COD: Modern Warfare: Reflex Edition: User Videos: Title End: Word

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Watch some more missions, mostly single player, on this guy's YouTube profile as he has good quality uploads. So, yeah, the game's officially out yet we still don't have any official media, though there was a little advert for it on IGN (just showing the cover, no in-game stuff). Meh, Activision.

Single player:

Multiplayer:
Personally, I applaud Treyarch's understaffed and underfunded work, and I'm baffled by Activision and how they're treating the Wii this way despite the relative success of the Call of Duty franchise on it. It's a competent port considering it's a game designed for far more powerful systems that even the "HD consoles" couldn't run in anything but sub-HD resolutions, but it could have been a lot better with some real support from Activision: enough time to include all the content, and some more staff members to actually re-create some of the assets in better looking low end versions instead of simply downgrade all the high end geometry and assets. I don't know if I want this to sell. World at War did well, all things considered. Yet, Activision's attitude shouldn't be rewarded. On the other hand, Treyarch's effort should be. If it doesn't sell, (despite the lack of marketing, the lack of official media a few days before release, the fact it's a 2 year old game sold at full price despite the fact they spent pennies for it, etc) they'll blame the Wii as a platform. On the other hand, if this is how they treat this part of the market, do we want them onto it? Then there are all the other publishers who will be watching its performance, and it's going to be arguably the best Wii FPS yet (excluding Metroid Prime 3's single player focus). Questions, questions. Kudos to Treyarch anyway, I already have the game but I'm sure others will enjoy it just like WaW. This port is solid and will probably do well for itself despite Activision's bad handling and thanks to Treyarch alone. It's sad because it could have been much more if it was handled better.

#2 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

I don't quite get your point. It's actually a worse port than WaW, or what?

#3 Posted by CitizenKane (10501 posts) -

That's a lot of colons in the title.

#4 Edited by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

That dudes got a cute pussy. 
 
It's hard to tell how good it actually looks on that video with that 14inch set up,  Anyway. I do know the game would look better if it used Wii Motion Plus, the lag on the gun rotation looks nasty. 
 
I'm shocked that Singer make TV's!, I thought they made sowing machines.   
 
EDIT: 
 
LOL @ Captain Price!

#5 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Alex:
What is your point then? That the game could have been better if it was better supported, funded, given more time?

#6 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

playing wii, and especially a game like this, must totally fucking suck on that tiny shitty tv. 

#7 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -

Activision and IW seem to be doing some things to Treyarch. Treyarch was told NOT to put their logo on the opening screen! What's worse, the only screens for the game are those of "pre-alpha" which according to the developers and the videos, look very little of the actual game.
 
I can't understand why they would do such a thing, and if they really are doing, why Treyarch isn't suing them....

#8 Posted by T0mF5 (928 posts) -

The glass could have looked better.
#9 Posted by Mushir (2389 posts) -

Is the game out on torrents? Is that how the guy got a hold of the game?
 
Anyways thanks for posting the video. Looks good.

#10 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 Is the game out on torrents?


Yup.
#11 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me.

#12 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Why put out the sequel when they can milk their old material on top of that? Anyway, this game was done and free for the porting, IW probably wouldn't let Treyarch anywhere close their new baby, and they sure as hell wouldn't port it on their own given past comments. But yeah, how this port has been handled is bafflingly stupid in every way, from the funding and time frame to the pr and marketing, and even the pricing (a 2 year old port that cost pennies for full price?!). It's almost as if they want it to fail as much as possible. If Treyarch cared as much as IW and Activision this port would have been far worse, but they managed to offer something pretty damn solid by the looks of things so far... Kudos to them alone.

#13 Posted by BigBoss1911 (2408 posts) -

My god those graphics.

#14 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

The decisions of companies try to reflect market realities.  Investing money, advertising, development studio choices...  They're not taking much of a risk, and their potential rewards will be smaller.  They don't want it to fail, they're just not willing to invest a lot of resources in a product that has very little chance of large success.  Often times that will cut a game off at the legs, but generally the whole potential wasn't a lot better.
 
Too many gamers take these decisions personally, but if you open your eyes you can see why these things are done.  Sometimes companies misjudge potential, but in those cases the market will correct itself.

#15 Posted by natetodamax (19169 posts) -

Looks pretty good for a Wii game.

#16 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@Diamond said:

" The decisions of companies try to reflect market realities.  Investing money, advertising, development studio choices...  They're not taking much of a risk, and their potential rewards will be smaller.  They don't want it to fail, they're just not willing to invest a lot of resources in a product that has very little chance of large success.  Often times that will cut a game off at the legs, but generally the whole potential wasn't a lot better.  Too many gamers take these decisions personally, but if you open your eyes you can see why these things are done.  Sometimes companies misjudge potential, but in those cases the market will correct itself. "

Ignoring your baseless personal take on the subject, there's also the saying you need to spend money to make money. And no, it makes no sense to get a million seller on any system and decide to cut down support instead of push it further, unless the game involved was a gigantic budget effort, which none of the COD ports on Wii have been, considering COD 3 was ported with a staff of 2 people, and things probably haven't gotten that much better since. A million sales may not be 10, but it's a shitload of money. Therefor, it does appear stupid to not reinforce the clearly existing market on this platform but instead provide even less support for it. Nobody said they should launch a multimillion dollar campaign on prime time TV to rival Modern Warfare 2's hype, but not even releasing a single screenshot or video with the game a few days from its official release (and actually already in stores with some breaking the street date) does appear weird to say the least. It's not many games that are out in the hands of the public before any official screenshots. If the most succesful franchises ever rely on multi million dollar campaigns to do the numbers they do, how does one expect to build an audience on a platform they have neglected, yet have signs of success, without spending almost anything on marketing for it? Yet, you somehow have already decided that audience just isn't there. What can I say, but lol.

The "they want it to fail" notion was an obvious exageration, and it wasn't stated as if it's true considering the "as if" prefix, but at the very least the way this has been handled reeks of incredibly bad decisions. The franchise has shown nothing but potential on the platform despite bad treatment, starting with lazy PS2 ports for 3, then the complete skipping of 4, then a port that could have been good for 5 but lacked a ton of content so it was likely unfinished, then a 2 year late port for 4 sold for full price. None of that screams "we made a good decision and deserved better sales" than the, all things considered, good sales they got so far. The notion that they make all the money they need on HD platforms as some people would say is also misguided considering an extra million of sales for negligible additional cost is not something any company would willingly pass on, even ignoring that it could well do far better with some additional funding (it doesn't mean Modern Warfare 2 caliber). If Modern Warfare Wii miraculously sells as good as World at War did, or even better, then it will be despite Activision's handling, not because of it.
#17 Posted by Godwind (2597 posts) -
@RHCPfan24 said:
" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "
It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game.
#18 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -
@Godwind said:
" @RHCPfan24 said:
" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "
It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "
Whoa...I want to meet those people, seriously.
#19 Posted by Chaser324 (6264 posts) -
@Godwind: They're probably also hoping to piggy back on the marketing and hype for MW2.
Moderator
#20 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -
@RHCPfan24 said:
" @Godwind said:
" @RHCPfan24 said:
" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "
It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "
Whoa...I want to meet those people, seriously. "
I never played MW2. I'm not sure about trying this one, but who knows. I have an Xbox 360, but shooters and dual analog control is not my thing.
#21 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Al3xand3r: 
 
#1. As far as development goes, the amount of people they put into developing the Wii port seems fine, based on the video above, because the game looks great for a Wii game.  Why would you complain that they didn't put the resources in when the end product looks fantastic?
#2. How are screenshots or movies going to sell a game like this, which to the hardcore market can obviously not live up to their high expectations?  The people that would buy the Wii version of COD4 over the very old other versions aren't going to be people who go on sites looking for screenshots.
#3. As far as a mainstream market push, and the way Wii games sell over time if at all, either you have a sustained high budget marketing campaign or you don't bother.  There is NO potential for massive day one sales, so you can't do the traditional marketing burst.  Either you go like Mario & Sonic Olympics and spend tons on pummeling people with marketing for months or you don't spend a lot on it at all.
#4. The market for these games on WIi is obviously limited, it should be clear to everyone by now.  On the high end it's a million and on the low end a few thousand, depending on the game.  They haven't neglected the market that's available, every chance has been given for Wii to prove itself in this way.  You pour many millions into marketing and you're going to get more sales, but it's still not a very rewarding investment for the companies.
#22 Posted by Karmum (11516 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

" Video in the OP deleted once again... No other good videos up to replace it with yet... Here's a decent glimpse of a multiplayer map...

"
Honestly, it doesn't even look that bad. Maybe even fun. Is that guy playing against bots?
#23 Posted by Milkman (16484 posts) -

You really don't understand why Activision didn't put a lot of resources into developing this port? Anyone who cares about Modern Warfare owns a Xbox 360 or PS3. I doubt there are many Wii-only owners who care about Modern Warfare. 
 
Besides, it doesn't even look that bad. Stop complaining.

#24 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

My god these videos are getting taken down faster than something that gets taken down fast. 

#25 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I wonder if you'd say it "looks fantastic" if this wasn't your argument first. It doesn't look fantastic. It looks solid given the harsh circumstances. And yes, it's common sense that decent funding and staffing will have better results than shitty of either. Being better, having more content, more features, being somewhat marketed, being acknowledged by its company even, and being offered at a REASONABLE price would somehow hurt its revenue potential? And what IS going to sell this game, if not freely available "fantastic" screenshots and videos? Nothing at all? How will people see it "looks fantastic"? Your #4 is completely baseless, misguided and imaginary to say the least, for reasons already stated, the most important of which is, there has been no "high end" yet, which you call a million seller. Those that achieved that have been far from "high end" efforts themselves. And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my post at all. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

#26 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5250 posts) -

That actually looks pretty good

#27 Posted by Godwind (2597 posts) -
@RHCPfan24 said:

" @Godwind said:

" @RHCPfan24 said:

" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "
It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "
Whoa...I want to meet those people, seriously. "
While I have played it, I don't own a copy.  My Computer is dated and could use an upgrade, also considering I tend to play old PC games over newer PC games.  There are some people who also prefered Call of Duty: World at War on the Wii over the PS3 and Xbox360.
 
 
  
 
 
 
Go to the video at 3:34.  There also people like myself who did enjoy Call of Duty for the Wii.  Meowayne would probably testify the same.
 

@Chaser324 said:
" @Godwind: They're probably also hoping to piggy back on the marketing and hype for MW2. "

Call of Duty: World at War for the Wii sold by word of mouth over  advertisements.  Most of the Wii fanbase played a few FPSes on the system only to find most of them distasteful.  Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 had a decent multiplayer and bit to boot about with 32 man multiplayer.  A lot of players intially dismissed Call of Duty: World at War because of Call of Duty 3 which received poor reviews and the limited 8 man multiplayer.  However, in due time, Call of Duty was able to be successful enough for players to take interest.
#28 Posted by AjayRaz (12416 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" All decent quality videos down now... I don't even know why they're being so agressive for this, they didn't stop the MW2 leaks so much... What's to hide? The port probably looks better than most expected, and it's not like they're keeping spoilers away since it's a 2 year old game. Wtf?! Unless they think some people will mix up the games and think Modern Warfare 2 looks like that and not buy it or something? "
that's strange, and they shouldn't even be removing the videos since the port hasn't gotten much coverage (from what i've seen, anyway.) 
#29 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

I wonder if you'd say it "looks fantastic" if this wasn't your argument first. It doesn't look fantastic. It looks solid given the harsh circumstances.

I don't know what you expect graphically, but you're not going to find that on the Wii.  The harsh circumstances are the Wii's hardware, and that's not something Activision, IW or Treyarch can fix.  They could have gone with a completely different style, but would that do the game any more justice?  No.  They could always do more but few people are ever going to be satisfied with that.  Do you have a Wii game that looks fantastic to you?  Because if not it's unlikely that day will ever come.
 
@Al3xand3r said:

being offered at a REASONABLE price would somehow hurt its revenue potential?

This is something that needs to be thought about in games development all around.  Variable retail pricing, and an overall lowering of games prices should be looked into.  Obviously sales for all games could benefit from price drops, and more money should be being put towards finding the 'sweet spot'.
 
@Al3xand3r said:

what IS going to sell this game, if not freely available "fantastic" screenshots and videos? Nothing at all? How will people see it "looks fantastic"?

Word of mouth, marketing, and probably most importantly, vague IP association.  Some person who doesn't hear gaming news at all hears people murmuring about 'Call of Duty' and that person only owns a Wii?  He's going to pick up Reflex.
 
@Al3xand3r said:

Your #4 is completely baseless, misguided and imaginary to say the least, for reasons already stated, the most important of which is, there has been no "high end" yet, which you call a million seller. Those that achieved that have been far from "high end" efforts themselves. And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my post at all. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

My #4 is based on actual data.  You might not choose to accept it, but it's fact.  Like I said, it's also a fact most people can clearly see by now.  There have been exclusive Wii games that were pushed as hard as possible, The Conduit is one example.  It was a AAA game (it's a marketing term for the uninformed) in that it got the full development, full resources, full marketing.  It sold like crap.  There have been dozens of business people and developers pointing out these market realities.
 
The success or failures of Wii game sales despite effort is precisely the problem.  The sort of slop that has sold many millions on the casual side while the hardcore games with large budgets tanking.  There is little relation between quality and success, and that doesn't inspire additional effort in the future.
#30 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I already explained how MW Wii could be better and if you don't think that's true, whatever. A current PC game run @ the lowest possible settings will yield the same performance as a few year old PC game run @ the highest settings, yet look worse. Why? Because near automatic downgrading of assets simply cannot give a result as solid as content created with those limitations in mind in the first place. It's not rocket science. A single texture artist cleaning up how the character skins look, not even creating them from scratch or anything, would have done wonders for the game's look. If that was extended to some of the environment, even better. It's an underfunded, understaffed, quick port of a game designed for far more powerful hardware with strict limitations on what could be changed and considering these harsh circumstances, it is solid. As I already said, it's common sense that decent funding and staffing will have better results than shitty of either. A few people doing surprisingly good job in the end doesn't mean it's as good as it can get without exorbitant funding. The actual visuals weren't the only thing I spoke of. Looking better, having more content (how about allowing them to include the DLC maps as there are no plans for DLC on Wii anyway), more features (if given time to optimise online performance further and add voice chat support), being somewhat marketed (maybe it could even be another game pushed with Nintendo's support, bundled with Wii Speak), being acknowledged by its company even, and being offered at a reasonable price (for a 2 year old port, not a brand-new title with a high budget as full price games can be) would only help its revenue potential. I can't give you an example of a better looking game because of the other point I keep repeating and you dispute. There are no such high end products available, not in this genre, not on Wii. I could only mention the rich and varied with relatively sharp textures worlds of Metroid Prime 3 but it's not a valid comparison because it's more of a Cube engine and it's of a completely different style of game.

What "hardcore games with large budgets" tanked? What "hardcore games with large budgets" even exist on Wii? Aside from Nintendo franchises that appeal to everyone, there's very little, if anything at all. Please don't embarass yourself further by mentioning clearly low budget, niche, and anything but "hardcore" efforts like Dead Space Extraction and MadWorld. You keep padding your nonexistent points with nonexistent imaginary facts. Even the COD games, despite the shitty effort from the publisher didn't just "tank" because if a million sales for a cheap port is "tanking" then what the hell is 2 million sales for a ground-up exclusive HD game with insane budget and marketing, like Killzone 2? How does that game warrant being considered a success that will likely get a sequel somewhere down the line that will be equally funded and praised, but Wii games that get half assed treatment do half as good and somehow aren't deserving of a chance for a better handled and better marketed sequel (if only as a proper test for the market considering there has been none despite the imaginary statistics you keep mentioning)?

And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my posts at all and even despite quoting me you took out certain elements that directly contradicted your following statements as they wouldn't let you twist what I actually said as much. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

#31 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

More bad quality off-screen footage of the singleplayer:
 

#32 Posted by AjayRaz (12416 posts) -

it actually doesn't look that bad for the wii. i'm scared to see how dummed down Crew Expendable will be, though. that mission was beautiful. 

#33 Posted by Black_Rose (7785 posts) -

It looks like ass, but so did WaW when it was first showed. I'm still looking forward to it. 

#34 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
#35 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@AjayRaz said:

it actually doesn't look that bad for the wii. i'm scared to see how dummed down Crew Expendable will be, though. that mission was beautiful.

It's probably one of the most well done single player missions in the Wii version. You'd have seen the video before it was taken down if you had checked the thread. It's a very good approximation. As for how the game looks, in my opinion it's an evident improvement from WaW.
  @Meowayne said:

Most probably the best video yet, direct feed video with HD option, multiplayer match on bloc. Unfortunatly, the user disabled embedding.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nqEO3R__0k

Agreed, really well recreated level that one. Most people don't seem to be using lean for some reason. I like the sound of the controls, tilting the nunchuck to lean should feel pretty intuitive in my opinion. If you're getting this game don't watch many single player videos (like the one above), it's a very short game and you'll spoil a lot of it if you haven't already played it elsewhere.
 
@Linkyshinks said:

Another gameplay video

Same video as in the OP, except more blurry :-P
#36 Posted by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

The game looks much too easy on that above video, I have never seen that guard that pops up from behind that cargo container wait around to be killed ever. On either the 360 or the PC versions, you get killed if you hesitate.

#37 Edited by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

Even on easy that guy would kill you on the PC version if you hesitated for a second. He comes out shooting with a machine gun. It looks like he has a shot gun now...  
 
edit; 
 
He does, how shit.

#38 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Looks almost identical to me here, if you're talking about the guy @ 4:15. He manages to fire once in that I think, but doesn't hit him. Well, if that's your biggest complaint that makes it "shit" then, sweet, those who haven't played the game and get it for Wii are in for a treat.

#39 Edited by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

It doesn't look identical to me. In the Wii version he walks towards the player with a shotgun, not a machine gun jumping out shooting on target. It looks to me like it's been made easier. 

#40 Posted by Griddler (3344 posts) -

Holy crap, that looks good for a Wii game.

#41 Posted by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

You can tell that persons never played CoD4 before.

#42 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

A ha ha, why didn't you imbed that last video, Al3x?
 

  
Thats just great that they enabled you to do that, but do not force you to. I wonder how well it works without MotionPlus.
 
Edit: Can you lean while crouching? That would make a Sniper considerably more deadly, wouldn't it?
#43 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I'm pretty sure you can lean crouched, but not when prone. Here's another decent quality video, this guy's getting good at it too. The gangsta style side shooting should work just fine without M+, it's probably based on the cursor movement much like the Wii's main menu cursor which can tell how you tilt it just fine. It probably also has a limited range so that the model and animations don't fuck up or anything while you do it.

#44 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

I know now why leaning isn't very popular. Firstly, the effect is mostly cosmetical: You find yourself leaning away from a wall yet still hitting it when you press the trigger. Secondly, you walk very slowly while leaning, and sometimes you enter leaning mode involuntarily, as it is mapped to Nunchuck tilt. Thirdly, enabling it limits the range in which the Nunchuck detects the "reload" flick. 

#45 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I edited the Crew Expendable video comment from earlier to a different version because the first was taken down. It shows that one soldier was indeed changed, he now has a pistol and fires at you a little slower, though in another video he still kills you in 2 quick shots if you don't fire. That doesn't really make the game easier, that was just a cheap death in the original, one or two shot kills where elsewhere you'd have survived, and it's only in the first mission. More frustrating if it happens to you returning you to the last checkpoint than making you play better really. Trial and error shouldn't be how this game works, and it doesn't for the most part. Anyway, I also edited out all my posts with videos that Activision has removed and added the Crew Expendable video to the OP, as well as a good quality online gameplay video, for those who are curious yet new to the thread.

Watch some more missions, mostly single player, on this guy's YouTube profile as he has good quality uploads. So, yeah, the game's officially out yet we still don't have any official media, though there was a little advert for it on IGN (just showing the cover, no in-game stuff). Meh, Activision.
#46 Posted by Linkyshinks (9881 posts) -

I saw the game in store yesterday, priced at full price 39.99. I cannot see the Wii game selling very well when 360/PC/PS3 versions are considerably cheaper, at both second hand and brand new prices. And when MW2 has just hit. This is only going to be bought by those who only own a Wii, the motion controls are no incentive to multi-plat owners.

#47 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Yep, it's ridiculous to sell a 2 year old port they spent pennies for, as good as it may have turned out, for full price. Of course they'll blame the Wii market if it doesn't sell despite the fact they have yet to show the game exists to anyone, aside from that IGN ad I mentioned in the last comment. It seems it's sent to die, reading comments on GAF there are many retailers that also don't know it exists, while those who know receive 1-5 copies.

Edit: even IGN had to put up their own videos since there are no official stuff... They're good quality visually but they're pretty short, and he's not very good in mp (and in the preview claims small cursor movements don't register sometimes, does this even happen in games with pointer controls?).

#48 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 small cursor movements don't register sometimes

 That's nonsense.
#49 Posted by Ramyun (664 posts) -

I think this looks pretty good and from what I saw from the video the aiming seems to be less jittery than most others. As a port I think IW did a fine job from what I've seen.

#50 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Some screens from GameSpot for those who can't bother with videos (eh?). A clear improvement over those beta screens.







Oh and IGN's review is up and it's even worse than their preview. On its own, the score is fine really (7), but when you consider the scores the same reviewer gave to other Wii FPS games including MoH: Heroes 2 (8.4) COD 3 (7.7) and COD: WaW (8) it's ridiculous. The text is even more ridiculous since he has complaints over aspects of the controls that are confirmed to be identical to WaW, yet he claims are worse. The same for the visuals as he's praising WaW's lighting which was nonexistent in the Wii version and is clearly improved this time. I think Bozon was on crack. It really doesn't make sense to rate a game that offers so much more than WaW (which only had 2 modes, DM and TDM, with 8 players, when MW offers all the modes with 10 players, is the most feature complete online Wii FPS, and also has no cut levels from the campaign, unlike WaW), so much less. Name the price as a factor, name that it's two years too late, name that it competes with MW2 (it doesn't, on this platform), but this review just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He also mentions crash bugs and that's the first time I hear of that issue outside badly dumped pirated copies.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.