

And those games weren't made from the will of Ubisoft being determined to get in on the exclusives early. Those were games made with the intention (IMO) of simply being good, not because the suits wanted in on a new playground early.

That still doesn't mean the game will be bad. It just means it has a higher chance it may be bad. And really, the developers would have had more than enough time to get used to the Wii U, so I don't think them making it for a new console will make it bad.

Maybe I'm just cynical as a result of Red Steel, but exclusives made for the express purpose of showcasing a new console rings alarm bells as a rushed out cash cow. But yeah, I guess it has a higher chance of being good because of a descent team behind it, that still doesn't sell me.

You know what was an exclusive made to show off a system's new capabilities? Mario 64. Think about that for a second

That doesn't really count for a few reasons.
1: Nintendo were the ones developing it. You know, the guys making the bloody console.
2: They were sticking to a series they know and respect.
3: They weren't trying to showcase anything gimmiky (aside for the controller designed for 3-Handed people), they were just showcasing new tech that resembled actual advancement (3D gameplay, Polygons instead of sprites, ect, ect...) in gaming technology.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I can't say I hold ZombiU in high regards based from what I've seen in the trailers and E3 demos. It doesn't sell me on the gimmiky controller because I can't honestly see myself playing "core" games on a controller that large and clunky that has to be rechared every few hours.

Also, this is being made to showcase the potential of Nintendo's new "Magnum Opus", like RED STEEL. ZombiU is being published and pretty much developed BY THE SAME PEOPLE....

Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Red Steel: Ubisoft Paris

ZombiU: Ubisoft Montpellier

And guess what Ubisoft Montpellier has worked on? Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil and From Dust. They definitely aren't a bad developer. Being published by the same company that made a crappy game does not a bad game make, it's who's developing it.

Sorry I meant to say "Pretty much the same people", but I don't really think that would make for a retort. But the thing with the great games that Ubi Montepellier has made is that they weren't trying to showcase grand new hardware. They were working with comparitavely standard tech.

And those games weren't made from the will of Ubisoft being determined to get in on the exclusives early. Those were games made with the intention (IMO) of simply being good, not because the suits wanted in on a new playground early.

That still doesn't mean the game will be bad. It just means it has a higher chance it may be bad. And really, the developers would have had more than enough time to get used to the Wii U, so I don't think them making it for a new console will make it bad.

Maybe I'm just cynical as a result of Red Steel, but exclusives made for the express purpose of showcasing a new console rings alarm bells as a rushed out cash cow. But yeah, I guess it has a higher chance of being good because of a descent team behind it, that still doesn't sell me.

You know what was an exclusive made to show off a system's new capabilities? Mario 64. Think about that for a second

That doesn't really count for a few reasons.
1: Nintendo were the ones developing it. You know, the guys making the bloody console.
2: They were sticking to a series they know and respect.
3: They weren't trying to showcase anything gimmiky (aside for the controller designed for 3-Handed people), they were just showcasing new tech that resembled actual advancement (3D gameplay, Polygons instead of sprites, ect, ect...) in gaming technology.

Alright. Still, my point is that when it comes to gaming looking at past games as an indicator of how good a current game's going to be is kinda silly. I'm pretty sure there's a name for the fallacy, not sure though.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

It's a shame that this is on the WiiU cos this seems pretty good.
I'm not sold on the controller so I don't think I could buy the console for just this one game unfortunately.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

I can't say I hold ZombiU in high regards based from what I've seen in the trailers and E3 demos. It doesn't sell me on the gimmiky controller because I can't honestly see myself playing "core" games on a controller that large and clunky that has to be rechared every few hours.

Also, this is being made to showcase the potential of Nintendo's new "Magnum Opus", like RED STEEL. ZombiU is being published and pretty much developed BY THE SAME PEOPLE....

Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Red Steel: Ubisoft Paris

ZombiU: Ubisoft Montpellier

And guess what Ubisoft Montpellier has worked on? Rayman, Beyond Good and Evil and From Dust. They definitely aren't a bad developer. Being published by the same company that made a crappy game does not a bad game make, it's who's developing it.

Sorry I meant to say "Pretty much the same people", but I don't really think that would make for a retort. But the thing with the great games that Ubi Montepellier has made is that they weren't trying to showcase grand new hardware. They were working with comparitavely standard tech.

And those games weren't made from the will of Ubisoft being determined to get in on the exclusives early. Those were games made with the intention (IMO) of simply being good, not because the suits wanted in on a new playground early.

That still doesn't mean the game will be bad. It just means it has a higher chance it may be bad. And really, the developers would have had more than enough time to get used to the Wii U, so I don't think them making it for a new console will make it bad.

Maybe I'm just cynical as a result of Red Steel, but exclusives made for the express purpose of showcasing a new console rings alarm bells as a rushed out cash cow. But yeah, I guess it has a higher chance of being good because of a descent team behind it, that still doesn't sell me.

You know what was an exclusive made to show off a system's new capabilities? Mario 64. Think about that for a second

That doesn't really count for a few reasons.
1: Nintendo were the ones developing it. You know, the guys making the bloody console.
2: They were sticking to a series they know and respect.
3: They weren't trying to showcase anything gimmiky (aside for the controller designed for 3-Handed people), they were just showcasing new tech that resembled actual advancement (3D gameplay, Polygons instead of sprites, ect, ect...) in gaming technology.

Alright. Still, my point is that when it comes to gaming looking at past games as an indicator of how good a current game's going to be is kinda silly. I'm pretty sure there's a name for the fallacy, not sure though.

The closest fallacy I can think of relating to what you were describing is the Genetic fallacy (Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context).

I see your point, but it's illogical to dismiss a prediction just because it's based on fairly rescent history. We make estimates of success all the time in the sports industry. Eg: These guys curbstomped the other teams last year, so they're probably gonna win this year.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Hey! Stop making me feel old.

I still think Nintendo have an excellent standard when it comes to their own games. They are always well made. If the only criticism people can come up with is that their platform is too open then well I don't know what to say. You could say the same about PC.

 

[jollybarracuda]

Im actually getting more and more interested in getting the WiiU rather than the other systems lately, and this game is looking like it may be an example of a game swinging my decision more that way. I can get plenty of great shooters and the like on the PC (though i suppose i'd have to upgrade it at some point), and I already have some of the best action games (Ninja Gaiden, Saints Row 2, etc) in my collection, so the WiiU is looking like something that will offer me a unique experience that only a console could do, not something on a console that a PC could do just as well. I am worried about the controller being immersion breaking, but people who have played it seem to say it's actually pretty good, so i guess i'll have to wait and see.

Plus the rumors of Nintendo wanting to buy Rare, and most importantly the Banjo license, definitely helps things.

The only things that seems to concern about this game in particular though is in the beginning there seemed to be an awful lot of "Press A to do this, and this, and this, and this" going on, especially where the first zombie popped out. But who knows, it could have just been from the game's intro and isnt like that throughout, as the rest of the trailer seemed to be all real-time.

 

[Fayathon]

I'm actually looking forward to what the Wii-U has in store, especially if games with setups like this are common. One thing I really don't get is all of the complaints about the controller having a second screen being unintuitive. Personally I love the idea, especially since I do shit like that on my computer as is, meaning I game and usually have something up on my second monitor for quick reference or whatnot. I guess I'm just used to popping between two screens to keep my shit straight, and the idea really appeals to me.

 

[deathninja]

It's a case of watch and wait for me; the game looks interesting, but there's not enough on the console yet to warrant a purchase.

 

[NortherWolf]

That looked..Genuinely awful
I...I mean...What? Why?
Cock slapping my immersion until I squeal, why?

Want to give any reasons other than "MY IMMERSION OH NOES!". I can give you a lot of reasons why the game pad improves the gameplay.

Because, as the guy beneath said. It's a damn horror-game. If immersion goes there, it fucking sucks.
"Oh no, this is scary..Oh, wait it's not!"
Horror relies on atmosphere(okay, I admit, not zombie horror. It relies on you shutting down all common sense.)
It just looks awful, especially the two-control thing.

But really, it actually improves immersion. I'm pretty sure there will be an option to turn off the hud in the actual game, so that's gone. Then there's the fact that everything happens in real time whilst you have to look at something else. In real life the whole world doesn't pause if you want to take out something from your backpack or type something on a keypad, no it goes on and whatever danger happening around you can still get you. By having to look at a different actual thing it increases tension because you won't be able to see both screens at once, you won't know if a zombie's behind you until it grabs you.

Real life?
You're bringing real life into a discussion about a zombie game?
Fine, game's over We won. Zombies are gone. Happy?
ALso, I'm pretty fucking sure you could do an inventory system better, like perhaps...Not requiring you to use it at a time when a zombie is going to eat your face off!
Then again, judging from your other posts I assume massive Nintendo Fanboi?

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Hey! Stop making me feel old.

I still think Nintendo have an excellent standard when it comes to their own games. They are always well made. If the only criticism people can come up with is that their platform is too open then well I don't know what to say. You could say the same about PC.

Their platform isn't too open, it's too closed - that's the problem. Their third-party support seems to be borderline antagonistic. There was a Star Wars dueling game a few years ago which was released about a month before the 1:1 Wii remote thing was announced. They would have been a perfect fit, obviously, and yet Nintendo just didn't bother telling them about it - I'm positive someone at LA even made a pissy comment about them withholding it.

We may all moan about MS buying Skyrim DLC exclusivity (and withholding it from us PC gamers, despite their recent, annual "we love you" rhetoric), but at least they and Sony seem to have a vested interest in encouraging third-parties to their own platform. (You might argue that MS desperately need one given their pathetic line-up of in-house developers, but that's a different argument.)

Nintendo are a stagnant company and they're let off because they're ingrained into so many people's childhoods (heh: guess who didn't play anything by Nintendo when he was a kid), and because they have the dolla to polish all of their games. They'll forever be making 'gamey-games' whilst others are actually trying to wrestle with the medium's actual potential. And 'gamey-games' are fine, but they're the background noise, and they don't deserve the kind of reverence they get any more.

[sub](Cue my frothing at the mouth and lamenting Deus Ex's lack of influence and the demise of the Immersive Sim.)[/sub]

Now if you don't mind, I've got to pick up some nails before I go and get my crucifix. (I did ask for rope instead, but Mario told me to go fuck myself.)

Oh, and here's the link to that Star Wars thing: http://wii.mmgn.com/News/LucasArts-Not-Happy-With-Ninte

I knew I didn't imagine it!

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

Love how people throw around gimmicky and immersion like they know what it means. Having to look at two screens isn't even close to immersion breaking as people think it is or the DS and multiscreen PC set-ups wouldn't work(when not used to make 1 big screen). I think the WiiU will be fine mostly cause I have seen them test this on the Gamecube with Crystal Chronicles and Four Sword adventures. The quality of this game, I will judge when it's out.

 

[Fayathon]

That looked..Genuinely awful
I...I mean...What? Why?
Cock slapping my immersion until I squeal, why?

Want to give any reasons other than "MY IMMERSION OH NOES!". I can give you a lot of reasons why the game pad improves the gameplay.

Because, as the guy beneath said. It's a damn horror-game. If immersion goes there, it fucking sucks.
"Oh no, this is scary..Oh, wait it's not!"
Horror relies on atmosphere(okay, I admit, not zombie horror. It relies on you shutting down all common sense.)
It just looks awful, especially the two-control thing.

But really, it actually improves immersion. I'm pretty sure there will be an option to turn off the hud in the actual game, so that's gone. Then there's the fact that everything happens in real time whilst you have to look at something else. In real life the whole world doesn't pause if you want to take out something from your backpack or type something on a keypad, no it goes on and whatever danger happening around you can still get you. By having to look at a different actual thing it increases tension because you won't be able to see both screens at once, you won't know if a zombie's behind you until it grabs you.

Real life?
You're bringing real life into a discussion about a zombie game?
Fine, game's over We won. Zombies are gone. Happy?
ALso, I'm pretty fucking sure you could do an inventory system better, like perhaps...Not requiring you to use it at a time when a zombie is going to eat your face off!
Then again, judging from your other posts I assume massive Nintendo Fanboi?

I take it you've never played Dark/Demon's Souls? I love/hate the no-pause inventory when done right, it adds an element of prior planning that is that much more crucial to your gameplay. And if you plan wrong? Well, then it's just that much better if you're fast enough to fix your fuck-up, and that much more disappointing if you can't.

 

[him over there]

snip

Hey! Stop making me feel old.

I still think Nintendo have an excellent standard when it comes to their own games. They are always well made. If the only criticism people can come up with is that their platform is too open then well I don't know what to say. You could say the same about PC.

Their platform isn't too open, it's too closed - that's the problem. Their third-party support seems to be borderline antagonistic. There was a Star Wars dueling game a few years ago which was released about a month before the 1:1 Wii remote thing was announced. They would have been a perfect fit, obviously, and yet Nintendo just didn't bother telling them about it - I'm positive someone at LA even made a pissy comment about them withholding it.

We may all moan about MS buying Skyrim DLC exclusivity (and withholding it from us PC gamers, despite their recent, annual "we love you" rhetoric), but at least they and Sony seem to have a vested interest in encouraging third-parties to their own platform. (You might argue that MS desperately need one given their pathetic line-up of in-house developers, but that's a different argument.)

Nintendo are a stagnant company and they're let off because they're ingrained into so many people's childhoods (heh: guess who didn't play anything by Nintendo when he was a kid), and because they have the dolla to polish all of their games. They'll forever be making 'gamey-games' whilst others are actually trying to wrestle with the medium's actual potential. And 'gamey-games' are fine, but they're the background noise, and they don't deserve the kind of reverence they get any more.

[sub](Cue my frothing at the mouth and lamenting Deus Ex's lack of influence and the demise of the Immersive Sim.)[/sub]

Now if you don't mind, I've got to pick up some nails before I go and get my crucifix. (I did ask for rope instead, but Mario told me to go fuck myself.)

Oh, and here's the link to that Star Wars thing: http://wii.mmgn.com/News/LucasArts-Not-Happy-With-Ninte

I knew I didn't imagine it!

...Woodsey just quit posting. You're rude, you're both unnecessarily and undeservedly condescending towards everyone in this thread. You speak as if you know what's best for the industry despite not even being a part of it. You attempt to invalidate others' opinions despite them being perfectly grounded in reality. You pass judgement on something you've not even actually experienced yet. Maybe if you were interested in having an actual discussion instead of desperately trying to validate your own views by condemning everyone else's as if you are some all knowing game design and industry guru we could actually have a discussion that went somewhere.

 

[Woodsey]

snip

Hey! Stop making me feel old.

I still think Nintendo have an excellent standard when it comes to their own games. They are always well made. If the only criticism people can come up with is that their platform is too open then well I don't know what to say. You could say the same about PC.

Their platform isn't too open, it's too closed - that's the problem. Their third-party support seems to be borderline antagonistic. There was a Star Wars dueling game a few years ago which was released about a month before the 1:1 Wii remote thing was announced. They would have been a perfect fit, obviously, and yet Nintendo just didn't bother telling them about it - I'm positive someone at LA even made a pissy comment about them withholding it.

We may all moan about MS buying Skyrim DLC exclusivity (and withholding it from us PC gamers, despite their recent, annual "we love you" rhetoric), but at least they and Sony seem to have a vested interest in encouraging third-parties to their own platform. (You might argue that MS desperately need one given their pathetic line-up of in-house developers, but that's a different argument.)

Nintendo are a stagnant company and they're let off because they're ingrained into so many people's childhoods (heh: guess who didn't play anything by Nintendo when he was a kid), and because they have the dolla to polish all of their games. They'll forever be making 'gamey-games' whilst others are actually trying to wrestle with the medium's actual potential. And 'gamey-games' are fine, but they're the background noise, and they don't deserve the kind of reverence they get any more.

[sub](Cue my frothing at the mouth and lamenting Deus Ex's lack of influence and the demise of the Immersive Sim.)[/sub]

Now if you don't mind, I've got to pick up some nails before I go and get my crucifix. (I did ask for rope instead, but Mario told me to go fuck myself.)

Oh, and here's the link to that Star Wars thing: http://wii.mmgn.com/News/LucasArts-Not-Happy-With-Ninte

I knew I didn't imagine it!

...Woodsey just quit posting. You're rude, you're both unnecessarily and undeservedly condescending towards everyone in this thread. You speak as if you know what's best for the industry despite not even being a part of it. You attempt to invalidate others' opinions despite them being perfectly grounded in reality. You pass judgement on something you've not even actually experienced yet. Maybe if you were interested in having an actual discussion instead of desperately trying to validate your own views by condemning everyone else's as if you are some all knowing game design and industry guru we could actually have a discussion that went somewhere.

'If the only criticism people can come up with is that their platform is too open then well I don't know what to say. You could say the same about PC.'

This is an opinion and a leading statement (as in, 'are there any other criticisms?'), I responded with my opinion and my response to the leading statement.

It's not condescending, I'm just not going to sit around and have "in my opinion" at the end of every sentence. Moonflight's a grown-up, I'm a grown-up, I'm sure we can both cope with making points at one another and rely on implicitness rather than having to explicitly feather-up every statement. I'm hardly being rude because my opinion is the opposite of hers. She wanted to know if there were other criticisms of Nintendo and I gave mine.

There's even a joke at the end to steer it away from 'oh so seriousness'.

And yeah, I'm making predictions on the experience based on past experiences with extremely similar gimmicks. Of course I am. Just because your impressions may be positive doesn't make them right.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

That looked..Genuinely awful
I...I mean...What? Why?
Cock slapping my immersion until I squeal, why?

Want to give any reasons other than "MY IMMERSION OH NOES!". I can give you a lot of reasons why the game pad improves the gameplay.

Because, as the guy beneath said. It's a damn horror-game. If immersion goes there, it fucking sucks.
"Oh no, this is scary..Oh, wait it's not!"
Horror relies on atmosphere(okay, I admit, not zombie horror. It relies on you shutting down all common sense.)
It just looks awful, especially the two-control thing.

But really, it actually improves immersion. I'm pretty sure there will be an option to turn off the hud in the actual game, so that's gone. Then there's the fact that everything happens in real time whilst you have to look at something else. In real life the whole world doesn't pause if you want to take out something from your backpack or type something on a keypad, no it goes on and whatever danger happening around you can still get you. By having to look at a different actual thing it increases tension because you won't be able to see both screens at once, you won't know if a zombie's behind you until it grabs you.

Real life?
You're bringing real life into a discussion about a zombie game?
Fine, game's over We won. Zombies are gone. Happy?
ALso, I'm pretty fucking sure you could do an inventory system better, like perhaps...Not requiring you to use it at a time when a zombie is going to eat your face off!
Then again, judging from your other posts I assume massive Nintendo Fanboi?

I hate it when a gamer assumes someone is Moviebob levels of Fanboyism to Nintendo just because they don't completely hate them. It's like people saying that anyone who likes the ME3 ending is an EA loving fanboy. And doesn't having a real time inventory system increase tension? In a zombie movie you never see the zombies waiting around for the heroes to get another gun out, do you? Having no breaks to do anything important in a zombie game will increase tension, I can assure you.