CreativeCat89

Actually that's incorrect, There is a brilliant Japanese Zombie Comedy Horror titled Biozombie here in the states that feature survivors in a mall with zombies - a direct Dawn of the Dead scenario in the same medium, but they don't have the money Capcom has and are probably not worth going after. There was a game I played as a kid on my Amiga called Zombi. The premise was to block off the zombies from getting into the mall (now where have I seen that before) then going hunting, Pretty much Dawn of the Dead from landing at the mall sans bikers, I should also note the title Zombi was the Italian title of Dawn of the Dead. If you want to get really technical the 80's horror comedy Night of the Comet featured zombies (kinda) and a shopping mall and was even considered Dawn of the Dead meets Valley Girl.
The only thing these 3 examples are missing is the kind of money worth suing over, and it seems to me like a precedent has already been set that you cannot copyright the idea of zombies in a mall as dark comedy or otherwise.
This would be like the creators of Godzilla suing J.J.Abrams for Cloverfield and Ivan Reitman for Ghostbusters.

str82hell

_Ted_

From what I've heard, Mass Effect is basically pornography. I don't quite recall how that one turned out.

GenericKen

Zombies are in dozens of games, and the idea of a zombie (i.e., "the corpses that are undead") predates even biblical history. This lawsuit is ludicrous.

bornonce

On a side note, I don't believe this is an adaptation of any Romero film. Yes, they did it in a mall. If they would have done it in a pub, would Shawn of the Dead be able to sue?

The mall location is the best for their millions of weapons idea, and just allow for a better atmosphere for this style of zombie game/flick. Yes, I did feel like Romero's work was referenced, if not just taken. But that is what makes a genre a genre. If anything makes it feel like a Romero flick, it is because they wanted to go that route. They didn't want it to feel like the 28 days later bum rushing zombies. They wanted the slow and stupid Romero zombies. And with their Resident Evil series they have done sneaky scary zombies... So, basically a lawsuit like this is bunk. They are just trying to silence other creative minds who make stuff better then them.

Justcrim

tme2nsb

cybereal

Phiedny

My South Park example was more to illustrate the "pre-emptive stfu" than anything else.

Anyways, I think people simply miss the point of that disclaimer. Given the other Kotaku report on how MKR has been barking loudly for quite some time, that disclaimer was very likely necessary to avoid immediate litigation and release the game. No matter what anyone says, you can always bring a case to court and waste everyone's time and money.

I could, for example, file a suit against Nike for making my shoes too tight, thus causing low circulation, resulting in numbness in my baby toe. As ridiculous as this sounds, if I pursued it, Nike would either a) pay me to shut me up, b) litigate me until I go bankrupt, or c) fight my idiotic claim in court. Even if I have not a single leg to stand on, I can waste everyone's time by presenting a case and eventually having it thrown out.

Nobody wants to go to court.

It's likely, especially in light of MKR raising a suit now instead of then, that Capcom was probably threatened with an injunction if they didn't throw that disclaimer (or something) onto the box. Honestly, MKR seems interested in simply wasting everyone's time. Remember that the suit is claiming that Capcom has copied DotD. If anything, the disclaimer is probably the key thing to get the entire case thrown out.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

Thats different, they didnt put a disclaimer "Not realted, based or similar too Night of the Living Dead".

Your no Professor Layton, think of something Capcom has done this game that they didn't do for any other game.

Luckydan

Well we could argue this until its black and blue, the only way we could prove our points is in the end of the case.

The disclaimer is probably the worse idea ever, if its not a independent idea then why put it on the cover of box of Dead Rising in the first place? Thats what I be thinking as a MKR Rep. Its a bad move trying to prove your game is not a copy then shove a disclaimer on it. Its the first game ever I've seen that disclaimer on the box and probably why this lawsuit is about. I'm more or less correct cause every site is narrowing in on that disclaimer

South Park example is weak cause they do balantly copy celebraties based on their actions and thus needed to put that in the show for defamation. Thus you also have the papparizi program as well.

Luckydan

@Trekka:

OMG ROFL

Billkwando

ostartero

boopadoo

Kirkpad

/ignore Me

either way, the long and short. Dead Rising in no way made me think of Romero. or his movies. It made me think of AOMG ZOMB13S! Wheres the lawn mower!

Ayers

We the community understand your suckitude has evolved (see Dusk of the Dead for details) however, it is better to fade away this time, and not burn out.

Dead rising did for zombies what you could not do again. Make it entertaining.

I am sure you plan to sue Resident Evil creators Capcom now because Dusk of the Dead took place in a City, and RE took place in a city as well.

Frivolous lawsuits these days... Making Thompson proud since 07...06? O well..

Ayers

Witness: Yeah! So there's no way Mack could have done it! Because zombies are too slow!
Phoenix: OBJECTION! *Present 28 Days Later DVD*

SuperMaxZero

Wow, you're obviously the most intelligent and reasonable person here. I even had to create an account just to state that fact. *applause* I completely agree with every word that came from your fingertips as I'm sure many other people do, too. Keep up the good work.

Necrokutan

But, it's also not good to equate Romero into conspiracy against Capcom, seeing as how Romero doesn't even own the rights to Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. MKR owns them, wholly, which is why we're getting remakes of those two, plus sequels, with Romero having little, or no involvement in the actual movie.

It's actually kind of sad. Because Romero is one of the few directors who know how to make a zombie movie.

Llydis

Wolfers

NeverSage

darthmole12

madnesshero

YamiNoSenshi

Maybe I can nominate your comment instead, haha!

@gamadaya:

Again, I have to disagree. Just because a work is similar to another does not mean that anyone need be approached. For example, the Doom series, specifically Doom 3, features "marines in space fighting monsters." Sounds a whole lot like Aliens to me. Do you believe that id Software should have approached James Cameron or Fox to create their game? Following your convictions, it would be hypocrisy to say no, but I believe it would be the honest answer. I could be wrong, but that's beside the point. Surely, id Software could have easily placed a disclaimer on the box and in the game stating that the game had nothing to do with Fox or the Aliens franchise, and it wouldn't change a single thing.

Similarly, Capcom didn't have to put a disclaimer on their game, but in doing so, they performed somewhat of a service for consumers like yourself who automatically made the association with DotD. Again, a disclaimer is not an admission of guilt, but a pre-emptive move to keep potential problems at bay, one of which would be people who are picking up the game simply because they believe they're in for an experience like DotD and/or a Romero follow-up. Given how different the game is from DotD, you can rest assured that people would be upset if they bought it on the premise that it was going to be like DotD. The association, I will admit, is undeniable, but it in no way constitutes a copyright infringement. This is why the argument fails.

Allow me to make one more point with regards to why people seem to be flaming you (I believe I've been very civil). As stated in my first comment, I believe you are taking a purposely ignorant view of the situation in that, as many people have ponted out to you, you have not played the game. To put this into perspective, imagine if I were to pass a negative judgment on the Bible, but openly admit that I have never read it (I have, but I'm not religious and not in its entirety) and only have common knowledge... for example, if I were to say we should worship Satan because without him, we'd have no sex. You can bet such a bold claim would be instantly refuted by those who HAVE read the Bible and given that I've said this in the middle of Vatican City, there's bound to be some hostility. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but rather that it's not fully-informed and it's been voiced in a place where there are a LOT of people that know more about the game than you do.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

Petezah

Hagame

Somebody tell that to Quentin Tarentino.

Petezah

SuperMaxZero

Thank you, land of the trademarked, and home of the compliant!

I remember playing an Eight Legged Freaks shockwave flash game that was basically shooting waves of spiders in a mall. Those guys should sue Romero for making waves of inhuman attackers in a mall with mall culture commentary and comedic over the top violence.

fuchikoma

NoBullet

zonetrooper5

HoxtonHero

Ok guys, in case there would be a real zombie invasion, whatever you do: DON'T GO TO THE MALL! Because if you happen to survive it, the MKR Group lawyers make you wish you didn't. X_x

P.S.
Imho, a certain person here desperately longs for the taste of the ban hammer. -_-

neojam

OMGitsDarkMatter

Arcadian

All you are left is the mall scenario itself.
DotD: A group of survivors coping with the disintegration of society and the worst in people.
DR: Frank West is trying to get the scoop of the century on what the zombie plague is and how it all started.

If you want your brain to hurt, you can say George A. Romero's new movie Diary of the Dead takes inspiration from the idea of Frank West documenting the zombie plague in DR.

Tepoz

brandonf

MountainCool

Tepoz

Now I've watched the original Dawn of the Dead and it's remake and neither are dark comedies. All George A. Romero's zombie flicks are about the human condition and the corruption of society (greed, selfeshness, racism, ect.).

The similarties of the Dawn of the Dead movies and Dead Rising have to with zombies, a mall and a helicoptor.

The differences of the Dawn of the Dead movies and Dead Rising are:
DotD: Focus on group of survivors in mall and their daily lives in coping with the world.
DR: Focus on a reporter Frank West and his uncovering the plot on how zombies came to be.
DotD: (remake) Saving one person in another building with noone alive in mall.
DR: Saving numerous people inside the mall and outside the mall. Saving people from killers and cultists.
DotD: (original)Biker gang in mall at beginning mall scene that all die.
DR: Cultists, terrorists, government agents, all out to kill Frank West.
DotD: No idea for zombie plague.
DR: Frank West founds out plot of where the zombie plague comes from.

I can keep going but you get the point. If anything there is an homage but nothing you can sue for copyright infringement.

Tepoz

gamadaya

@dunetiger : apples are red:
Alright, lets say all of that is true. I don't agree with it, but that's just my opinion. Capcom is still going to have to explain why exactly it says on the box that DR isn't related to DotD. If it's so different that nobody would get the two confused, they shouldn't have put the disclaimer on the box. If they needed to put the disclaimer on the box, they shouldn't have made the game without getting permission from MRK. It's obvious by now that a disclaimer or warning on a box doesn't mean anything (ESRB ratings fiasco that has been going on for years). A lot of the points I argued were my opinion, and a judge might disagree, but this point is obvious to anyone. I'm not mad at people who say Capcom will win, I fucking mad as hell at people who are saying there is no case here and then go on to flame me for giving a counter example, then go on to accuse me of flaming them. No shit I'm going to fucking flame you! You insulted me! There is obviously a case, and MRK obviously stands a chance if Capcom, the makers of the game and the defendents in the lawsuit, put a disclaimer on their box because the specifically saw this coming.

gamadaya

Let's examine the factors:

1)2 years after the game's release? Really now, if it's that much of an infringement, go after it right away, take it to court the day you see the infringement. Unless you're only suing because you want $$$, rather than actually believing what you're saying.

2)Zombies in a mall. Yeah. It's a specific scenario, but just having copyright on a movie that features it (and its remake), doesn't give you copyright carte blanche on the whole concept.

3)Re: the previous section of my post, zombies in a mall is the absolute most similarity they're going to find (going from what I've read, both here and on various review sites and Wikipedia - that last being peripheral, not a primary research source, as I, as well as everyone else, know that Wiki can be unreliable)...

OmegaX123

Frank

MURDERFACE

Cathaoir

MURDERFACE

unmarkedone

azthegame

dgonchild

Gaz

ghostgirl

DanteIX

Ulquiorra Schiffer

ghostgirl

It... doesn't make sense?

Komrade_Kayce

Ulquiorra Schiffer

see

@Zantagor:

Romero rather enjoyed the 'nod' DR gave. This is indeed lawyers trying to make a buck/pr stunt.

Komrade_Kayce

I wonder how Romero feels about this, considering he's got a movie in theaters currently, and this isn't good publicity. :/

ghostgirl

No, this has more to do with stupid lawyers.

Zantagor

Thank you for being such a wonderful voice of reason in this comments section.

No, really. If I could nominate a 'Commenter' of the week instead of 'Comment', you'd get a tip of my hat, sir.

Komrade_Kayce

I don't think a disclaimer is an admission of guilt in any sense. It's there to pre-emptively shut you up, like the opening paragraph in South Park or the warning splash before a game of Resident Evil. I think it's more that Capcom is aware that people will make a connection due to the setting and explicitly state, "No. It's not that at all. This is something else entirely." In another way, it's also a way of telling legal departments that they're wasting their time; that is, of course, if the disclaimer is used smartly. You can't, for example, say "This isn't Star Wars" and then go make Star Wars. It's got nothing to do with bias - it's just a weak suit.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

blackadvent

SAKY

Learn this budding journalists, leave your bias at the door.

x999x

Ok, lets apply those laws to Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead. The idea itself is that there are zombies massing on a town and the townsfolk go and hide in a shopping mall, thats the idea itself, the whole concept thats NOT covered by the Copyright. Any direct similarities after this point are copyright infringement.

But as far as i remember, there are none, you could argue that the helicopter would be, however, in DotD the Helicopter is in place there, in DR the helicopter comes to pick up Frank West in direct relation to the story setup, thus not the same. If anyone knows of any points, please do tell.

@gamadaya
Since you haven't played the game, your in no position to make comments regarding the similarities, your knowledge of the legal system is also incorrect (like i just explained) the fact is that the zombies & mall, are the general idea, thus not protected.

Scarleth

geoffcbassett

Woylez

Anyways, about your theoretical question "Would a person who is only vaugely familiar with either of the properties confuse them?" I think this principle can hold true in other cases than just this one. For example, many computer companies are now offering all-in-one computer case designs (Sony, Dell) that resemble iMacs. Should Apple sue for this? Someone who is not computer savvy could mix these up. Yet, they are fundamentally different. One could argue other companies are benefiting from Apple's design. Of course, this argument and any other I can come up with are purely rhetorical but that's the general idea I'm going with. I may not agree with you about this lawsuit but I don't think you're an idiot.

@Luckydan: I never thought of the disclaimer like that. I always regarded it as something put there because of paranoia, and it seemed unnecessary to me. Either way, there's a lawsuit now so if it was some kind of paranoid lawsuit-preventer it's pointless now.

天雷

Ares

Aresef

Klappstuhl

The reason people are saying, 'You can't copyright locations.' is because that's where the striking similarities between the two works ends, other then having zombies in it. You can't copyright zombies in a mall, and that's the only tenebrous connection between Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead. Period.

rlh445

Good luck Capcom.

Sniper_Zegai

I just don't see how you can win a legal case purely based on generalities. Simply because an audience may mistake DR for a DotD game doesn't necessarily push things into MRK's favor. If that were the case, Mattel would be able to shut down anyone who makes a doll in a pink box.

Yes, the audience perception is a large part of copyright protection, but the specifics will need to be addressed and quite simply, there's no argument against it. Zombies in a mall, while definitely Romero's original concept, cannot be the only thing that MKR stands on, nor, as you believe, will it be enough for a favorable ruling. It's as loose an argument that anyone who put a UFO in a movie owes money to the Ed Wood estate (or whoever first put a UFO in a movie). As creative media, similarities will exist, but at no point does DR make any claim to be a treatment of DotD. In fact, it explicitly states otherwise. The promotion of the game makes no such claims and doesn't reflect, at all, the promotion of DotD. Like people have said, the only thing that is similar between DR and DotD is "zombies in a mall." You can't win a suit like that and if MRK miraculously did, it would set the most horrible legal precedent.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

HoboGamer

Phiedny

what ever happened to parody laws?

PGGB

And the way they happily sell the name off to any film with zombies in it... I like the remake but it has no reason to use the name other than marketing. Capcom games aren't their brand therefore it must be destroyed. Sad that they piss on their own cornflakes without thinking about how that brand has natural cross market appeal which could be exploited with only a little thought.

They can sue Capcom when they have a Dawn of the Dead game for me to play instead. If you won't do it for yourself then STFU when someone does it for you.

Spoffoth

gamadaya

suburbancowboy

A really clear cut example is the whole Armageddon-Deep Impact thing. Both involve meteors hitting earth.

If you notice, neither was sued for copyright infringement. Same premise, same conflict, vastly different plotline.

Same thing applies to DR and DotD. Same premise, same conflict, vastly different plotline.

MKR is an investor relations firm representing small and micro-cap companies. What better way to boost your status/recognition than to sue a major company than with a frivolous lawsuit that has a practically 0% chance of winning? I don't think its money grubbing, I think its a publicity stunt.

Phiedny

gamadaya

EmeraldDragon

I wanted to have fun, Capcom.

Bergerac

gamadaya

Tei

Galactica infringes Star Trek and 2001: S.O.

PCs infringe the Apple II

Cellphones infringe the miniature batphone.

Retarded lawyers infringe Jack Thompson.

realyst2k

Both works provided thoughtful social commentary on the 'Asian culture' zeitgeist, in addition to serving up a sizable portion of sensationalistic violence."

Holy Crap! I just applied it to... every action film ever!

DimensionWarped

gamadaya

I still wonder why Capcom felt the need to put the Dawn of the Dead disclaimer on the packaging of DR.. I guess it was a courtesy to Romero. But I have a feeling that if they never put the disclaimer on the box, this wouldn't be happening - I mean, Capcom themselves admit the similarities right there on the box. And when you really think about it, the game isn't REALLY all that similar to the movie in the first place.

Zombies. Shopping mall. The similarities really become subjective after that.

Anyways, the lawsuit is complete BS any way you slice it.

cornunderscore2x

I disagree. They put it on the box in order to avoid a frivolous lawsuit like this one. If MKR really felt this strong about the game, why did it take them two years to raise this suit?

Capcom isn't stupid, either. I'm sure they put the design doc and every step in between through their legal department. That's not to say that they are totally in the clear, but rather to say by the time this thing hit shelves, Capcom likely had a very solid defense for any claims made again them - and it looks like they'll have to put it to work.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

The smart solution would be for MRK to ask Capcom to develop the sequel with them and brad it Dead Rising: Dawn of the Dead...win win.

Shinamano

I_Hate_This_Place

Luckydan

You miss the point. You know absolutely nothing about the game beyond the promotional material you've seen (like screenshots) and possible hearsay. A judge would not make any ruling based on what little you know. The attorneys presenting will make arguments based on the specific claims that the plaintiffs believe constitute legal grounds for a ruling that DR is guilty of infringement. Likewise, the defense will make arguments based upon those of the plaintiff. Only after sufficient cases have been made by both sides of the argument will the judge make a ruling.

You, on the other hand, make no such informed decision, despite the fact that numerous facts about the game have been posted in this thread. Instead of presenting arguments based on those of the people defending Capcom (for example, addressing the obvious dissimilarities in plot like the presentation of psychopaths, the origins of the zombie virus, etc.), you conveniently (and ignorantly) ignore that which ruins your argument. A judge would kick you out of his court room in a second.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

I_Hate_This_Place

You want to know what I think? Probably not. I'll say it anyways - this is a gaming blog, so people might tend to defend Capcom over MKR. Let's even ignore the bias towards either party and just look at copyright law and how it functions:

Copyright usually protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself - in US jurisprudence this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. For example, if a writer has a general concept or idea for a television program, the law of copyright does not prohibit other writers from copying that general idea. However, if the writer develops the idea so that it constitutes a detailed storyline or plot, then that may be protected by copyright, notwithstanding that it is "idea" rather than "expression". Similarly, the translation of a literary work will constitute an infringement of copyright, notwithstanding that no element of the "expression" is directly copied. (from Wikipedia)

So, Dead Rising is similar to MKR's Dawn of the Dead. Does it directly lift plot, characters, and other defining elements from the movie? No. Is the general idea similar? Yes. MKR didn't copyright zombies in a mall, they copyrighted a story about people trying to survive a zombie outbreak and a mall just happens to be part of a plot. DR is about a photojournalist who is trying to not only survive, but rescue as many others as possible and figure out what's going on.

This lawsuit is frivolous bullshit, and you don't have to agree with me on that opinion but if you want to disagree back it up with facts and references, not insults and flames.

天雷

Thats like asking to be sued. I hate to say it but if Capcom got sued its due to their own stupidity for putting the statement above in the back of the box.

Luckydan

Can't copyright a location. Not the same characters, not the same play, barely similar situation (zombie siege).

Romero is going to embarrass himself more than anything.

He should be writing zombie games, not suing them.

ScottG13

valuepack

InEffectMode

gamadaya

gamadaya

gamadaya

If you haven't played the game, you can't possibly know if this is copyright infringement or not. A similar setting does not make the cut. It does not make you a better judge because, unlike the legal judge, you have not been presented with the facts. What you've written is simply ignorance.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

No way they can win this. The plot's are radically different. Sure, Dead Rising may have some "homages" to the movie, but if you're going to sue over that then you just as well sue every video game that has ever used a line from Aliens.

This sux.

Black_Ops_19

In fact, if what you said is true (MKR has the right to sue because all they need is 'zombies and malls') then MKR should also be suing Mel Brooks' son Max for writing the Zombie Survival Guide as that contains plenty about zombies AND different places to hole up to survive them, including malls. Sorry..it just doesn't hold water.

rlh445

gamadaya

yeah. what he said. where were the hundreds of bee queens and larva popping out of zombie heads in DoTD?

Komrade_Kayce

Are you fucking kidding me.

1. You haven't played the game. You're officially as bad as Jack Thompson and that fox news woman that made sex claims about Mass Effect. You're giving an opinion on something you haven't even bothered to investigate. Seriously. It would be like if I looked at the cases of two dvd's and said 'well, these both have al pacino making an angry face, with some guy getting shot *in* the face behind him, so this must be some copyright infringement'.

2. The only similarities between DR and DoTD (HUGE fan of both, have Euro version of DoTD) are

- a mall
- zombies
- survival
- yes, there is a helocopter in both OMGZ but in DR, it shows up and leaves at 12 noon on the third day, weather you're on the rooftop or not (in DoTD, they all got into the chopper and left. Nobody came to 'get' them)

That being said, when you break it down, it is impossible to have one of these concepts without the other

Zombies goes hand in hand with Survival. So cross survival off your list. The only thing these works of fiction really have in common is the mall, and zombies. Are you telling me that nobody else on the face of the earth should ever be allowed to use a shopping mall as a setting for a zombie attack ever again just because Romero did once?

Dude. Even if DoTD had never come out, the FIRST place I would go in a zombie outbreak would be a mall. It would have everything. Its common sense.

3. There is no 'main character' of DoTD. No Frank West persona. No dude with a camera trying to cover the story of a zombie outbreak by taking pictures of everything. No psychopaths guarding sections of the mall in DoTD, like there is in DR. Peter (in DoTD) doesn't run around the mall looking for survivors. The story of DoTD is about a few people trying to survive by barricading themselves in the mall. The story in DR is Frank West is trying to save as many people as possible, and cover as much of the story as possible, in the three days before the chopper arrives. THATS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

But there is no way any of us are going to be able to convince you. You're arguing that your ignorance of DR leads you to beleive that it is very similar to DoTD. We can all agree that you're an idiot, but we can't make *you* agree that you're an idiot.

Komrade_Kayce

In my opinion they are desperately looking for cash because the DotD franchise is a stagnated piece of shit.

There's no way they're going to win... right?!

Grind_Axis

I_Hate_This_Place

-zombies caused from cow meat
-religious cult that takes over the mall
- a reporter who's covered wars and stuff
- a latino couple who happen to be terrorists
- various psychotic personalities
-etc, etc, etc.

I_Hate_This_Place

Star Trek sues Mass Effect:
In both franchises humans where able to travel through space thanks to alien technologie. In both franchises humans become part of an intergalactic federation, with big space stations, where multiple alien races live together.

Whoever came up with the first football game sues EA:
XXX developed a interactive software inspired by the sport "football", in wich two teams compete within a simulation of real life rules. EA used this concepts of turning the popular sport into a game on several occasions, and XXX demand 8 billion dollars for damages.

Ralph Baer sues all:
Ralph Baer who invented the so-called "video games" holds the rights to software, that entertains you by giving you control over a virtual element and perfom different tasks with a joystick, keyboard or other. peripherals. Baer expects a sum of 2 trillion dollars combined from all major companies (even the closed ones)

Fadobo

gamadaya

rlh445

gamadaya

DtotheP

When I played through Dead Rising, I compared it to every zombie flick and book I'd ever seen or read. It brings a lot to the table, and a lot of it was awesome, and NONE of it stank of plagiarism. Mall, zombies, and that's about it..unless they honestly think that killing zombies with a table umbrella is theirs and theirs alone..and I can't even remember that happening in the zombie flicks I've seen.

rlh445

and attention aspiring film and game makers, feel free to pay homage to the classics but if you take the specific settings and premise of an established classics, have the sense to contact the rights holders first.

i know if i saw a movie about a plumber named john, who incidentally saves a princess from a dragon while eating mushrooms and throwing fire, i might think it was a bit of a rip; even if there was a disclaimer saying it was not developed, approved, or licensed by nintendo & miyamoto.

DtotheP

Sloopydrew

gamadaya

For me, a movie has to actually draw laughs to be considered any kind of comedy. Dark or otherwise.

TRT-X

FIDOTHETANK

Well after playing it, myself, I found that while it made me think of Dawn of the Dead, the only reason it made me think that was because there were zombies, malls, killing and hilarity. The plot was completely different and the only way the gameplay was similar was that you had to kill the zombies with whatever you could get your hands on. I don't think one company should have the rights to killing zombies.

Inhert

Nayl

I_Hate_This_Place

SaintEmpire

rentahero1

gamadaya

gamadaya

If you haven't played the game then kindly shut-up.
------------------------------------------------
Yep, I sure as hell remember a journalist who took pictures for points and had to meet interview deadlines to get to the bottom of the story in Dawn of the Dead. Not to mention fighting a crazy guy on a tank /sarcasm

The only thing these two have in common is zombies and the mall.

I_Hate_This_Place

Deltakiral

gamadaya

Oh, hold on a second. None of those things happened in Dawn of the Dead! I guess that makes the stories significantly different, doesn't it?

Don't all good zombie movies have a reasonable amount of humour?

VoidMunashii

otakucode

@james castle:
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. Thank you. If even Capcom, who made the freaking game, see the simularities, I would think the average consumer would as well.

gamadaya

"Dead Rising looked really cool"

"From what I've heard"

So how do you know Capcom broke the law when you haven't even played it.?

Inhert

PooPooKaKaBumBum

"Homage" only gets you so far.

james castle

gamadaya

gamadaya

valuepack

Dibs on zombies in space, and zombies in dinosaur times. In fact you know what, any situation involving zombies that isn't in a mall? Yea i've got dibs.

Zim

Still, ridiculous. I hate annoying lawsuits like this.

duckmouth