flameboy Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Some good stuff over at eurogamer; http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-wii-blog-entry and a comparison video: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/modern-warfare-reflex-wii-gameplay it doesn't stand up to the HD visions but I think it does look favourable when compared to ports of other primarly HD games we've seen on Wii.
Nintendohnut Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Yeah, it's certainly nowhere near as good as the PS3 version, but of course it was never going to be. However, I think it still has some of the best graphics for a FPS on Wii, and although it won't match the HD versions it still looks pretty good. Obviously Dwarf and Daft would come in here and laugh openly at the Wii version's graphics, but frankly they are still good, and the controls are certainly going to be better on the Wii version. Point is, it doesn't look as stunning as it does in HD but that was expected, and given that it still looks extremely good. It's one of the closest comparison videos I've ever seen for a HD vs Wii version too. Gotta give them credit for that - normally comparison videos look absolutely fooking awful.
Zechs Merquise Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Yeah, it's certainly nowhere near as good as the PS3 version, but of course it was never going to be. However, I think it still has some of the best graphics for a FPS on Wii, and although it won't match the HD versions it still looks pretty good. Obviously Dwarf and Daft would come in here and laugh openly at the Wii version's graphics, but frankly they are still good, and the controls are certainly going to be better on the Wii version. Point is, it doesn't look as stunning as it does in HD but that was expected, and given that it still looks extremely good. It's one of the closest comparison videos I've ever seen for a HD vs Wii version too. Gotta give them credit for that - normally comparison videos look absolutely fooking awful. I couldn't agree more. I think Treyarch deserve major praise for this one. They really have done an incredible job. Infinity Ward tend to get their dicks sucked by everyone, whilst Treyarch do wonderful stuff and get slagged off or simply ignored.
david.dakota Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 I'm very tempted by this myself - although with Mario out next week, it may have to wait.. I thoroughly enjoyed WaW - and this looks to be a good improvement. Its a shame there are framerate issues - how bad are they guys?
ben Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Not bad , I read a review saying frame rate was low but haven't even noticed a problem. maybe people who have ps3 or xbox will see it as a problem but for me it's better than waw, the online is so much faster.
Zechs Merquise Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 I'm very tempted by this myself - although with Mario out next week, it may have to wait.. I thoroughly enjoyed WaW - and this looks to be a good improvement. Its a shame there are framerate issues - how bad are they guys? Genuinely haven't had any. It plays great. I've been online now for over 5 hours with it and am level 22, so far I'm having a great time and haven't had any issues other than a bit of lag - but that's present on all systems.
LostOverThere Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 The IGN Review is here! The framerate is jumpy, the pointer tracking needs some serious polish, and while most of the elements of COD4 are included, none of them are given enough fine-tuning to truly excel. It’s obvious that World at War was given either a larger dev time, larger budget, or larger team (or all of the above) than Modern Warfare’s first stint on Wii. If you can cope with the somewhat unintuitive controls there’s a fun experience to be had. It’s just a shame that amidst the near-endless amount of customization is a ported engine that can’t offer true pointer precision. They scored it 7.0/10.
Zechs Merquise Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) The IGN Review is here! They scored it 7.0/10. Well, considering they gave the conduit 8.6, that is a terrible review and a terrible score. I'm utterly confused. Saying that I've been amazing by quite a lot of review scores lately and have started holding them in much lower regard. EDIT: I've actually E-mailed Bozon and asked him if he's actually played the game. I'm actually shocked that the sequel (of sorts) to two million selling games only got a single page review with a single pre-beta screen shot as media. Pretty poor showing all round. I've seen the reader comments, both on here, at Gamefaqs and the reader reviews at IGN and Gamestop and everyone seems to have a lot of praise for it. Bizarre. Edited November 12, 2009 by Zechs Merquise
D_prOdigy Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 EDIT: I've actually E-mailed Bozon and asked him if he's actually played the game. I'm actually shocked that the sequel (of sorts) to two million selling games only got a single page review with a single pre-beta screen shot as media. Pretty poor showing all round. I've seen the reader comments, both on here, at Gamefaqs and the reader reviews at IGN and Gamestop and everyone seems to have a lot of praise for it. Bizarre. Expect to be verbally caricatured in the next NVC...
LostOverThere Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Funnily enough, IGN gave the game the lowest score I've seen yet. On Metacritic the three reviews up are 90%, 80% and IGN's 70%.
The-Ironflame Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Bozon only played it for two days and reviewed it, he said it himself in the comments section. http://boards.ign.com/call_of_duty/b6860/186801669/p8 He seems in the minority who doesn't like the controls alot of people say otherwise, I've got my rental copy arriving tommorow so I'll see for myself but it sounds like what The Conduit should of been. Edited November 12, 2009 by The-Ironflame
Ren of Heavens Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 A bitter man who didn't get a free review copy in advance as he's used to...
Zechs Merquise Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Bozon only played it for two days and reviewed it, he said it himself in the comments section.http://boards.ign.com/call_of_duty/b6860/186801669/p8 He seems in the minority who doesn't like the controls alot of people say otherwise, I've got my rental copy arriving tommorow so I'll see for myself but it sounds like what The Conduit should of been. The stupid thing about this review is that game as big as this needs weeks to prepare a review. You need to play through the whole game and at least go half way through the levelling up on multiplayer. What's more tha reaction of actual gamers to MWR has been overwhelmingly positive. I can't understand why IGN have gone out of their way to hype the Conduit but have pulled this down? Don't get me wrong, I was a massive supporter of the Conduit before it came out and urged everyone to give it a go. However when it came out I was the first to put my hands up and say it was a big let down. I always believe developers who put effort in should be supported, but if the game turns out to be poor the truth should be told. In IGN's case, when the Conduit came out they gave it an above average score and continued to praise it (getting a thanks in the credits for their troubles). However they seem to want to knock a genuinely superb Wii game for no reason other than their support for 'other FPS games on the Wii'. The most criminal thing about this review is that finally a third party developer is really trying their best for the Wii. Giving us a graphically polished full version of a 'next gen' classic with all the modes and options of it's HD brothers. Treyarch produced a gem with World at War and have really gone and excelled themselves with MWR pushing the limit of the Wii both on and offline and improving on WAW in almost every way. Bozon should be ashamed of himself. When he's next crying about lack of third party support for the Wii he can f*ck off. He's part of the problem. Slating genuinely fantastic third party games and producing sloppy journalism that will harm sales of said game will do neither his credibility or the Wii's third party line up any good at all. A bitter man who didn't get a free review copy in advance as he's used to... Probably had something to do with it too.
dwarf Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Yeah, it's certainly nowhere near as good as the PS3 version, but of course it was never going to be. However, I think it still has some of the best graphics for a FPS on Wii, and although it won't match the HD versions it still looks pretty good. Obviously Dwarf and Daft would come in here and laugh openly at the Wii version's graphics, but frankly they are still good, and the controls are certainly going to be better on the Wii version. Point is, it doesn't look as stunning as it does in HD but that was expected, and given that it still looks extremely good. It's one of the closest comparison videos I've ever seen for a HD vs Wii version too. Gotta give them credit for that - normally comparison videos look absolutely fooking awful. Earlier I was misintepretated when I was trying to comment on how the Wii owners here were faking their lack of interest in graphics. I didn't explicitly say they were bad. But they are shit, so that's job done. Jokes And Zechs, you are so frickin cool. I really hope Bozon didn't upset you too much. Edited November 12, 2009 by dwarf
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 how the Wii owners here were faking their lack of interest in graphics. I own all 3 consoles, and can honestly say... fuck the graphics. It's all about gameplay, as far as I'm concerned. So, if the Wii version has better gameplay, I'll get it. The only console ever in which the graphics did get on my nerves was the PS1. Fucking unnecessary 3D graphics!
dwarf Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I'm not some graphics advocate, I just prefer them to be of a nice standard. And gameplay is such a vague word that I don't really know what it means. Fun? Motion controls definitely don't make better 'gameplay' though, which was what MCJ was implying. They just make the controls that bit more enjoyable to use. I think the 'gameplay' is actually better on the other consoles because there are more features and more players etc, generally more action going on with more options.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I own all 3 consoles, and can honestly say... fuck the graphics. It's all about gameplay, as far as I'm concerned. So, if the Wii version has better gameplay, I'll get it. The only console ever in which the graphics did get on my nerves was the PS1. Fucking unnecessary 3D graphics! Same here. I bought a 360 and PS3 slim expecting 'something' because the visuals look richer and more...respectable? (lmao "I respect good graphics", I can picture some rich snob saying that). But I swiftly realised: ITS THE SAME THING! Same gameplay mechanics, same sort of boundary, same ole, same ole - but the extra shiny, 'realer' than real graphics. In fact tbh, those actually unrealistic graphics just got annoying and 'in the way', really is every visual detail necessary? Why do i care about the decor of a room when my attention is on the enemy in MGS4? N64 games still look beautiful to me.
tapedeck Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Well, considering they gave the conduit 8.6, that is a terrible review and a terrible score. I'm utterly confused. Saying that I've been amazing by quite a lot of review scores lately and have started holding them in much lower regard. 100% truth. The IGN review screams 'rushed'. And in regards to framerate issues, I've actually had none. Is my game borked? It's simple: The game looks half as good as the original yet goes on to offer a sublime (fully customisable) control setup whilst only losing minor features (features which, arguably, don't really affect the gameplay like voice chat and a few DLC maps). And yet it comes away with a terribly average score? By that logic the original was "average" to Bozon. I said it at the time and I'll say it again, after the restructuring and change of web design, IGN has gone down the pan in a big way. Shame. I normally don't argue with review scores and defend games for numerous reasons but Modern Warfare is better than The Conduit. Just how much? Wait for the N-E review! We actually play games for more than 2 days before reviewing them...
Emasher Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Remember, Matt reviewed the Conduit, while Bozon reviewed this. If Bozon had reviewed The Conduit, he may have given it a lower score than this.
LostOverThere Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Uhm, a review is just one guy's opinion. It's by no means the definitive score. Worth Playing gave The Conduit 90%, whilst Giant Bomb gave it 40%. Are either of them wrong? Of course not, they merely have different opinions on the title.
Hero-of-Time Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Nintendo Power gave this 9.0! Also some news from GoNintendo regarding hackers. As we've already mentioned on the site, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare -- Reflex Edition is currently experiencing some major issues with hackers. The leaderboards clearly indicate that someone is out to ruin the fun of others...or in a weird way, make a statement to Nintendo about their online setup. It turns out that the guy behind this 'work' is none other than Hetoan2. If that name sounds familiar, it should. He's the same guy that started out hacking the online gameplay for The Conduit. Looks like he's still trying to spread his message of the rather vulnerable online setup for the Wii.
LostOverThere Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 That's a shame about hackers. But the positive review score is great.
khilafah Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Eurogamer review http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-reflex-edition-review
Nintendohnut Posted November 14, 2009 Posted November 14, 2009 Wii vs PS3 comparison Yeah the difference is pretty noticeable in a lot of places, but only because they're next to each other. And there was one point where I actually thought the Wii graphics were better for a little bit (in the helicopter, when it's night and the missile appears and heads on a curving path into the copter) but that might have been because the brightness was higher than on the PS3 version. Still, it's looking very very impressive, and I think the difference will be barely noticeable when it comes to playing it yourself, and when there is no graphically superior version playing next to it.
Recommended Posts