Call of Duty Wii: Not so Modern Warfare?

By Richard Leadbetter Published 11 November, 2009

Digital Foundry analysis, comparison vids.

So, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex on the Wii. The basic idea of bringing one of the most advanced HD console shooters to the Nintendo platform sounds ludicrous, but Activision in concert with its Treyarch development studio has only gone ahead and done it, and the result is pleasantly surprising. Wii owners get a surprisingly fully-featured rendition, which even includes the lion's share of the online gameplay as well as the customary Wiimote-powered "waggle" controls that you won't have experienced in the initial release.

The notion of porting Modern Warfare to the Wii isn't so whacked out or as ker-azy as you might initially think for a number of reasons. The first Modern Warfare's core engine still has a fair amount of DNA left over from the Quake tech upon which the Call of Duty franchise itself was born. The basic setup of the levels in Modern Warfare offers little that any last-generation shooter couldn't cope with, and this is born out by the quality of the conversion in the Wii game.

Content-wise, it's pretty much all there. Compare and contrast with the new stages in Modern Warfare 2, streaming and decompressing on the fly from the disc - providing a vastness of scale never seen in the series before, and almost impossible to replicate on Wii without some serious re-engineering.

More than that, in some development circles, there is the school of thought that porting over your Xbox 360 game to the Wii is actually easier than it is in developing it for the PS3 (swap over the 360/PS3 roles if you like, the point remains the same). Essentially, in a market that demands platform parity in its HD console releases, the amount of effort required to achieve this is pretty exhaustive bearing in mind how different the base architecture is. In porting over to the Wii, developers face no such pressure - they have carte blanche to cut down and remove whatever they like, just so long as the final result looks okay and is playable.

Modern Warfare on the Wii. Graphically rather functional, but the last-gen elements of the core engine tech help make the transition to Wii easier to swallow.

That's exactly what Treyarch has done with Modern Warfare. Texture detail and geometry levels are savagely hacked down, lighting effects and shadowing are brutally pared back, frame-rate is cut from 60FPS down to the more manageable 30FPS (and even then it has trouble sustaining it in some of the more sustained firefights). The whole lighting model has been adjusted to such a degree that the night-vision section in The Bog is entirely superfluous - despite the game nagging you to don the goggles, the section remains so bright you don't actually need to.

Graphically, Reflex is functional, looking pretty much as you'd imagine a PS2 version to look if handled by a reasonably competent developer, but put it this way - Criterion's Black this ain't. However, stick the Wii game into a side-by-side comparison with the PS3 version and you can see that despite the vast array of cutbacks and compromises, it does a good enough job of capturing the look of the original.

A standard def head-to-head between the Wii and PS3 versions of Modern Warfare. The Wii game is serviceable enough but when Criterion's Black still looks so much better, it's clear that no technological barriers are being pushed back on the Nintendo console.

Reflex follows a very different gameplay strategy than its HD siblings. Infinity Ward prides itself on ultra-low latency controller feedback and targets 60FPS gameplay to achieve that. In the drop down to 30FPS, that feedback has been compromised, but then again, the IW control system itself is history.

In swapping out the joypad for the remote (no MotionPlus support, sorry), the lack of 60FPS doesn't really matter bearing in mind the additional "latency" of dropping the controller-based system for the use of the remote instead. Moving your arm about incurs much more "lag" than using your fingers and thumbs on the tried-and-tested joypad - the trade-off being that pointing with the Wiimote should feel more instinctual, and you should be able to target the enemy more quickly.

The Wii's waggle system operates on a similar basis to the scheme found in The Conduit and there are moments where Reflex feels great. Running across the battlefield, firing from hip, works beautifully in that you can spray fire anywhere you want, without it affecting the direction you're running in - you can't do that so easily on the HD console versions. Similarly, the process of using ironsights, the sniper scope or just lobbing a grenade is transformed completely. If the overall "aim" in using these modes is to get more precision and control, the effect is boosted immeasurably through the use of the Wii remote's infra-red pointer.

However, over and above these aspects, the awkward button placement on the controller makes things difficult for anything other than running and gunning and it's here that the control system is left wanting. Lobbing flashbangs and grenades with the plus and minus buttons involves a clumsy rearrangement of your fingers on the remote - chucking back thrown grenades is particularly time-consuming and unwieldy. Attaching the knife to the down button on the d-pad also kills off the whole notion of having an instant form of close-range kill due to the time it takes to move your fingers into position. Over and above that, there is still the notion that simulating head movement by pointing the view weapon to the far left or far right of the screen feels rather unnatural.

That said, there is something here that - when it works - feels worthwhile, and it makes you wonder just what sort of implementation we could see with the Sony motion controller. If the system's mooted PlayStation Eye head-tracking tech (coming to GT5) works well with minimal latency, this could solve the view weapon issue. That, combined with the extra precision from the Sony controller, could make all the difference. A patched up, motion-controlled Modern Warfare on PS3? That's something I'd love to see.

Look out for our review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex, with more on the online modes in particular, soon.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (61) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • EmiliasHorse #1 2 years ago

    Wii version looks really good in those videos.

  • davisorle #2 2 years ago

    Im sorry but since i know i played MW for the last time about a month ago on the PC I have to say that by looking all of a sudden a Wii version I wont lie or hide the fact that it looks like shit to me :S.

    Personally I know I wouldnt get this game on a Wii. On the other hand is about personal opinions. People that have been with a Wii and sutisfied gamewise so far I dont think they wouldnt like it. I think they will instead love this. Its just me that I know that I cant stand the fact it looks like that. I loved MW cause it looked also too good and that does NOT look good.

  • ColdShoulder #3 2 years ago

    No gamer should have a problem going backwards visually, if the gameplay is worth it. That's like never watching a DVD once you've had Bluray.

  • markymark22 #4 2 years ago

    The Wii cant surpass ps2 visuals of Black. Well done. Stick to the party games.

  • cianchristopher #5 2 years ago

    Serious question! Is the Wii actually less powerful than the GameCube?

    I mean, it's far closer to the PS2 in terms of graphics than the GameCube was.

    And it's nowhere near as powerful as the original Xbox. Nowhere near it!

  • Bazfrag #6 2 years ago

    Considering the time and resources they had to make this I think Treyarch did a fine job.

    edit marked down?! I'm sorry I meant "wii lolz HD or there's no gameplay"
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/09 @ 11:46

  • GamerG #7 2 years ago

    Wii Graphics always look ok on internet vids, its when you blow it up to a 46" screen and the jaggies say "hi" when things start to really deteriorate,

    My Xbox 1 definitly looks better than my Wii does.
    Edited by 2 at 11/11/09 @ 12:25

  • markymark22 #8 2 years ago

    That's a great question. The gamecube was marginally more powerfull than d ps2 and the xbox was superior to both.was the xbox more powerfull than the wii??

  • muscleblade #9 2 years ago

    I dont get it. Why did they bother? If youre a fan of games like MW you shouldnt own a Wii unless you also own one of the HD consoles or a PC wich you can get the superior version for at an extremely low price by now.

  • dadrester #10 2 years ago

    just watching that first mission when you get down onto the boat with Captain Price and Gaz, just makes me realise what a massive disappointment MW2 really is.

  • markymark22 #11 2 years ago

    That's a great question. The gamecube was marginally more powerfull than d ps2 and the xbox was superior to both.was the xbox more powerfull than the wii??

  • muscleblade #12 2 years ago

    was the xbox more powerfull than the wii??

    I believe so. The Wii must be as strong as the Gamcube of course, but i dont believe its stronger from a technical standpoint. Its all about the controller remember. I dont think Halo 2 would be superior on the Wii compared to the Xbox version.

  • CallousB #13 2 years ago

    it looks like a surprisingly decent port...and frankly it could look even better if they actually built a Wii sepcific engine from the ground up for the game. The Wii is capable of far more....it's just nobody puts the effort in.

    Seems like IW wanted the outsdourced Wii version buried anyway...no marketing, only allowed a couple of awful screens released, no trailer..and no videos officially released . IW probably not happy that a B team like Treyarch proved the game could be ported fairly well, without a wii specific engine....in less than a year.

    Makes you wonder why activision asked treyarch to do a port if they had no intention of supporting it with even the most basic promotion.

  • Widge #14 2 years ago

    Graphically, I think its done a sterling effort considering. Would this also make it pretty much by default the premium FPS on the console too. Has vibes of Goldeneye about it. There is a good population whose console of choice is the Wii and not the other 2, this gives them access to something otherwise out of reach.

  • cianchristopher #15 2 years ago

    Thanks MarkyMark! It sure was a great question, wasn't it?

  • CallousB #16 2 years ago

    "I dont get it. Why did they bother?"

    Call Of Duty : World At war sold over a million units last year on Wii...but that was backed with a Wii specific ad campaign..

    ..if they bothered marketing Modern warefare on wii then i suspect they'd have a million seller again..as it is it'll be unlikely to sell 100k.

    When you have activision actively deleting footage of the game on youtube..but not releasing any vids or trailers themselves..you can tell that someone really doesn't want this game to sell...so it does make you wonder why they greenlighted it.

  • des #17 2 years ago

    Looks good for a Wii game.

  • jellyhead #18 2 years ago

    Looks ok for a Wii game and my Wii owning mates are hoping it'll be as good an experience as it can be on the Wii. They want something different than they normally play and what's wrong with that? Sure, it won't be as good looking as the other versions but as long as the gameplay is there, they're not that bothered.

  • Slim #19 2 years ago

    What a silly article. If the PS3 version is 'pushing envelopes' why not have a comparison vs a high spec pc?

  • bad09 #20 2 years ago

    What's the online like? ;)

  • Mono_X #21 2 years ago

    I'd say that the GC was pretty much similar in power to the Xbox.

    If you look at the games coded specifically for the GC like RE4 and Starfox Assault - they looked great. But the GC (and the Xbox to be fair) suffered from lots and lots of quick and cheap ports of PS2 games.

    The PS2 was clearly the least powerful of the 3 consoles - but clearly the most successful. Makes you think.....

  • gjgjg #22 2 years ago

    holy guaka, go wii!

  • markymark22 #23 2 years ago

    Yeah the ps2 was a lot older than the other two consoles. 98-99 tech.
    But the question still stands how does the wii stand up power wise to a gamecube/xbox?

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    That looks way better than a PS2 version would have done. I'm really quite surprised.

    And the controls seem to function pretty well too. Has someone finally done a genuinely top rate FPS for the Wii? It certainly looks like it.

  • muscleblade #25 2 years ago

    @Mono_X

    True. Gamecube version of RE4 was one of the best looking games last gen. But i dont think Ninja gaiden Black could look as good on the Wii. The best looking game last gen was without doubt Ninja Gaiden Black for the xbox. I owned all three consoles last gen btw. Gamecube was my favourite.

  • MMye #26 2 years ago

    So, the best thing this game did was to give this "journalist"(lol) the hope that sony will finally nail it all with its "superior" motion tech (note how its not referred as waggle).

    Pack yer bags nintards, the best thing to come out of the Wii is the glimpse of the holy greatness that sony has in the works for us. lol

    Seriously. That last paragraph is completely unnecessary as no-one who actually wants to know about this Wii GAME gives two sh*** about your day dreams about sony's system.
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/09 @ 13:04

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    @MMye

    You clearly have issues, not limited to your tourette like use of the term "lol".

  • spekkeh #28 2 years ago

    I agree with some of the other posters, something fishy is going on with this release. It's released more than a day ago with hardly any mention, no reviews, no ads etc. To me it seems like Treyarch's done a pretty good job in releasing a next-gen game on a weaker platform. In fact, this game should be able to blow the Wii FPS competition right out of the water easily.

    I'm starting to feel really sorry for Treyarch, I think Activision only released this title now to sucker unwitting Wii owners into buying the game riding on the hype of the better looking MW2. And that that's the reason why it's keeping such a low profile on this game and removing all the youtube material. They would've called it Modern Warfare Too if it wasn't released by the same company.

  • MMye #29 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Dont worry dude, retards usually hang together so i'm sure i'l see you and whoever wrote this piece by the swings.
    You can tell me aaall about how clever you are, and enlighten me and Richard Leadbetter about the terrible disease that prevents us from articulating like normal people.

    We will then listen to the love songs Richard made about Sony's dildo wands, while holding our sticky hands together

    Oh and "lol"
    Edited by 2 at 11/11/09 @ 14:19

  • FogHeart #30 2 years ago

    "I dont get it. Why did they bother? If youre a fan of games like MW you shouldnt own a Wii unless you also own one of the HD consoles or a PC wich you can get the superior version for at an extremely low price by now. "

    So that you can play an FPS console game without having to use fuckin' twin sticks to aim. Because using nunchuck and pointer to play is exponentially better than that....whenever a game like this for the Wii is released, I have to reiterate that statement. Now, can you PLEASE remember that next time we see a game like this so I can take my time to comment on something else?
    Edited by 2 at 11/11/09 @ 13:18

  • GingerNathan #31 2 years ago

    "was the xbox more powerfull than the wii??"
    Well the wii has a more capable processor and more RAM, that doesn't mean anything if the developers don't use it.

    Having said that from what I've (I do own the original on the 360 but I wanted to play it with IR pointer aiming) played of Reflex so far, Treyarch have done a great job on the port, sure the textures and lighting are scaled way back but they've managed to re-create the feel of the original very well.

  • TonyHarrison #32 2 years ago

    I really don't see what the big deal about this conversion is, graphically, the 'HD' versions of COD4 are amongst some of the poorer we've seen this gen.

    It simply isn't a massive step down for the Wii to handle it.

    As for the comments about it not looking good as Black... If anything, that'd be down to the developers of this game. The Wii is a slightly more powerful GC, and the GC was comfortably more powerful than the PS2 (go take a look at the respective versions of RE4 to see for yourselves), so any game on the Wii should look comfortably better than even the best PS2 game when developed competently.

  • Darren #33 2 years ago

    A few points to remember in this comparison... 1. The Wii version is running at 720x480, the PS3 version 1120x640; 2. The framerate is halved in the Wii version from 60 fps to 30 fps which will effect responsiveness and controls; and 3. the effects, lighting, geometry and textures are of a much lower quality than the PS3 version.

    Sure the Wii version looks as good as you could expect from its limited hardware and does a fair approximation of the PS3 game but, nevertheless, it's an inferior imitation running at a more sluggish framerate so the game isn't going to have the same slick feel as the HD consoles and PC versions.

    The big question though is do Wii-only owners really want to play Call of Duty anyway? Anyone else with a PS3, 360 or PC will surely have bought the superior version anyway. I guess next week's charts will answer that one.

  • TonyHarrison #34 2 years ago

    "The big question though is do Wii-only owners really want to play Call of Duty anyway? Anyone else with a PS3, 360 or PC will surely have bought the superior version anyway."

    Both previous COD games released on the Wii went on to be million sellers, so there's no reason why this won't sell well....

  • cianchristopher #35 2 years ago

    @Darren: I'm pretty sure the PS3 (and Xbox 360) versions are running at 1024 x 600, not 1152 x 640 (that's Halo 3's res, and GTAIV on the PS3).....

    Amazingly low though, when you compare it to PC games, I guess. I play at 1680 x 1050 on PC, but whatever "magic" they've got going on with the Xbox 360 and PS3 - the COD games look great on my TV even at that "low" resolution.

  • Widge #36 2 years ago

    And it states that the PS3 one is being crunched down to standard def res.

  • davisorle #37 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett
    "I read you comment about 8 times but still can't make any sense of it."

    I know im greek but it cant be that hard to understand that sentence really... let me try to explain then since its hard for you to crack the code or something...

    " I loved MW ( MW = Modern Warfare ) cause ( cause = because ) it looked also too good ( if i was talking about a chick id mean hot but obviously i mean graphically or the setup of the game since thats what im talking about here... and also i mean along with the rest of the reasons) and that ( Modern Warfare: Reflex, since its the game of the topic.. ) does NOT look good. ( looks like crap graphically ) "

    If still that doesnt work for you to understand me let me know to draw it for ya and the rest... ok?

  • Mono_X #38 2 years ago

    (Yeah the ps2 was a lot older than the other two consoles. 98-99 tech.
    But the question still stands how does the wii stand up power wise to a gamecube/xbox? )

    My point was the GC is pretty much comparable to a Xbox, and a Wii is more powerful than a GC. So yes I think it does. As someone else said, it's down to how good the developers are.

  • Darren #39 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher - Yeah, it's 1024x600, sorry. The 'magic' in the Xbox 360/PS3 versions that makes the games look good is called '2 x anti-aliasing' by the way, something Halo 3/ODST neglect hence why they looks blatantly sub-HD whereas the current gen CoD games don't. A little AA goes a long way as I like to say. ;)

  • bionutz #40 2 years ago

    how can it not support Wiimotion plus - that makes me not to bother anymore, the standard motion control is too shoddy??? And yeah it looks crap, I'm sure that on my 47'' screen would look even worse. But I don't play graphic war games so I guess I'll never know.

  • Dave52 #41 2 years ago

    Surely anyone who wanted to play COD4 would've looked at buying an Xbox/PS3 2 years ago. I really can't see why they bothered. It looks a pretty good port, I just don't see the market for it.

    Having said that - it'll probably fly off the shelves.

  • davisorle #42 2 years ago

    @GingerNathan
    ""was the xbox more powerfull than the wii??""
    Well the wii has a more capable processor and more RAM,"

    Its better to not answer to someone as if you know what you are talking about when you are wrong cause now its that easy for him to ( if ever mentioned ofc.. ) pop out of nowhere if someone is having that convo and pretend like a smartass to know and say what you told him and make a fool of himself, simply cause you are so wrong... o.O

    The xbox was susprisingly with a Pentium III at 733MHz and about 64MB DDR SDRAM.
    On the other hand the GameCube had an IBM clocked at 486MHz and now when it comes to ram its complicated. Had a total of 43MB Ram but torn into pieces lets just say in simple words. a pack of 24 a 16 and a 3MB. Ill put it this way.... 16MB were dedicated for Audio and the DVD buffering and the rest 24+3MBs were for everything else. Also GPU wise the 360 was superior but still extremely way more capable than the PS2's and why it was able to give such gorgeous results in comparison with the PS2. If my original xbox had ever died Id go get me a gamecube as an excuse to get the damn remakes of RE ( I still remember how much i wanted to play those and hoped theyd be released for the xbox so I wont have to put an extra console in here just for those... ).

    Anyhow. I guess this Mw Reflex is good for Gamecube owners who havent played this game on any other platform. I guess only then you cant tell how bad it looks in the remake :)

  • MMye #43 2 years ago

    @Dave52

    "Surely anyone who wanted to play COD4 would've looked at buying an Xbox/PS3 2 years ago."

    Or, you know, play it on the PC where it doesnt suck sh** for using a pathetic interface like dual sticksas far as FPS's go.

  • smelly #44 2 years ago

    take away the graphics on COD - and you're left with a very short very boring game.

    No thanks.

    I'll wait for mario.

  • zztopp #45 2 years ago

    Is it just me or does the Wii version in the video look pretty decent?

  • Tri-Enforcer #46 2 years ago

    I'm noticing that alot of previewers are failing to mention the customization of controls. The writer gripes about button layout, but that can all be reassigned to your liking. If you don't like pressing the awkward plus/minus button to throw a grenade, then you can assign it to a different button or gesture. I throw grenades using a throwing motion with the nunchuck.

    You can adjust the turn speed if you feel the camera is moving too slow or too fast. You can also adjust the dead zone to be more narrow if you don't want to point towards the edge of the screen to turn. My deadzone is set to turn without needing to drag the cursor to the edge of the screen!

    However, unlike HVS for The Conduit, Activision did no promo for this game or did it try to make people aware that the default controls can be changed with a multitude of adjustment options. I do admit that The Conduit's default (the control settings when you first start) controls work much better and I don't understand why Treyarch chose the current default scheme that Reflex has, because first impressions are very important. Keep in mind, adjusting the controls to your liking does take a little getting use to. But once you find a customization that works for you, you will be a happy shooter in this game! You have to be patient with this game.

    I have MW2 for the PS3 and I can't hit nothing for the life of me--especially in multiplayer. However, I'm like a sharp shooter using the Wii Remote. Nonetheless, I'm enjoying both games!

    To those asking if the Wii is more powerful than last gen systems are very ignorant in terms of video game tech. Game likes Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption can not be done on the PS2/original X-Box. The reason why it seems that alot of Wii games look inferior to the PS2/X-Box is because of lazy and cheap development. Also, there is a high concentration of casual games and the expanded audience doesn't care for graphics.
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/09 @ 21:11

  • byakuya83 #47 2 years ago

    It looks good for a Wii game but I think The Conduit and Metroid look far nicer. It's a good port but not being a dedicated Wii game means it doesn't look as good as it could. However, it is sufficient. But like it has been said before, I don't think many Wii owners will be rushing to buy an inferior version of an old game. Activision should have concentrated their efforts on producing a CoD exclusively for the Wii, to offer something different and more worthwhile.

  • zedzee #48 2 years ago

    Isn't that cigar a bit too bright?

    With THAT much light being generated by it (it lights up the whole of the soldier's face!) I would've thought they would be spotted from a frikkin' MILE away!!

    Oh yes, the Nintendo version is shite, while the PS3, I'm sure it will soon enough to be revealed to be running at a lower res than the X360...And then the REAL debate, fanboi-ism and flaming will begin.

  • bigbadbeasty #49 2 years ago

    After looking at the video I was quite impressed, sure it is missing the bells and whistles of the PS3/360 versions, but it looks fundamentally the same game. If the game is good that is all that really matters surely? Those clearer textures shouldn't make the slightest difference.

    EG are clearly trying to cause such an argument by using such an inflammatory title.

    Regardless, I will buy the PC version, not because it is prettier but due to Ye Olde mouse and keyboard.

  • Quixz #50 2 years ago

    This article is just too funny made my week! Enjoy your wii's HAHAHAHA!

  • mgillespie #51 2 years ago

    I see what you did there. You didn't want to compare the 360 and PS3 versions, as it would highlight the Ps3 version being substantially better in many areas, so you compared the PS3 and Wii versions.

    Sneaky... Just as sneaky as Digital Foundry cherry picking what it compares.

  • Badassbab #52 2 years ago

    What they should do is make a Wii specific COD from the ground up

  • womble #53 2 years ago

    "I see what you did there. You didn't want to compare the 360 and PS3 versions, as it would highlight the Ps3 version being substantially better in many areas, so you compared the PS3 and Wii versions. "

    You sound like yet another desperate PS3 fanboy. Are you semitope in disguise?

  • electrolite #54 2 years ago

    "This article is just too funny made my week! Enjoy your wii's HAHAHAHA! "


    You really need to take a long, hard look at your life and where it's going

  • electrolite #55 2 years ago

    "as it would highlight the Ps3 version being substantially better in many areas, so you compared the PS3 and Wii versions.

    Sneaky... Just as sneaky as Digital Foundry cherry picking what it compares. "

    You really need to take a long hard look at your life and where it's going

  • electrolite #56 2 years ago

    Anyway, looks quite decent, though as said a Wii-specific version might have made more sense.

    Whether it makes commercial sense, off the back of the MW2 hype and the number of people who aren't big FPS fans, have a Wii and either a)not one of the other machines, or b) fancy it with the motion controls remains to be seen

  • GingerNathan #57 2 years ago

    @ davisorle
    "Its better to not answer to someone as if you know what you are talking about when you are wrong cause now its that easy for him to ( if ever mentioned ofc.. ) pop out of nowhere if someone is having that convo and pretend like a smartass to know and say what you told him and make a fool of himself, simply cause you are so wrong... o.O "

    Lol @ irony.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 09:13

  • krisskross #58 2 years ago

    Oh come on, Wii vs PS3? Totally incomparable!
    And YES I am a Wii owner and I love it!
    IMPRESIVE!

  • Bigglesworth #59 2 years ago

    However, stick the Wii game into a side-by-side comparison with the PS3 version and you can see that despite the vast array of cutbacks and compromises, it does a good enough job of capturing the look of the original.

    Lol! He really doesn't realise he's doing it, does he?

  • JaguarGrowl #60 2 years ago

    I've put in about 12+ hours into this game and it's amazing. Anyone who loves COD4 will be glad to see it faithfully recreated on the Wii, absolutely complete. It truly delivers. Richard hits the mark saying there's a magic gained by playing with the Wii Remote rather than dual analog. It feels more real, more interactive, more intuitive. Highly recommended.

  • Badassbab #61 2 years ago

    Semitope were you reading the same article? Just in case you missed this bit.

    "That's exactly what Treyarch has done with Modern Warfare. Texture detail and geometry levels are savagely hacked down, lighting effects and shadowing are brutally pared back, frame-rate is cut from 60FPS down to the more manageable 30FPS (and even then it has trouble sustaining it in some of the more sustained firefights). The whole lighting model has been adjusted to such a degree that the night-vision section in The Bog is entirely superfluous - despite the game nagging you to don the goggles, the section remains so bright you don't actually need to."

    It's one thihg to see videos of games on one's PC and make comments and entirely another when seeing it in motion.