Eurogamer does it again!

  • 129 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) -

Because it's a 2 year old game re-released with worse graphics. Imagine if the PS3 released Resistance 1 exactly the same but with worse graphics. The only reason it isn't a 1/10 is because it offers new controls and slightly new features. The Wii isn't an exception, it has to be judged by the same values that all of the other systems get judged by this generation.  
 
People always want others to take the Wii seriously, but then they go and try to make special exceptions and excuses for it. Make up your mind. 

#52 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -

Oh my lord. You cannot possibly compare the graphics of a Wii game to a PS3 / 360 / PC game, because if we were doing that, then Every single Wii game on Earth would get a -3 score modifier straight off the bat. You judge graphics by the quality of the system it's on. You can fairly compare GAMEPLAY between systems, but not visuals. You can't penalize a game for doing something it's system is not capable of. That's a bullshit complaint. 

#53 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) -

So if they re-release the Commodore 64 to compete against the current gen of consoles, but it has updated gameplay and sound then games on that system should still be capable of getting 9 and 10/10? No. The machine should be judged against what markets it's in; the PSP can't be compared to the 360 for example because they're in different markets, but it can against the DS. The Wii clearly competes against the PS3 and 360 otherwise market analysts wouldn't ask Reggie Fils-Aime the same question in each interview, "how does the Wii compete against the other consoles?" 
 
The only way that you can base the Wii's graphics against other Wii game's graphics exclusively is if you can argue that it's in a market of its own. That argument is partially acceptable, but then you've got a bunch of people saying "all games are games" and trying to clump the Wii in with the other systems and trying to justify its success with units sold. 

#54 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Bones, in all seriousness.  
 
 (We agree on what group Nintendo is marketing at.
We disagree on what that means for the library and for the good games available.
 
But that doesn't even enter into this particular topic.)

I have played (and I own) my Halos and my Call of Dutys.
 I have a 360 here, on a HD/5.1 setup.  I have seen and controlled Call of Duty on it.
I spent months of my life playing PC FPS online competetively.  
I have played both the 360 and the Wii version.
 
You haven't.
 
In fact, judging from your comment about the console in general you most probably haven't touched it at all after the initial 06 disappointment. So stop trying to make assumptions about standards and userbase. 
 
But even that doesn't even enter into this particular topic. 
 
Have you read the Eurogamer review? Kristan Reed agrees that Reflex is the same game as before. That it controls very well. It is something even you said yourself: For the platform it is on, it looks good. 
For everyone who wants to play an FPS on the console, MW: Reflex is an extremely good choice. And there are many such people, especially after many people realized with World At War, that FPS on the Wii can work very well both visually and control-wise. (That is something you missed completely, I presume?)
Again: "For everyone who wants to play an FPS on the console, MW: Reflex is an extremely good choice."  But he downscored the game because it lacked shaders and lighting, thanks to the hardware.
 
That's like downscoring Harvest Moon for the Gameboy because yes, its still the same great game as it is on the SNES, but the resolution is lower, it wasn't released at the same time and it doesn't have color!
That's like downscoring No More Heroes for the 360 because it's two years old and doesn't have motion control!
That's like downscoring Modern Warfare for the 360 because it doesn't have M/KB support.
That's like downscoring Oblibion for PS3 because it looks worse than it could and cannot be modded.
 
It's fanboy logic of complaints, disguised as a "review".
 
Can you have the opinion that if any Wii owner who wants to play an FPS should shut the fuck up and buy one of the HD consoles? Sure you can! Should that opinion in any way enter your review of a game? A game that no matter how much you dislike it is still for the huge majority of its parts the same game that you scored 9/10 two years ago?
 
No.

#55 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@Geno said:
" So if they re-release the Commodore 64 to compete against the current gen of consoles, but it has updated gameplay and sound then games on that system should still be capable of getting 9 and 10/10? No. The machine should be judged against what markets it's in; the PSP can't be compared to the 360 for example because they're in different markets, but it can against the DS. The Wii clearly competes against the PS3 and 360 otherwise market analysts wouldn't ask Reggie Fils-Aime the same question in each interview, "how does the Wii compete against the other consoles?"  The only way that you can base the Wii's graphics against other Wii game's graphics exclusively is if you can argue that it's in a market of its own. That argument is partially acceptable, but then you've got a bunch of people saying "all games are games" and trying to clump the Wii in with the other systems and trying to justify its success with units sold.  "
 
*Chortle*
 
So you admit it then? You think every Wii game should get a 0/10 for graphics in every review, since they can't compare to 360/PS3?
 
And yes, if they re-release the Commodore 64 and update the gameplay, it should totally be able to get a 10/10, since Commodore 64 games must be scored against Commodore 64 games. In fact, we've already seen similar things. Would you dare suggest giving less than a 9.0 for The Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time when they brought it out on Virtual console? Of course you think so! You think it should get fucking 1/10, because it's clearly inferior in every way to Twilight Princess, and N64 graphics can't possibly compete with 360. 
 
What say you?
 
"Graphics" is a technical comparison. Something should get a 10 if it pushes the boundaries for what is technically possible on the hardware it's running on, or if it has an amazing artistic style that makes up for its flaws. Something does not get a 6/10 because it does not push the boundaries of a more powerful system.
#56 Posted by Willy105 (4686 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? "
Say what you want about the Wii controller, but it's superiority in shooting games compared to the standard game pad cannot be denied.
#57 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

On a related note, the credits are just rolling over my screen. It was a nice campaign with some good variations of "Shoot dudes with foreign accents!". I've had a good time and I would rate the single player experience a 6.5/10 with points taken for the comparably poor storytelling (though it was presented and staged nicely) monotonous player interaction and the Wii version's occasional framerate issues. But I am not a huge fan of the Explosions!!1-genre so for the regular gamer this would probably be higher. 
 
The multiplayer is virtually perfect in every regard, including the framerate. It has all the maps, weapons, modes and perks of the HD version but does not include the 4 DLC maps. The team size is limited to 5 vs 5 (which is too bad, but an improvement over WaW's 4v4 and I have not had the feeling that the maps are now too small) and there is no WiiSpeak support (which, for me, is a good thing, but each to his own). 
The controls - sorry, but there is just no way around saying that, and as a 360 owner I know what I'm talking about - are vastly and significantly superior to the other console's versions. I do not want to make the pad controls bad in any way, I like analog FPS, but the controls they just nailed with this one. Weapons feel great with the Wiimote (+ Rumble + Speaker + Weapon twisting), aiming is OK with the default setup but brilliant if you tune it to your liking, the same goes for the turning and precision aiming, which can also be tuned in every way imaginable. Matchmaking is quick and works well, lag is not an issue. As to the multiplayer maps and modes and gameplay itself, I think everything has already been said about Modern Warfare. It's really, really good. 
As a long-term ex-PC competetive FPS player, I'd rate the Wii version of Modern Warfare's Multiplayer a 9/10. There isn't really anything to criticize here other than the fact that some people might miss voice chat, and that you HAVE to spend some time tuning the controls to find what works for you.
 
So overall, for me this is a 7.5/10 game. 
If you're into the genre, it certainly is at least an 8/10 game.
If you're a Wii-only user, it is a must-have title, unless you really, really hate FPS games.
If you have already played the game on another platform, I'd still recommend trying it if only for getting a realitic picture of what FPS controls on the Wii can be like. 
If you're a graphics whore, don't go anywhere near it.
 
What's not OK is the price tag, it is a port of a year-old game after all, and it does not even include all the DLC. If you're the type of person that thinks price should enter into a review (I'm not), reduce all the scores given above by at least 0.5. I recommend waiting til the price drops, which it undoubtedly will very fast very soon.

#58 Posted by AjayRaz (12389 posts) -
@Meowayne: good, small review. CoD4 just doesn't seem like a game that's meant to be played on the wii, though. it really seems more like a cutting edge HD explosion fest with 5.1. surround sound. 
#59 Posted by jakob187 (21503 posts) -
@Al3xand3r: I played this game three days ago.  It's not as good as World at War.  The motion controls are functional, but even at the higher end presets, it just doesn't offer a satisfying experience.  The graphics are seriously bad...like, dood, I'll say that CoD3 on Wii ran better than this.  I don't understand how this version turned out as poorly as it did. 
 
You know I'm not a Wii hater...but I could never honestly recommend Reflex to anyone.  World at War is the place to go for the Wii if you want a solid CoD game on the console.
#60 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

AjayRaz, while I see where you're coming from, I think you underestimate how much of that appeal is mission design, sound design, level design, MoCap, music, voice acting and camera. All of which are intact in the Wii version.

#61 Posted by ajamafalous (11591 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" 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? "
This pretty much sums up the situation.
Online
#62 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

  @jakob187 said:

" @Al3xand3r: I played this game three days ago.  It's not as good as World at War.  The motion controls are functional, but even at the higher end presets, it just doesn't offer a satisfying experience.  The graphics are seriously bad...like, dood, I'll say that CoD3 on Wii ran better than this.  I don't understand how this version turned out as poorly as it did.  You know I'm not a Wii hater...but I could never honestly recommend Reflex to anyone.  World at War is the place to go for the Wii if you want a solid CoD game on the console. "

I did too. This product is superior to WaW on Wii in every way, I'm sorry to say. Visuals and controls included, not to mention the campaign is better and the online modes are all nearly intact whereas WaW only offered two, with even less players. Recommending WaW over it is madness.

@ajamafalous said:

" @Jimbo said:

" 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? "

This pretty much sums up the situation. "
No, it doesn't. The time frame of release has no bearing on the quality, and therefor the grade, while just as awesome visuals can't make a shit game deserve a 9/10, the opposite also isn't possible at all honestly. Moreover, as said already, I don't see the PS360 versions scored lower for looking far worse than the PC version (especially image quality, 600p on 360, over 1080p on PC). Why? Because they're rated by those consoles' standards, and not PC standards. Either that, or because graphics don't make the game. Yet somehow these methods can't apply on Wii? Lol.
#63 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) -
@adam_grif said:

"Something should get a 10 if it pushes the boundaries for what is technically possible on the hardware it's running on, or if it has an amazing artistic style that makes up for its flaws."

This was the only valid statement in your post, so I'll address this. The Wii is competing against the PS3 and the 360; they're in the same price range, they have a significant amount of audience in common, they've been available for approximately the same amount of time, and they're in the same generation of consoles. To give one console special privileges over the others is just unreasonable. Yes, the Wii can't possibly compete against the other two in terms of graphics because its hardware just isn't physically capable, but what it lacks in hardware it should be able to make up for in gameplay or art style (the Wiimote after all was the only thing that prevented it from being strictly inferior all this time). Failing that, then there's absolutely no reason to get a Wii over the other consoles, or a Wii version of a game for that matter. 
 
If COD4: Reflex Edition were released on the Wii two years ago alongside or before the release of the original COD4 on the other platforms, it would've deserved a 9/10 or perhaps even a 10/10. Even with its poor(er) graphics. That's because in exchange for the visuals, players would've gotten a unique control scheme that was arguably superior to using a regular controller for this type of game, at that time. It also of course would've delivered the impact of the original COD4 like any other version. Now however, it's simply a 2, almost 3 year old game with clunky lightgun controls strapped on, which is in stark contrast to the simultaneous launch of the highly anticipated and well-received MW2 on every other system.
 
Do you think if they re-released COD4 on the PS3 with minimal changes it would score anything higher than a 6/10? If anything it would probably be less. This is not discrimination against the Wii, this is just discrimination against lack of innovation. 
#64 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -

meh 6/10 is good for a Wii game, considering there's nothing good ever coming out on that poor dead sell out kiddies/mommys console. Of course there's always going to  be the same old Wii fanboys wanting a 10/10 score for an awful looking port of a 2 year old game which any gamer with a brain has already played and cleared on superior hardware...

#65 Posted by Dalai (6879 posts) -

I find nothing wrong with knocking the score down a notch because of graphics, but if the Wii version is nearly identical to the others, should the graphics count that much?  Besides, from what I've seen it looks great for (everyone now) a Wii game. 
 
Personally, making a Wii version seems like a waste of development time.

#66 Posted by Mushir (2388 posts) -
@nail1080 said:
" meh 6/10 is good for a Wii game, considering there's nothing good ever coming out on that poor dead sell out kiddies/mommys console. Of course there's always going to  be the same old Wii fanboys wanting a 10/10 score for an awful looking port of a 2 year old game which any gamer with a brain has already played and cleared on superior hardware... "

#67 Posted by ryanwho (12082 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. "
Well if you actually read the review, he says it played better. So math it out for me, genius, a 3 year old game plays better than the old version but doesn't look at good and you take off 4 points. You're basically telling people you care more about how a game looks more than how it plays.
#68 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@nail1080 said:
" meh 6/10 is good for a Wii game, considering there's nothing good ever coming out on that poor dead sell out kiddies/mommys console. Of course there's always going to  be the same old Wii fanboys wanting a 10/10 score for an awful looking port of a 2 year old game which any gamer with a brain has already played and cleared on superior hardware... "
So you played it on the PC, huh.
#69 Posted by Jimbo (9710 posts) -
@ryanwho said:

" @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. "

Well if you actually read the review, he says it played better. So math it out for me, genius, a 3 year old game plays better than the old version but doesn't look at good and you take off 4 points. You're basically telling people you care more about how a game looks more than how it plays. "
Irony?  Or should I start by 'mathing out' 9 - 6 for you?  Maybe 2009 - 2007 whilst I'm at it?
 
Supply the quote where he says 'it played better' and I'll supply you with a more considered response.
 
@Al3xand3r said:

"   @jakob187 said:

" @Al3xand3r: I played this game three days ago.  It's not as good as World at War.  The motion controls are functional, but even at the higher end presets, it just doesn't offer a satisfying experience.  The graphics are seriously bad...like, dood, I'll say that CoD3 on Wii ran better than this.  I don't understand how this version turned out as poorly as it did.  You know I'm not a Wii hater...but I could never honestly recommend Reflex to anyone.  World at War is the place to go for the Wii if you want a solid CoD game on the console. "

I did too. This product is superior to WaW on Wii in every way, I'm sorry to say. Visuals and controls included, not to mention the campaign is better and the online modes are all nearly intact whereas WaW only offered two, with even less players. Recommending WaW over it is madness.

@ajamafalous said:

" @Jimbo said:

" 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? "

This pretty much sums up the situation. "
No, it doesn't. The time frame of release has no bearing on the quality, and therefor the grade, while just as awesome visuals can't make a shit game deserve a 9/10, the opposite also isn't possible at all honestly. Moreover, as said already, I don't see the PS360 versions scored lower for looking far worse than the PC version (especially image quality, 600p on 360, over 1080p on PC). Why? Because they're rated by those consoles' standards, and not PC standards. Either that, or because graphics don't make the game. Yet somehow these methods can't apply on Wii? Lol. "
Except grades aren't static, they're constantly changing to reflect current expectations, so it does make a difference.  Doom doesn't get a 10/10 if it comes out tomorrow and the Model T is no longer considered a high quality automobile - expectations change.
 
It is true that a lot of places do (foolishly) grade exclusively against other games on the same platform, which is usually a huge advantage for Wii games and they end up scoring better than they deserve when compared to the whole market.  Same deal for 360/PS3 games compared to PC.  I don't know what Eurogamer's policy on it is, but it can't be unfair on a Wii game either way - it's either reviewed solely against other Wii games (an advantage) or it's reviewed against everything (fair).  PC games are really the only games that get screwed by the retarded intra-platform grading policy.
 
In the end, you can choose to believe this reviewer genuinely didn't think Reflex in '09 was as good a game as CoD4 was in '07, or you can believe he's a mean anti-Nintendo man with an agenda.  Given that the former is clearly correct, I'm gonna go with that one.
#70 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@Jimbo said:

"Except grades aren't static, they're constantly changing to reflect current expectations, so it does make a difference. Doom doesn't get a 10/10 if it comes out tomorrow"

For many, it rated pretty highly even about 13 years after its first release. Eurogamer's own summary is quite telling:
"Doom is the rarest of retro games, in that you can enjoy it just as much as you did when it was first released. Better still, you can appreciate it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and see not only how enormously influential it is, but how perfect its design was from the very beginning."
Edit: I just noticed it also happens to be by the same reviewer. Fun stuff! Thanks for choosing this game to destroy your very own argument with. Ha.
Mind you, most of the reviews giving worse ratings tend to do it because of the technical shortcomings of that one port, not the actual game's quality.

Not that this is a remotely similar situation. If a game gets a great score and doesn't deserve it two years later then there was something wrong with the initial scoring, that's for sure. Of course, the review doesn't reflect that at all as it clearly states Modern Warfare is still a grand game a few times, it states it plays better on Wii, yet proceeds to rate it much less thanks to minor shortcomings detached from gameplay, such as the visuals. Meh.
#71 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
 Given that the former is clearly correct, I'm gonna go with that one. "
Because you played both? No? More smart assumptions, huh. Good work.
#72 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8610 posts) -

I really dislike these constant threads debating review scores (especially Wii titles that are supposedly reviewed unfairly). I did not play the game, yes, but I have seen footage both from the Quick Look and other videos. It does not look terrible, no, but it obviously cannot meet the 2 two year old standard. I hope no one was expecting it to but it still looks choppy and janky. Meowayne, if you say otherwise, I guess I will take your word for it but I am hearing opposing reports from people who have played the game as well (jakob187). No matter what, I do not care about this game anyway because I have it for the 360 and have had it for 2 years already. It looks like it is selling well but I still find it a money-grubbing move from Activision. That Treyarch was able to make something half-decent with it is a good thing....but it still cannot stack up to the 360/PS3/PC version.

#73 Posted by Bigandtasty (3202 posts) -

Come on people. Graphics don't matter that much. Neither do review scores.

#74 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@Geno said:
Now however, it's simply a 2, almost 3 year old game with clunky lightgun controls strapped on, which is in stark contrast to the simultaneous launch of the highly anticipated and well-received MW2 on every other system. Do you think if they re-released COD4 on the PS3 with minimal changes it would score anything higher than a 6/10? If anything it would probably be less. This is not discrimination against the Wii, this is just discrimination against lack of innovation.  "
 
- Wii FPS are not "clunky light-gun controls".
- No, because CoD4 was already on PS3. However, if you got No More Heroes, or Super Mario Galaxy, and ported them to PS3, and upgraded them to PS3 style visuals, then those games absolutely should be able to get 8, 9 / 10.
#75 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) -
@adam_grif said:

" @Geno said:

Now however, it's simply a 2, almost 3 year old game with clunky lightgun controls strapped on, which is in stark contrast to the simultaneous launch of the highly anticipated and well-received MW2 on every other system. Do you think if they re-released COD4 on the PS3 with minimal changes it would score anything higher than a 6/10? If anything it would probably be less. This is not discrimination against the Wii, this is just discrimination against lack of innovation.  "
 
- Wii FPS are not "clunky light-gun controls".
- No, because CoD4 was already on PS3. However, if you got No More Heroes, or Super Mario Galaxy, and ported them to PS3, and upgraded them to PS3 style visuals, then those games absolutely should be able to get 8, 9 / 10. "
- Not all Wii games have clunky light gun controls (RE4 had rather good controls), but it's been specifically stated in multiple places that COD4RE has laggy/inaccurate controls. Therefore the new control scheme is not necessarily a great enhancement of the original controls. 
- And if you ported said games to PS3 with no graphical upgrade, and basically no content upgrades 2-3 years after their initial release, then they would get 6/10. You basically just confirmed my point. 
#76 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@Geno said:

- Not all Wii games have clunky light gun controls (RE4 had rather good controls), but it's been specifically stated in multiple places that COD4RE has laggy/inaccurate controls

The opposite has been stated many more times since more reviews and user ratings are positive (it's also stated in this negative review) so...

@Geno said:

- And if you ported said games to PS3 with no graphical upgrade, and basically no content upgrades 2-3 years after their initial release, then they would get 6/10.

So, you're saying that graphics alone can elevate a 6/10 game to a 9/10 (and vice versa)? Wow, sad... That is all.
#77 Edited by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@Geno said:

" @adam_grif said:

" @Geno said:

Now however, it's simply a 2, almost 3 year old game with clunky lightgun controls strapped on, which is in stark contrast to the simultaneous launch of the highly anticipated and well-received MW2 on every other system. Do you think if they re-released COD4 on the PS3 with minimal changes it would score anything higher than a 6/10? If anything it would probably be less. This is not discrimination against the Wii, this is just discrimination against lack of innovation.  "
 
- Wii FPS are not "clunky light-gun controls".
- No, because CoD4 was already on PS3. However, if you got No More Heroes, or Super Mario Galaxy, and ported them to PS3, and upgraded them to PS3 style visuals, then those games absolutely should be able to get 8, 9 / 10. "
- Not all Wii games have clunky light gun controls (RE4 had rather good controls), but it's been specifically stated in multiple places that COD4RE has laggy/inaccurate controls. Therefore the new control scheme is not necessarily a great enhancement of the original controls. 
- And if you ported said games to PS3 with no graphical upgrade, and basically no content upgrades 2-3 years after their initial release, then they would get 6/10. You basically just confirmed my point.  "
 
- As has been stated above me, even the Eurogamer review said the controls were good. 
- What? You graphically upgrade it so that it takes advantage of the hardware, which it can't do on Wii. Also, go look for reviews for the "God of War Collection", a game getting 8/9 out of 10s despite having shitty graphics for a PS3 game and being PS2 ports of 3+ year old games.
#78 Posted by mordukai (7092 posts) -

they do it every time, Praise a game and then at the end pull it down. Eurogamer and EDGE are trash, plain and simple. I won't take to heart anything coming out of those magazines. 

#79 Posted by TooWalrus (12976 posts) -

In this generation of nearly photo-realistic games, graphics are important. If you've already played through a game and thought it was amazing, then played it again, but it looks like it got kicked in the balls, it's not going to be as appealing.

#80 Edited by mordukai (7092 posts) -

they do it every time, Praise a game and then at the end pull it down. Eurogamer and EDGE are trash, plain and simple. I won't take to heart anything coming out of those magazines.  
 
    Look at EDGE for example. They gave MW2 a 9 (which it rightfully deserved) but scroed Dragon Age at a 5, a 5. Now I know it's just an opntion of the game but Dragon age is not a medicore game no matter how much you dislike it. 

#81 Posted by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@TooWalrus said:
"this generation of nearly photo-realistic games"
No. Far from it. Maybe a select few PC titles. Not to mention photo-realism is unrelated to quality, plenty of great looking games don't go for that.
#82 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@TooWalrus said:
" In this generation of nearly photo-realistic games, graphics are important. If you've already played through a game and thought it was amazing, then played it again, but it looks like it got kicked in the balls, it's not going to be as appealing. "
 
Oh, you're right. Everybody should just dock points from 360/PS3 games for not looking as good as Crysis on maximum settings.
#83 Edited by TooWalrus (12976 posts) -
@Al3xand3r: Reviewers seem to think so. I'm looking at the back of my MW1 box right now and I'm seeing the quote "The most PHOTO-REALISTIC video game WE'VE EVER SEEN. -Game Informer- It's on the back of the damn box!
 
Even if I don't think the game is anywhere near it, the reviewers do, and that's what matters in this case.
#84 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) -
@adam_grif:  
 
-  There were also people who said Red Steel controlled well. Multiple sources such as IGN and Game Informer note the bad controls. If the issue wasn't there, it wouldn't be mentioned. In comparison there were basically no complaints levied against RE4's controls so clearly there are some issues present.
- As I've stated previously, the Wii has to make up for its lack of graphical prowess with gameplay or art design, if not then any version of a game on it is strictly inferior to those on the other consoles. Your God of War comparison is invalid because a) they aren't shitty graphics for a PS3 game, it's at least on par especially considering it's not designed from the ground up on that console, b) you get trophies and c) it's not full price, you're getting each game for 20 dollars, about a third of the cost of CODMWRE so it's no surprise that the graphics are lower than a full priced PS3 game. Reflex is basically just an exact duplicate of an almost 3 year old game, with worse presentation (technical + art aspects) and dubious controls. With those traits it would get a 6/10 or less on any system.  
 
@adam_grif said:

" @TooWalrus said:

" In this generation of nearly photo-realistic games, graphics are important. If you've already played through a game and thought it was amazing, then played it again, but it looks like it got kicked in the balls, it's not going to be as appealing. "
 Oh, you're right. Everybody should just dock points from 360/PS3 games for not looking as good as Crysis on maximum settings. "
This is also invalid. Running Crysis at max settings requires way more hardware knowledge and also way more money than playing any game on either the PS3 or 360. It's a somewhat different market, and thus can't be compared at that level. To compare PS3 or 360 to PC you would have to compare it to a more mainstream level computer (e.g. nearly same spec). 
#85 Posted by TooWalrus (12976 posts) -
@adam_grif: All I'm saying is that if I'm playing the same game I played 2 years ago, but it looks half as good, I'm not going to like it much ether.
#86 Posted by Evilsbane (4338 posts) -

Graphics as much as people wanna gripe matter A lot and the Wii is suited to games the have an artsy style to them but even then they would still look 1000% better at 1080P I mean think about Muramasa yes it looked good but think about that game in HD it would look AMAZING. The Wii is what it is yes it sold a bazillion units but the software sales are complete fail because who wants to play a game that looks like complete shit? and it doesn't help when the best game for the system comes free in the box. And the misnomer "Looks good for a Wii game" just doesn't cut it anymore presentation matters when you have a game made for the "Hardcore" yea Grandpa Bill and little Timmy don't mind but they aren't the ones who buy Modern Warfare.

#87 Posted by Metric_Outlaw (1169 posts) -

Its just really getting ripped apart because its 2 years late and it wasn't like Infinity Ward really had a lot to with this. It just seems like Activision trying to get everything out of Modern Warfare that it can.

#88 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -

 There were also people who said Red Steel controlled well. Multiple sources such as IGN and Game Informer note the bad controls. If the issue wasn't there, it wouldn't be mentioned. In comparison there were basically no complaints levied against RE4's controls so clearly there are some issues present. 

The bounding box, dead zone, sensitivity etc are all customizable from what I've read, so any complaints about the controls can be chalked up to them not spending time customizing it, which is one of the main draws of Wii FPS. That you can have it how you like it. Other reviews do not complain about them, so what to make of this? The Gamespy review gives the game 2 and a half stars, the lowest review it got (it along with Edge are the only people to give it below a 7/10), citing, of all things, that you can't play it with dual sticks by plugging in your GC/Classic Controller. 
  

As I've stated previously, the Wii has to make up for its lack of graphical prowess with gameplay or art design, if not then any version of a game on it is strictly inferior to those on the other consoles.


 Are you suggesting that CoD: MW does not have great gameplay and art design?  Literally the only difference between 360/PS3/PC and Wii version is the resolution of textures, quality of lighting and the poly count. The art design and gameplay are otherwise the same, except for the Wii FPS controls.
 

 Your God of War comparison is invalid because a) they aren't shitty graphics for a PS3 game, it's at least on par especially considering it's not designed from the ground up on that console


 Huh? All they did was up the resolution to 1080p and smooth some corners. It's otherwise identical to the PS2 versions, which came out years ago. 
 

b) you get trophies

 Oh wow, I didn't know achievements whores existed on PS3. They're nice but don't really add anything worth bumping up the score for. In some games they can totally ruin the mood, i.e. nothing pulls you out of a game like Condemned: Criminal Origin quite like ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: PICKED UP A BIRD CARCASS. 
 
 

c) it's not full price, you're getting each game for 20 dollars, about a third of the cost of CODMWRE so it's no surprise that the graphics are lower than a full priced PS3 game.

 
CoD MW R has lots of multiplayer modes, GoW C has 0. The campaign is shorter but arguably the game as a whole has more replay value / you will spend more time playing it. Reflex is 50 dollars, not 60.  Either way, the difference is not 6/10 to 9/10.
 
 

Reflex is basically just an exact duplicate of an almost 3 year old game, with worse presentation (technical + art aspects) and dubious controls. With those traits it would get a 6/10 or less on any system. 

Dubious controls? If by dubious you mean "many people think its good and a small minority of reviewers think its bad"  then it's dubious. The presentation is indeed worse, but it's not that simple. Different consoles and so on. You talk about DS games before not being held to the same standards as console games due to different market, but mentioned nothing of the PSP - DS gap. Surely you are suggesting that DS games should all get horrible graphics scores since they can't compete with the dreamcast-quality PSP visuals? 
 
Either graphics are judged by the standards of their system's technical capacity, or they're not. You can't have this stupid double-standard against the Wii, which IS what you have. PS2 games never got penalized for not looking as good as GC/XBOX games, PS games never got harshly criticized for not looking as good as N64 games, and so on. The difference here is one of degree, not one of kind. It's directly comparable to the PSP/DS situation.
 
Basically, you're full of it.
#89 Posted by LaszloKovacs (1133 posts) -
@TimAllen624 said:
" Its just really getting ripped apart because its 2 years late and it wasn't like Infinity Ward really had a lot to with this. It just seems like Activision trying to get everything out of Modern Warfare that it can. "
This.
 
It's a port that is more than a year too late, looks abysmal (even considering the modest hardware the Wii is sporting), and it adds nothing in terms of content despite how long it's been. Compounding this is the fact that the sequel just came out and made CoD4 basically obsolete. Personally, I don't feel like FPSes play to the Wii's strengths or really belong on the platform, but I know that Wii fans will disagree on that point. Vehemently.
 
Not having read the Eurogamer review, I can't comment on their complaints specifically, but that's why I would expect the game to having lower scores in general.
#90 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) -
@adam_grif: I'm rather tired of addressing your logical fallacies and misinformation, so let's simplify this argument. Give reasoning as to why a straight-up re-release of a nearly 3 year old game with inferior graphics and dubious controls (something like half the reviews mentioning control problems is not a "small minority") should deserve anything more than a 6/10.
#91 Posted by Bones8677 (3170 posts) -
@adam_grif said:
" 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. "
The dude's the one comparing the wii with the 360/ PS3 saying it's just as good, that it deserves the same score.
 
Wii FPS? That's funny, how many can you name that aren't rail shooters? 
COD4
WaW 
MP: Corruption
Conduit
........
 
And if the wii is so great with FPS, then why in the hell did Dead Space Extraction sell 9,000 copies? You'd think the Wii FPS community would be all over that title. If the wii is so great at FPSes, then every wii FPS should sell millions of copies. Companies should be making FPSes for wiis, instead of the 360. More people have wiis than 360s, so clearly if the wii is superior, than more shooter games should be coming out on it. But they aren't, unless they're rail shooters. None of them are selling all that great, or are just total failures.
#92 Edited by carlthenimrod (1579 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

" @Jimbo said:

"Except grades aren't static, they're constantly changing to reflect current expectations, so it does make a difference. Doom doesn't get a 10/10 if it comes out tomorrow"

For many, it rated pretty highly even about 13 years after its first release. Eurogamer's own summary is quite telling:
"Doom is the rarest of retro games, in that you can enjoy it just as much as you did when it was first released. Better still, you can appreciate it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and see not only how enormously influential it is, but how perfect its design was from the very beginning."Edit: I just noticed it also happens to be by the same reviewer. Fun stuff! Thanks for choosing this game to destroy your very own argument with. Ha.Mind you, most of the reviews giving worse ratings tend to do it because of the technical shortcomings of that one port, not the actual game's quality.Not that this is a remotely similar situation. If a game gets a great score and doesn't deserve it two years later then there was something wrong with the initial scoring, that's for sure. Of course, the review doesn't reflect that at all as it clearly states Modern Warfare is still a grand game a few times, it states it plays better on Wii, yet proceeds to rate it much less thanks to minor shortcomings detached from gameplay, such as the visuals. Meh. "
That's because they charged $10 for it. If they tried to charge $50 for Doom then it would get the shittiest score you have ever seen. Giving the game a mediocre score is perfectly acceptable. How can you recommend a full-priced inferior version of a two year old game when its sequel just came out? You simply cannot. Hell, it is hard to recommend the 360/PS3/PC versions at this point as well. Sequels seriously impact the value of its predecessors, providing they don't suck of course. More so when a good chunk of said game's value is made up by the multi-player component.
#93 Edited by adam_grif (1144 posts) -

 Give reasoning as to why a straight-up re-release of a nearly 3 year old game with inferior graphics and dubious controls (something like half the reviews mentioning control problems is not a "small minority") should deserve anything more than a 6/10.

Because it's a port, not a re-release. It's not like they're bringing it out on the same system and crippling the graphics, which would indeed warrant a sharp score decline. This isn't a "game of the year edition" on the same platform, or a MGS style re-issue with special features. It's bringing one of the greatest shooters in recent memory to a platform that it was never released on. If we're supposed to be "comparing to competing systems", then bringing Bioshock to PS3 should have resulted in it getting a crippled score, since its "an old game already on other systems". But we don't do that, because we compare it to other games on THAT system.
 
We've seen shit like this in the past. RE4 going from GC to PS2 resulted in a noticeable graphical decline, and came quite a bit later than the GC version did. It still got fantastic scores, because it's still a fantastic game. CoD MW R is still a fantastic game, because it's a port of a fantastic game. In fact, it's lightyears ahead of the gameplay quality of other Wii shooters, except maybe MP: C, which is an Adventure game that happens to take place from the first person perspective (not really a "shooter"). 
 
The game doesn't suck. Other reviewers are giving it higher scores. Even with the Gamespy 2.5/5 and the Edge 6/10 lowballs, it's still got a 76.71% average rating. Take them out, as well as the official  scores from places with "Nintendo" in the name (which give it its highest rating, but are probably biased), it gets bumped up to 79%, which seems like a fairly appropriate score (i.e. 8/10).  
 
I fully understand that the graphics suck. They aren't abysmal by Wii standards, but are average or below average. Maybe it deserves 5/10 or 6/10 for it's "graphics" score, but the gameplay is still great, multiplayer is still a blast and your so called dubious controls aren't enough to drag it down to a 6/10.
#94 Posted by LiquidPrince (15606 posts) -
@Meowayne said:

"  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"

It doesn't really look good at all... Even compared to last generation standards. It's mediocre. There are better looking games on the Wii.
#95 Posted by adam_grif (1144 posts) -
@Bones8677 said:

" @adam_grif said:

" 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. "
The dude's the one comparing the wii with the 360/ PS3 saying it's just as good, that it deserves the same score. Wii FPS? That's funny, how many can you name that aren't rail shooters?  COD4 WaW  MP: CorruptionConduit ........  "
 
No, he's saying that it doesn't deserve a 6/10. Which we can surely agree on.
 
You missed Red Steel, RS2, MoH: VG, MoH: H2, BiA HH. None of which are rail shooters. There's also another shooter coming out from The Conduit people, it was shown at last year's E3.
 
 

 And if the wii is so great with FPS, then why in the hell did Dead Space Extraction sell 9,000 copies? You'd think the Wii FPS community would be all over that title. If the wii is so great at FPSes, then every wii FPS should sell millions of copies. Companies should be making FPSes for wiis, instead of the 360. More people have wiis than 360s, so clearly if the wii is superior, than more shooter games should be coming out on it. But they aren't, unless they're rail shooters. None of them are selling all that great, or are just total failures.

Haha what? You may as well say "If psychonauts is such a great game, why did it sell hardly any copies?" or "if  Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem is one of the best horror games of all time, why was it a catastrophic sales failure???"  The number of copies a game sells is not indicative of quality, nor of a systems capacity to deliver quality gaming experiences. You should feel ashamed for even suggesting it is.
 
And no, Detective Dipshit, the Wii should only be selling more Wii FPS games than the 360 is selling FPS games if the Wii has more shooter fans who own Wiis than the 360 has shooter fans that own 360s. Which it doesn't. You heard about that whole "blue ocean" strategy thing? How a huge number of Wii owners are "casuals" or "non-gamers" who only play Wii Sports and Wii Fit?  Do all 360 gamers want Sim management games? No. Do all 360 gamers want shooters? No. Do all 360 gamers want strategy? No. Take note of demographics before you open your mouth.
 
The Wii doesn't get many FPS because there aren't enough people who want FPS games for it. By contrast, the 360 is the "FPS console", it has more FPS than any other console in history. The PS3 has fewer FPS games, and sells less copies for the FPS games on it, despite having higher global sales than the 360 has. Different consoles attract different crowds.
#96 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

 The dude's the one comparing the wii with the 360/ PS3 saying it's just as good, that it deserves the same score.

As Adam said, I'm not. I even gave the single player a 6.5/10 above. I don't have a problem with the score, I have a problem with the justification for it and the nature of the review.
And the rest.. well yeah. Again, as adam highlighted, with each post you're falling deeper into fanboy logic, allegations, assumptions, and flamebait indicating your unreflected and blind Wii hate that I think this was the reason for your replying in this thread to begin with.
 
Fuck system wars. I'm out.
#97 Posted by Bones8677 (3170 posts) -

Meowayne, you're the one that started this whole thing. Crying about the wii be discriminated against.

#98 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@Bones8677 said:

" @adam_grif said:

" 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. "

The dude's the one comparing the wii with the 360/ PS3 saying it's just as good, that it deserves the same score. Wii FPS? That's funny, how many can you name that aren't rail shooters?  COD4 WaW  MP: CorruptionConduit ........  And if the wii is so great with FPS, then why in the hell did Dead Space Extraction sell 9,000 copies? You'd think the Wii FPS community would be all over that title. If the wii is so great at FPSes, then every wii FPS should sell millions of copies. Companies should be making FPSes for wiis, instead of the 360. More people have wiis than 360s, so clearly if the wii is superior, than more shooter games should be coming out on it. But they aren't, unless they're rail shooters. None of them are selling all that great, or are just total failures. "
Make sense please. Less FPS only means less competition on the platform which would if anything raise the score of a good one, not lower it. What does Dead Space: Extraction have to do with FPS games? What do sales have to do with the topic? Again, make sense please. You're trying to claim that great quality = great sales when at the same time you're trying to bash the Wii. Do you really want me to start mentioning HD games (not of the FPS variety, but still popular genres) that were great yet flopped? Do you want me to start naming studios that closed their doors or were otherwise reduced after having flops on HD platforms, an effect that has yet to happen with any Wii developer thanks to the lower development costs? The Wii has more sales than any other system, with your logic it's the best home system. That's true, or your logic is stupid. You decide.

@carlthenimrod said:

" @Al3xand3r said:

" @Jimbo said:

"Except grades aren't static, they're constantly changing to reflect current expectations, so it does make a difference. Doom doesn't get a 10/10 if it comes out tomorrow"

For many, it rated pretty highly even about 13 years after its first release. Eurogamer's own summary is quite telling:
"Doom is the rarest of retro games, in that you can enjoy it just as much as you did when it was first released. Better still, you can appreciate it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and see not only how enormously influential it is, but how perfect its design was from the very beginning."Edit: I just noticed it also happens to be by the same reviewer. Fun stuff! Thanks for choosing this game to destroy your very own argument with. Ha.Mind you, most of the reviews giving worse ratings tend to do it because of the technical shortcomings of that one port, not the actual game's quality.Not that this is a remotely similar situation. If a game gets a great score and doesn't deserve it two years later then there was something wrong with the initial scoring, that's for sure. Of course, the review doesn't reflect that at all as it clearly states Modern Warfare is still a grand game a few times, it states it plays better on Wii, yet proceeds to rate it much less thanks to minor shortcomings detached from gameplay, such as the visuals. Meh. "
That's because they charged $10 for it. If they tried to charge $50 for Doom then it would get the shittiest score you have ever seen. Giving the game a mediocre score is perfectly acceptable. How can you recommend a full-priced inferior version of a two year old game when its sequel just came out? You simply cannot. Hell, it is hard to recommend the 360/PS3/PC versions at this point as well. Sequels seriously impact the value of its predecessors, providing they don't suck of course. More so when a good chunk of said game's value is made up by the multi-player component. "
That is why I quoted Eurogamer's summary, because it clearly states the game is just as good now as it always was. Who the fuck cares anyway? It's up to the user to know if he has already had his fill of that game, not the reviewer to decide for him. If a game gets a 9/10 but I've already finished it even a few days ago on another platform I'm not going to rush to buy it again because a review said so. Reviewers shouldn't be trying to second guess if I have or haven't played it and base its score on that. Oblivion wasn't rated lower on the PlayStation 3 because it came a year later as it was clearly intended for the audience that has yet to play it and the reviews reflected that. The situation is the same with Modern Warfare:Reflex Edition. It's for people who haven't played it (or people who prefer Wii FPS controls). To claim it's rated lower because the reviewer assumes everyone has played the game already so it's not worth a replay is, frankly, stupid. This argument makes no sense. As for sequels reducing the value of the original, that's only when they're better or when they offer the same experience upgraded. MW2 is far from a mere upgrade of mechanics and content. It's a different experience. Tons of the MW content is still great and for someone who hasn't experienced it, should be recommended. Still, the Wii doesn't have the sequel, and all this ignores that the review discussed here claims Modern Warfare is still an awesome game, it plays better on Wii, yet is rated lower with the only notable shortcomings mentioned being visual, in attempts to derail the conversation. Sad.
#99 Posted by Godwind (2597 posts) -

I thought we already accepted that reviewers fuck up and can't write reviews period? 
 
Oh wells. we shall continue to obey the Gatekeeper for as long as we have money to use for consumption.

#100 Posted by carlthenimrod (1579 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said: 

" That is why I quoted Eurogamer's summary, because it clearly states the game is just as good now as it always was. Who the fuck cares anyway? It's up to the user to know if he has already had his fill of that game, not the reviewer to decide for him. If a game gets a 9/10 but I've already finished it even a few days ago on another platform I'm not going to rush to buy it again because a review said so. Reviewers shouldn't be trying to second guess if I have or haven't played it and base its score on that. Oblivion wasn't rated lower on the PlayStation 3 because it came a year later as it was clearly intended for the audience that has yet to play it and the reviews reflected that. The situation is the same with Modern Warfare:Reflex Edition. It's for people who haven't played it (or people who prefer Wii FPS controls). To claim it's rated lower because the reviewer assumes everyone has played the game already so it's not worth a replay is, frankly, stupid. This argument makes no sense. As for sequels reducing the value of the original, that's only when they're better or when they offer the same experience upgraded. MW2 is far from a mere upgrade of mechanics and content. It's a different experience. Tons of the MW content is still great and for someone who hasn't experienced it, should be recommended. Still, the Wii doesn't have the sequel, and all this ignores that the review discussed here claims Modern Warfare is still an awesome game, it plays better on Wii, yet is rated lower with the only notable shortcomings mentioned being visual, in attempts to derail the conversation. Sad. "

Oblivion on the PS3 came out only a year later, was a superior port, and had additional content packed in. That was enough to justify a full price point. What does Modern Warfare on the Wii have? Nothing really, except a spotty frame rate and friend codes.
 
Also, I love Modern Warefare 2, but to say that it is a "different experience" is laughable. The core game-play mechanics are untouched for the most part and it plays the same. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, but it is more of a refinement then anything.

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.