Eurogamer does it again!

  • 129 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Kristan Reed, Eurogamer's reviewer for the original Modern Warfare, has this to say about the game:
 

 "There's no denying that Modern Warfare remains one of the best shooters available, both in single and multiplayer. "

 
And, indeed, he gave the game a 9/10. Now they send him to review the Wii version with which, to use his words:
 

 "you still get the same six-hour, three-act single-player campaign that you'd expect, and it all plays out identically throughout."

 
Not only that, but
 

" In terms of multiplayer, the Reflex Edition features exactly the same modes and maps as previous versions, in addition to drop-in, drop-out co-op campaign play where the second player controls a second cursor (also featured in the Wii version of World At War). "

He had lots of things to say about the new controls:
 

" At the novice end of the spectrum, you get presets for slow, stable camera control and control-stick aiming for scoped and turret weapons, while at the other end you get faster, tighter settings and precision aiming for all weapons - and everything in between.

You can drive yourself into uncharted realms of OCD by tweaking all manner of sliders, including the camera speed, the pointer sensitivity, the dead zone, ADS tracking and whether to turn gesture control on or off.

Cramming so many options onto the Wiimote and nunchuk can make things fiddly in the heat of battle, but for the most part it works fine. General movement and combat is intuitive and responsive."

 
 Now what might be his final verdict on that game?   
 
Score: 6/10  
Complaints: The PS2 had better-looking games, the graphics are bad, I didn't like what they did to the lighting, the graphics are bad, it doesn't look half as good as other Wii games(!) and the graphics are bad. Also, there are too many control options(!!!) and when I played online I met some people several times so surely the online must be laggy and unpopular and broken(!).
 
How can they publish such a thing? The first five paragraphs on the "review" he talks exclusively about the graphics and the rest of the "review" is 360/PS3-comparisons as well. It has been established again and again int he last couple of days that MW:Reflex is one of the better looking games on the system and that it controls extremely well, that the campaign is intact and the multiplayer works flawlessly with every mode (including DLC) present. He even admits that, and still goes on the record downscoring the game 3 points because it doesn't look like it did when he reviewed it for the other platforms.
 How does this happen? I am completely lost here.
 
 
  

#2 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I'm curious, what kind of response do you expect from this community?

Great game, great port (despite the fact it could be better with decent funding from Activision, but Treyarch still managed to do great work), and incompetent reviewers that disgrace the profession. Check Game Informer's review, with talk of how the pointer sucks (very professional) and apparently just can't do FPS games. I believe he also mentions the slow turning speed (uh, choose an advanced preset or tweak your turning speed?). Not to mention IGN rating it less than WaW and other lesser games (same reviewer!) despite the vast improvements and added features, claiming the controls aren't as robust when they can be identical or, with tweaking, better. Most scores of the port are great (despite the comment below saying otherwise based on a site that doesn't list as many prominent publications as Metacritic), hell, I don't even find IGN's score bad (though the justification compared to past ratings is pure illogical shit), but these are what brings the game's otherwise great average down. Hell, they still use the leaked alpha screens instead of the new official media or their own videos and screens. Pathetic and unprofessional to the highest degree.

#3 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
#4 Posted by oldschool (7264 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" I'm curious what kind of response you expect from this community?"
I think we all know  ^-^ 
 
I am not interested in the original version, but I sure as hell believe I would probably have more fun with this version.  That review didn't seem to match the score, but, so what's new about that?
#5 Posted by Jimbo (9769 posts) -

Nintendo Defence Squadron!  ASSEMBLE!
 
It's just a comparatively bad looking version of a game that came out two years ago, why would you expect it to rate as highly as the better-looking version did two years ago?  What's better about it to make up for marks lost due to those shortcomings?
 
Edge gave it a 6 and they're notoriously tight with their scores - a 6 from Edge really does mean 'above average' in their view.  Official Nintendo Magazine UK themselves only gave it an 8, saying "Given the extra two years Treyarch had to squeeze every last drop of polish from the Wii, this is underwhelming visually. It looks okay for a Wii game - that's the dreaded caveat - but it's not even up there with Metroid Prime: Corruption."
 
You'll probably be even angrier about Edge giving New Super Mario Bros a 7.

#6 Posted by Alex_V (614 posts) -

I think Wii titles get consistently underscored in reviews. So I agree with the general premise here.
 
But I'm not desperately keen to see a re-tread of a 2-year-old game appearing on the Wii. I would give the game a 0 for originality.

#7 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

If it makes you guys feel better, they also gave the console version of Dragon Age a 6/10.

#8 Posted by Drebin_893 (2895 posts) -

I think it deserves more, but those comparison videos just showed me how absolutely pathetic that game looks on the Wii.

#9 Posted by Alex_V (614 posts) -
@Drebin_893 said:
" I think it deserves more, but those comparison videos just showed me how absolutely pathetic that game looks on the Wii. "
I thought they looked virtually identical. On those videos at least.
#10 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" Nintendo Defence Squadron!  ASSEMBLE!
 
It's just a comparatively bad looking version of a game that came out two years ago, why would you expect it to rate as highly as the better-looking version did two years ago?  What's better about it to make up for marks lost due to those shortcomings?
 
Edge gave it a 6 and they're notoriously tight with their scores - a 6 from Edge really does mean 'above average' in their view.  Official Nintendo Magazine UK themselves only gave it an 8, saying "Given the extra two years Treyarch had to squeeze every last drop of polish from the Wii, this is underwhelming visually. It looks okay for a Wii game - that's the dreaded caveat - but it's not even up there with Metroid Prime: Corruption."  You'll probably be even angrier about Edge giving New Super Mario Bros a 7. "
Edge tend to score games from a technical stand point though.  7/10 is still a very good score for them, there only complaints were that it just was essentially a spruced up DS game and while it's fun to play, doesn't provide anything special.  Which I think is fair enough, that's how games SHOULD be scored.  A game from then will only get 10/10 if every aspect about it top notch.
#11 Posted by Drebin_893 (2895 posts) -
@Alex_V said:
" @Drebin_893 said:
" I think it deserves more, but those comparison videos just showed me how absolutely pathetic that game looks on the Wii. "
I thought they looked virtually identical. On those videos at least. "
Really? Like, 100% honestly you think they look identical?
#12 Edited by get2sammyb (6412 posts) -

Eurogamer's reviews are all over the place. They gave Ratchet & Clank: A Crack In Time 7/10 because it was "too similar". Fair enough, that would be fine - if they hadn't spent 2 pages of the review explaining all the new stuff.
 
Never, ever, ever, take a Eurogamer review seriously.
 
And I agree. The review is ridiculous.
 
However, you have to remember that 6/10 is still above average, and it is a two year old game. The actual text doesn't relate to the score though. Oh well... Just focus on the text and not the score.

#13 Posted by MachoFantastico (4479 posts) -

Always found Eurogamers reviews to be pretty true to form, yes they can be a little over the place and wild but there miles better then anything IGN write up. 
 
It's actually probably a fair score when you wonder why the hell would they bring Call of Duty to the Wii, makes little sense... though this is Activision we are talking about. Seems a waste of development time. 

#14 Posted by Alex_V (614 posts) -
@Drebin_893 said:
" @Alex_V said:
" @Drebin_893 said:
" I think it deserves more, but those comparison videos just showed me how absolutely pathetic that game looks on the Wii. "
I thought they looked virtually identical. On those videos at least. "
Really? Like, 100% honestly you think they look identical? "
Yeah, virtually. What's the difference? You can see some of the moulding on the gun better in one than the other. But they're similar enough that I doubt it would affect the gameplay at all.
 
I think people generally get too hung up on graphics. Or rather, technical specifications of graphics. These are often utterly irrelevant to a game experience.
#15 Posted by oldschool (7264 posts) -
@Drebin_893 said:
" @Alex_V said:
" @Drebin_893 said:
" I think it deserves more, but those comparison videos just showed me how absolutely pathetic that game looks on the Wii. "
I thought they looked virtually identical. On those videos at least. "
Really? Like, 100% honestly you think they look identical? "
Holy crap, the PS3 version looks better, sharper, better colour et cetera.  What a surprise.  It isn't that the game looks horrible on the Wii, it just looks better on the PS3.  How it controls may be debatable though.  I prefer shooting with the wiimote, but I am not a fan of these types of games.
#16 Posted by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

Are you really suprised?

 
Of couse an inferior looking port of a two year old game is going to be scored lower than the original.

#17 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 why would you expect it to rate as highly as the better-looking version did two years ago? 
[...]
 Of couse an inferior looking port of a two year old game is going to be scored lower than the original. 


 
No. Age and multiplatform should not at all count into the score. Its a great game. Its a good purchase. It has a lot of content. It looks good. It sounds good. It plays extremely well. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, nothing at all. 6/10 says: You probably should not buy it, because there are reasons you won't have fun with it.
And there aren't. Its a great game and one of the best purchases of the genre you can make on the respective system. The fact that it was available two years ago on other platforms should not enter into it, at all!
 
It should be mentioned in the review because they're still charging full price for it. That is something to complain about. That is really not okay.   But "It's the exact same awesome game, only I did not immediatly find the control option that suits me best, and I think the Wii can do better visually" is not in any way a reason for downscoring it from 9 to 6.
#18 Posted by Bigandtasty (3202 posts) -

My favorite part was when he complained about the graphics.

#19 Posted by Jimbo (9769 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
"

 why would you expect it to rate as highly as the better-looking version did two years ago? 
[...]
 Of couse an inferior looking port of a two year old game is going to be scored lower than the original. 

  No. Age and multiplatform should not at all count into the score. Its a great game. Its a good purchase. It has a lot of content. It looks good. It sounds good. It plays extremely well. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, nothing at all. 6/10 says: You probably should not buy it, because there are reasons you won't have fun with it. And there aren't. Its a great game and one of the best purchases of the genre you can make on the respective system. The fact that it was available two years ago on other platforms should not enter into it, at all!  It should be mentioned in the review because they're still charging full price for it. That is something to complain about. That is really not okay.   But "It's the exact same awesome game, only I did not immediatly find the control option that suits me best, and I think the Wii can do better visually" is not in any way a reason for downscoring it from 9 to 6. "
Games are always (or should be) reviewed against their peers at time of release, across all platforms.  You may want to limit the context of the review solely to competing Wii products, but why should a review source catering to a cross-platform audience take that approach?  "It's good for a Wii game" isn't some panacea that can be applied to justify scoring a game higher than it deserves.
 
Time of release makes a huge difference to your review score, because the rest of the market is always moving forward.  You think if Doom had never come out, but got released tomorrow, it would be considered a 10/10 seminal moment in gaming history?  Of course not, it looks like somebody has been sick on the screen and you can't even look up or down.  Granted, that's taking your view to the extreme, but two years is still a long time to release a substantially worse looking version of a game.  I think this game scores slightly higher if it came out in '07, I think it scores slightly higher again if it looked remotely comparable to other available FPS' on the market.
 
Personally, I don't think price should be an issue either way, as it has no effect on the quality of the game.  Reviewers should concern themselves with quality, not value.  The individual consumer is the only person in a position to make a value judgement.
#20 Posted by TheDoorman (534 posts) -

The graphics don't look bad for a Wii game. if i didnt have a xbox and just a Wii I'd probably pick it up, but i have an xbox and am playing MW 2 mostly.
#21 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -

Eurogamer is known to be almost as harsh as Nintendo Power. 
 
But I learned to stop caring about reviews when my favorite game got like 6 on my most trusted website at the time, and my favorite movie is considered one of the director's worst films by the film critics.
 
Good riddance from them.
 
Anyway, it may be an excellent port (although the graphics could be better, far better looking Wii games out there), I myself don't care for shooters.

#22 Edited by Red (5994 posts) -

I heard that the controls were not too great, and overall, the port wasn't as good as World at War's, which still was anything but flawless. 
 
My real question is who the hell is this game for? I mean, it's still M-rated, so pretty much everyone who would want to play it, has probably played the vastly superior 360/PS3 versions. 
Also: they are European.

#23 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -
@Red said:
" I heard that the controls were not too great, and overall, the port wasn't as good as World at War's, which still was anything but flawless. 
 
My real question is who the hell is this game for? I mean, it's still M-rated, so pretty much everyone who would want to play it, has probably played the vastly superior 360/PS3 versions. 
Also: they are European. "
Considering the success of World at War on Wii, and the success of the Wii in general, there are a ton of people with Wii's who haven't played this game, like say, the majority.
#24 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 Time of release makes a huge difference to your review score, because the rest of the market is always moving forward.  You think if Doom had never come out, but got released tomorrow, it would be considered a 10/10 seminal moment in gaming history?

 No, but if Modern Warfare was released today, Kristan Reed would still give it a 9/10.
 
Again: Reflex is a great game. Its a good purchase. It has a lot of content. It looks good. It sounds good. It plays extremely well. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, nothing at all. It has a great singleplayer and an excellent multiplayer. Period.  It is not a 6/10 game.
It does not push the system's boundaries for graphics, but MW didn't, either. The level design is intact. The sound design is intact. The AI is intact. The MP modes are intact. The player input is intact. The mission design is intact. They did away with texture resolution, polycount and many effects in order to bring this game otherwise unchanged to another platform, and poured a lot of work in using that platforms major selling point, the controller. And even with the reduced visual assets, most people still agree that the cinematic feel of the game is still intact.  
 
Nobody here is arguing that Reflex should get the exact same score as MW did two years ago. But to give a game that is above average in every single one of its parts a 6 out of 10 purely because you're a graphics whore and a fanboy is just retarded. And that is what that review is. It is a rethorically slightly improved version of the "lololo N64 level grafx!!1 y would u play that get a real console" posts in the Reflex topics.
 
 
EDIT
Oh my god, hilarious. You know what Kristan Reed gave Resident Evil: Archives, a nine year old re-release with badly adopted controls and graphics that do not use the Wii's potential?
 
8/10.
 
I rest my case. A fanboy review. 
#25 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -
@Willy105 said:
" @Red said:
" I heard that the controls were not too great, and overall, the port wasn't as good as World at War's, which still was anything but flawless. 
 
My real question is who the hell is this game for? I mean, it's still M-rated, so pretty much everyone who would want to play it, has probably played the vastly superior 360/PS3 versions. 
Also: they are European. "
Considering the success of World at War on Wii, and the success of the Wii in general, there are a ton of people with Wii's who haven't played this game, like say, the majority. "
Does the audience that has a Wii, and not a 360, PC or PS3, want to play a realistic, M-rated shooter that has been out for two years on other consoles?
#26 Posted by Willy105 (4688 posts) -
@Red said:
" @Willy105 said:
" @Red said:
" I heard that the controls were not too great, and overall, the port wasn't as good as World at War's, which still was anything but flawless. 
 
My real question is who the hell is this game for? I mean, it's still M-rated, so pretty much everyone who would want to play it, has probably played the vastly superior 360/PS3 versions. 
Also: they are European. "
Considering the success of World at War on Wii, and the success of the Wii in general, there are a ton of people with Wii's who haven't played this game, like say, the majority. "
Does the audience that has a Wii, and not a 360, PC or PS3, want to play a realistic, M-rated shooter that has been out for two years on other consoles? "
They can. Nothing to say they won't.
#27 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Do you really care about that? What is this argument's purpose? Maybe 360 gamers play FPS all the time and get one good platformer like Banjo Kazooie every so often to break things up or whatever. What's wrong with Wii gamers that may play a good FPS to break things up from other types of games? Activision sees enough market potential considering this is the 3rd Call of Duty on Wii, do you really need to argue there isn't such market potential? You didn't pay for the ports, and they seem to think they were worth it. Who are you to say no? Sheesh, wanna be analysts...

#28 Posted by Karmum (11516 posts) -

Does the game really look that bad? I mean, sure, the first thing I notice is the less-resolution on the textures, but it doesn't look that bad. I'm trying to wrap my head around the comments of these reviewers saying the game looks bad -- it really doesn't.
 
I haven't played the game, but the reel of footage that has been released does look nice for a Wii game. If I had not played Modern Warfare 1 so extensively, and not focusing myself with Modern Warfare 2, I'd probably give this a shot.

#29 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -

I like how it's getting punished for not looking as good as a PS3/360 game.
 
The comment that it "doesn't look as good as Metroid Prime: Corruption" is especially rich, sort of like complaining that GTA Vice City doesn't look as good as Metal Gear Solid 2. Metroid Prime Corruption takes place in tight, enclosed spaces, never displaying more than a half-dozen enemies at one time. The CoH series takes place in moderately open spaces without constant jarring load times (I'm looking at YOU, doors that don't open for 6 seconds), and frequently displays dozens of enemies and upwards of six allies at one time.  The number of enemies is an order of magnitude greater, and comes associated not just with extra polygons and lighting but with extra AI.
 
What's great about reading Wii shooter reviews is that no-matter what you do, you can't win. You're either "too small" or "not graphically powerful enough". 
 
But I'm not sure if this port is actually getting reviews all that much lower than it deserves. Doesn't look like a 6, but I don't think it looks more than an 8 either. The thing I noticed watching game-play videos is that enemies seem to react awkwardly to getting shot, aiming / iron-sighting looks horrible and the controls look wonky as shit.

#30 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
@Karmum said:

" Does the game really look that bad?"

No, it really doesn't. It certainly doesn't push the hardware, either - It uses WaW's engine which I think is a modified CoD3 engine, and in most cases it just reduces polycount, texture res, removes most lighting effects and does away with shaders completely.  What MW:Reflex shows more of, I think, is tricks and workarounds for some parts to look a bit better than just "like the PC version on lowest possible settings", that's why on many occasions, it really looks pretty good.

However, never does the game sacrifice mission and level content, and on some parts you see that the hardware is not made for these situations. In these parts, either the game looks comparably bland (especially on lighting-intense missions such as night missions) or the framerate suffers slightly (I'd estimate the worst situations at somewhere between 20 and 25 fps). In the campaign mode, mind you - I haven't experienced any performance issues/problems in the Multiplayer. 
 
So when Kristan Reed says that the game does not push the hardware and that it might have looked better in some points if it was designed for the Wii from ground up, he is certainly right. But that can be said of almost any game on any platform, and what remains - and what he refuses to even see - is that the game still looks good. It is technically inferior to The Conduit, but it looks a hundred times better.
 
It is a great looking Wii game and has one of the best console FPS controls ever. And he gave the game 6/10 because of the visuals and the controls. That is what's to mind-blowing here.
#31 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Did you see my comment about leaning in the other thread (lots of footage for there for those who want to see) Meo? Isn't lean only on Wii/PC btw? So, it even has a feature the HD consoles don't. Not that any professional bothered to mention that...

#32 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

  
Again: Eurogamer downscored the game because it wasn't similar enough to the HD versions.
#33 Posted by Jimbo (9769 posts) -
@Meowayne: If you're saying that Resident Evil: Archives on the Wii doesn't deserve an 8 then I certainly won't disagree with you.  
 
(Also, I have no idea where I got the idea you were talking about an Edge review.)
#34 Edited by Karmum (11516 posts) -
@Meowayne: 
I do believe it should get knocks for being ported two years later, but knocking it on its visuals (some of the best on the Wii), is certainly wrong in my opinion. Coming from somebody who hardly uses their Wii. The only time in that first video I knocked on how it looks was its textures, but that's not the thing you should be worrying about most, it should be the gameplay.
 
They didn't mention anything about bad glitches or clipping or anything, right? That's the visual problems you need to knock on. If they aren't mentioned, then it isn't a problem. It's a great looking Wii game, and yes -- it is inferior visually to its older counterparts. Unless it is one of the worst looking Wii games (which it isn't), visuals should be the least of the worries with this game. We know how COD4 looked like, we want to know how it plays on the Wii. Nobody was expecting it to look spectacular. Does that really detract from the gameplay? It shouldn't.
 
That's the question you really should be asking. Unless if you decide to really nitpick it visually, it looks good enough to be playable. Obviously yeah, the environment, gun models, textures (especially) all of less resolution, but it still plays like Modern Warfare, and it is still Modern Warfare.
 
If it plays well, and if the Wii Controller does its intentional job -- in this case, to work and properly aim in a shooting game, you shouldn't worry about how much less it looks like its X360/PS3 counterparts. Is there some kind of link to the review anywhere? I apologize, I wasn't really paying attention to see if their was an article presented. Honestly, I'm interested to see how Modern Warfare 2 could play on the Wii.
 
Edit - Just in case, yes, I'm aware you're against this review. This is just a jab in general.
#35 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

I actually did forget to put the link in there: Eurogamer reviews Modern Warfare: Reflex
 
And no, Reed doesn't mention any dramatical glitches or anything:

  •  "muddy visuals which don't even come close to reaching the standard reached by other Wii titles in the genre."
  • "a reasonable PS2-level job of approximating the scripted action, but even Sony's old warhorse was capable of doing a better job than this in its pomp"
  • "it's important to stress this is by no means the best possible port the system could accommodate"
#36 Posted by Godwind (2597 posts) -

This is actually a really good game.  Just not as good as its counter parts.

#37 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -

If you want to play COD4 again but with bad graphics and a wiimote, then do it.  If that eurogamer reviewer didn't like it, it's his loss right, so leave it be.

#38 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Gametrailers.com put up a good video that shows both Reflex's strengths and weaknesses, visually.  The other videos are favourable in so far as they do not show the areas where the lack of lighting and effects really does make a huge difference.
 

   
The content is identical, the controls are superior, the visuals have been reduced to a form matching the console's capabilities. Does that justify a 6/10 when the original is a 9/10 even by today's standards?
#39 Posted by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

I think if it came out 2 years ago with CoD 4 then it would have a better score, but why would anybody like playing a poor graphics version of a game you played to death 2 years ago?

#40 Posted by Milkman (16484 posts) -

Oh great, another thread complaining about Wii injustice.
 
I'll contact you when I care.
 
And before you say it, yeah, troll, for the +1, I get it.

#41 Posted by JJOR64 (18892 posts) -

Gotta love Eurogamer.

#42 Posted by lucas_kelly (769 posts) -

If you pay for a last gen quality system you are going to get last gen quality games. The game looks like a piece of shit, period.

#43 Posted by Bones8677 (3208 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
"

 Time of release makes a huge difference to your review score, because the rest of the market is always moving forward.  You think if Doom had never come out, but got released tomorrow, it would be considered a 10/10 seminal moment in gaming history?

 No, but if Modern Warfare was released today, Kristan Reed would still give it a 9/10.
 
  EDIT Oh my god, hilarious. You know what Kristan Reed gave Resident Evil: Archives, a nine year old re-release with badly adopted controls and graphics that do not use the Wii's potential?  8/10. 
 
 I rest my case. A fanboy review.  "
Says the Nintendo fanboy that has to throw a tantrum over one review of a port of a 2 year old game that almost no one cares about. 
 
Anyone who actually wants to play COD4 probably have already bought it for the 360, PS3. 
 
It's a bad port, didn't you see the quick look for this game? Just watch the ship level, that glass where you shoot sailors through, you can't even see through it, it's just all grey. That where bad graphics interfere with gameplay, how can you shoot people when the graphics are in the way? Not to mention a significant drop in frame-rate that lasted for, what, 15 seconds? 
 
Also, there's a difference between ports and re-releases, a port is where a game changes platforms within the same console cycle. A re-release is where a game crosses platforms and across console cycles. For example, GTA:San Andreas was ported from the PS2 to the XBOX, The God of War Collection was re-released for the PS3. 
 
If you need more convincing then here, I'll break it down for you why the wii version deserves the lower score.
 
wii version is exactly as the 360/ PS3 version it gets a 9/10
wii version is two years after the original was released, thus feelings for it have cooled, it gets a 8/10
wii version has bad graphics when compared to original versions, and affects gameplay, it gets a 7/10
wii version often has low framerate that affects gameplay, it gets a 6/10
wii version has controls that are not designed for shooters, and thus the game suffers for having to adapt to controls that restrict it, it gets a 5/10
 
If I was reviewing this game, that's the highest it would get out of me. This game should be so lucky to get a 6 for a mild port of a game that everyone stopped carrying about once Modern Warfare 2 was announced. 
#44 Posted by Bones8677 (3208 posts) -
@Meowayne said:

    The content is identical, the controls are superior, the visuals have been reduced to a form matching the console's capabilities.

The controls are superior? You sure you're not talking about the PC version, who are you trying to fool here? The wii's controls can not compete with the 360/ PS3 controls. What fantasy are you living?
#45 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
@Bones8677 said:

" Says the Nintendo fanboy that has to throw a tantrum over one review of a port of a 2 year old game that almost no one cares about.   Anyone who actually wants to play COD4 probably have already bought it for the 360, PS3.  "

I have a 360 and I play it just as much as the Wii. 
Also, the WaW and now MW communities on the Wii are huge. World At War Wii is a million-seller. 
Try again.
And I did not watch the quicklook. I have the game, and I have played it. A lot.
 

 wii version has bad graphics when compared to original versions, and affects gameplay, it gets a 7/10
wii version often has low framerate that affects gameplay, it gets a 6/10
wii version has controls that are not designed for shooters, and thus the game suffers for having to adapt to controls that restrict it, it gets a 5/10

The graphics are verys impressive for the system and do not hinder gameplay in any way. "Compared to the other versions", I would even say that it strains the system more.
The Wii version very rarely has a low framerate.
The Wii controls are the best FPS controls for any console game ever. And this is coming from a 360 owner who has played PC FPS competetively since the CS beta. 
 
 
Edit: Again, again:
 "Again: Reflex is a great game. Its a good purchase. It has a lot of content. It looks good. It sounds good. It plays extremely well. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, nothing at all. It has a great singleplayer and an excellent multiplayer. Period. "
#46 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 The wii's controls can not compete with the 360/ PS3 controls. What fantasy are you living? 

 I played both, you didn't.
#47 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@Bones8677 said:

" @Meowayne said:


    The content is identical, the controls are superior, the visuals have been reduced to a form matching the console's capabilities.

The controls are superior? You sure you're not talking about the PC version, who are you trying to fool here? The wii's controls can not compete with the 360/ PS3 controls. What fantasy are you living? "
 
 http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3420417
#48 Posted by Bones8677 (3208 posts) -
@Meowayne 
 
Have some freakin' standards, man. 
 
It's good for the system? The bar is set so low on the system that when it meets the bar, absolutely no one should get excited. Yeah, it does look a hell of a lot better than the high majority of games for the wii, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's just as good as the original versions. Stop wasting your time over crap that no one cares about. 
 
You like it and you bought it, fine. Good for you, so then why should you care if someone gave it a less than perfect review? Who are you trying to impress? 
 
The wii will never be comparable to the 360 or PS3, because it's not designed to be, nor is it marketed as such. It's a console made for the 70 year old grandmas that have never played a game before, that is what Nintendo has marketed it as.
#49 Posted by Bones8677 (3208 posts) -
@adam_grif said:
" @Bones8677 said:

" @Meowayne said:


    The content is identical, the controls are superior, the visuals have been reduced to a form matching the console's capabilities.

The controls are superior? You sure you're not talking about the PC version, who are you trying to fool here? The wii's controls can not compete with the 360/ PS3 controls. What fantasy are you living? "
  http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3420417 "
Did you make that, or is that some really weird coincidence?
#50 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -

I made it, but you deserve it.
 
You are honestly trying to say that the game should be docked points, not just for a bad frame-rate (which is a fair complaint), but because it doesn't look as good as 360/PS3 version? And you dock it a point FOR CONTROLS?
 
Controls are one of the main draws of Wii FPS in the first place.

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.