Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 Review

Wii WWII.

Version tested: Wii

Released to a muted fanfare on Wii and PSP almost three months ago in the US, Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 is the filler release you're expecting. The apathy surrounding it is hardly surprising. After more than ten different MOH titles since the back end of '99, we all know the drill: shoot clueless Nazis, wander around linear levels, blow stuff up, meet objectives, repeat until dead/bored.

Even if you're somehow new to killing brain-dead Nazis, Heroes 2 is so by-the-numbers that you won't be satisfied. If that sounds cynical, it's a fleabite on the gelatinous flabby arse of this bone-idle attempt to reprise the World War II shooter. You'd have to really want to own another World War II shooter, and on the Wii, to find sustenance in the few crumbs of comfort on offer, although, to be fair, if you ignore the bland, predictable, linear environments, the atrocious enemy AI, the boring objectives and the same old same old same old, the Wii version's control system is worth inviting into your tent to snuggle and compare haversacks.

Waving and drowning

Unlike last year's irredeemably awful Vanguard, EA has realised that waving downward to crouch and waving right to do a 180-degree turn are silly ideas. Instead, Heroes 2 takes its cues from the much slicker Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, rather than, say, Red Steel, and other awful Wii game attempts at FPS controls. Aiming is precise, movement polished, and simple actions like crouching and zooming down the sights are bound to buttons rather than dance moves.

'Medal of Honor: Heroes 2' Screenshot 1

Don't walk into your men: you'll see their BRAAAAAINS.

Leaning involves a little tilt of the Nunchuk in the appropriate direction, and you can easily peep over the top of cover by zooming in while crouched. Reloading is still performed with a little shake of the remote (complete with a workmate-baiting 'Clunk-Click' from the Wii remote's speaker when you do), but it all works, so we'll forgive this rather silly concession to gesture controls. Better still, the ability to tinker with look-speed and aiming sensitivity makes it possible to refine it to your tastes - always appreciated - while the addition of a Zapper configuration also takes care of those who feel the need to fashion a gun-shaped peripheral out of their controllers and go "pew pew!"

The Zapper doesn't really lend itself to full first-person controls, so the eight-mission Campaign mode feels far better played by the default method. On the other hand, the new on-rails Arcade mode works a charm with the Zapper, and is by far the most entertaining way to play. Taking place in the exact same levels as Campaign, and broadly involving the same objectives and enemy placement, you simply let the game take over movement and get on with the business of shooting those dastardly Nazis. The scamps. The other major difference is that ammo is unlimited, and so is health; so instead of the usual recharging system, you have to shoot health-packs scattered around to top up your health bar, just like Granddad did with Tom Hanks.

Fiddly on the roof

Sadly, not everything in Arcade mode works quite as well as it could. For a start, there's no option to play through it with a pal (unlike all the other Wii light-gun shooters to date). Elsewhere, the sniper sections are fiddly as hell. In Campaign mode you can take your time, duck down, replenish your health and generally pick enemies off at your leisure, but in Arcade mode they require unreasonable levels of quick precision and the ability to memorise enemy spawn points. Any dillydallying on the way spells your doom, or, at best, a sliver of health with which to take on the next section. Checkpointing in both Arcade and Campaign is suspect and occasionally unfair. In a game as already tiresomely familiar as this, the last thing you want to do is repeat things.

Still, there are a few cute touches among the dubious debris. For instance, tuning in the enemy radio and hearing the results emanating from the Wii remote speaker had everyone smiling quizzically, while turning the remote to set the bomb timer and yanking it up to set it off adds a pleasant touch of daft fun to what would have otherwise been simple button presses. But before we start extending too much kindness, let's be mean again: Heroes 2 is among the most uninspiring takes on World War II imaginable. With just eight levels to trawl through across Northern France, longevity isn't even on the menu - but, then again, that's probably a good thing.

'Medal of Honor: Heroes 2' Screenshot 3

You too will gasp incredulously at the last-gen visuals.

If you're really one of the committed/determined, then there's also the spurious notion of 32-player online play (given the small number of players on the servers, that's more in theory than something you'll find on offer). In its favour, getting online is relatively simple, assuming you have an EA Nation online account (an ancient one I'd used ages ago for playing FIFA on Xbox still worked - just type in your email address and it'll ping you a message with your user ID if you've completely forgotten), and proves that the Wii is a perfectly capable online gaming system when it's not confusing the hell out of everyone with friend's codes you'll never ever ever ever remember.

If you can get beyond EA's beloved Ts & Cs, what you'll find on offer is fairly ho-hum, if perfectly serviceable in a 'my first online shooter' kind of sense. By that, we mean Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and, of course, our old chum Capture the Flag (called Infiltration here), with six maps for DM and two for CTF. As anyone who's actually managed a full 32-player sortie will attest, the maps are way too small to accommodate that many players, so if you like the idea of people respawning right in front of you and enemies that absorb lots of damage before they die, step on up. Voice comms aren't an option, so actually communicating with your team is a bit of a hassle - especially as stopping to call up the preset menu of text commands is a faff and likely to get you killed.

If it were not for the mildly diverting antics possible in Arcade mode (and, at a push, online play), Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 would end up yet another half-hearted attempt to cash in on the Wii's success. Next to ageing titles like Frontlines and European Assault, it feels soulless, hastily cobbled together and depressingly formulaic. In its favour, the controls are very solid, and the game has enough polish to drag it into the realms of mindless playability, but that's not nearly enough to mask the insipid level design, sloppy AI and all-round feeling of contractual apathy surrounding this thoroughly mediocre effort.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (61) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • Killerbee #1 4 years ago

    Oh. Only 5?

    Gutted. IGN's review was remakably positive and I had high hopes for this. Oh well, maybe I will have to go for Umbrella Chronicles to keep my Wii Zapper dutifully employed.
  • Vin #2 4 years ago

    Christ, my eyes just burst looking at those screenies.
  • Darren #3 4 years ago

    First-person shooters are really not the Wii's forte really...
  • Retroid #4 4 years ago

    God, that looks poor!
  • FenderMaster #5 4 years ago

    another Wii must have!!

    First-person shooters are really not the Wii's forte really...

    Metroid Prime 3 begs to differ...
  • Tejstar #6 4 years ago

    A lot of the US sites liked this game - didn't expect to see the score that low.
  • Aretak #7 4 years ago

    Wiilol.

    IGNlol.

    Sayinglollol.
  • aldo_14 #8 4 years ago

    makes me wonder how the wii is selling so many consoles with scores like this.

    I doubt many people are buying the Wii to play Medal Of Hono-missing u-r
  • varsas #9 4 years ago

    First-person shooters are really not the Wii's forte really...

    I'm pretty sure this review does indicate that it works very well on Wii; the issue is lazy by-the-numbers design.
  • Hog-lumps #10 4 years ago

    The other major difference is that ammo is unlimited, and so is health; so instead of the usual recharging system, you have to shoot health-packs scattered around to top up your health bar...

    Should that be limited?
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/08 @ 14:32
  • dsmx #11 4 years ago

    Since the US seems obsessed with WW2 is it any surprise that it scored well over there?
  • rutter #12 4 years ago

    what a shame, I really thought this would score higher, based on the US reviews.
    I think it got an average of 75 on metacritic.

    Hmm, I may still give this a go. I quite fancy some souless 'light-gun' arcade action.
    And would love to see some promise in the online options....
  • Darren #13 4 years ago

    @FenderMaster - Yes, Metriod Prime 3 is excellent but it's the exception rather than the rule and it isn't really a FPS as such, more like a first-person adventure-cum-platformer-cum-shooter!!! LOL
  • bitesize #14 4 years ago

    First-person shooters are really not the Wii's forte really...

    metroid prime 3 was amazing, controlled so well that i find it really clunky going back to 2 stick fps's with a normal joypad now. surely someone else must be able to make a decent wii fps? any others on the horizon?
  • Les #15 4 years ago

    "Next to ageing titles like Frontlines and European Assault, it feels soulless, hastily cobbled together and depressingly formulaic. In its favour, the controls are very solid, and the game has enough polish to drag it into the realms of mindless playability, but that's not nearly enough to mask the insipid level design, sloppy AI and all-round feeling of contractual apathy surrounding this thoroughly mediocre effort."

    So to summarise: All that stands between this title and an 8+ score are HD graphics... ;)
  • haowan #16 4 years ago

    ah but is metroid prime an fps?
  • bitesize #17 4 years ago

    not really. but it controls like one...
  • Big-Swiss #18 4 years ago

    too bad, seems as it is not always so pleasent to be a wii owner. Seems as a outstanding person, that you always have a 50/50 chance to get a shitty game delivered. How do you feel about that?
  • orakio #19 4 years ago

  • Waldo #20 4 years ago

    Since the US seems obsessed with WW2 is it any surprise that it scored well over there?

    It has an average score on Game Rankings of 77%. Not bad, but not great either.

    Good thing Eurogamer's around to show us the way, though!
  • miiiguel #21 4 years ago

    to the next whisky bar ?
  • MoGamer2006 #22 4 years ago

    @bitesize

    Totally with you on that. Played The Orange Box recently and loved it to bits, but after MP3 the controls felt so clunky. Someone must be working on a decent FPS for Wii, shirley?
  • Muddtallica #23 4 years ago

    Again, disappointing...the US reception to this was surprisingly good, and, whilst I was never fussed about getting it or anything, a good score for this would at least demonstrate that third-parties were starting to get a handle on the hardware. Alas, no...ah well.
  • TheDudesRug #24 4 years ago

    Fairly predictable these Wii scores.

    Yowser, just looked at those screenshots. Reminded me of Rise of the Triad with the distinct lack of colour and, well, quality.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/08 @ 16:07
  • Bagpuss #25 4 years ago

    Oh look....

    2001 era graphics on a 2008 console....nice.

    The Gamecube,er sorry, the Wii is doing a good job of keeping up.
  • DonnieDarko333 #26 4 years ago

    This game has received alot of praise! A 5 seems a little harsh guys!
  • kangarootoo #27 4 years ago

    "First-person shooters are really not the Wii's forte really...
    Metroid Prime 3 begs to differ..."

    Forte:
    a strong point, as of a person; that in which one excels.

    I'm not sure one good title really qualifies.
  • kangarootoo #28 4 years ago

    "This game has received alot of praise! A 5 seems a little harsh guys!"

    Surely those are unconnected statements.

    We can't be suggesting that when EG score their reviews, they take scores given by other publications into account? I don't like the sound of that one bit. Much rather they call it as they see it, with enough supporting info that we can make up our own minds in the end.
  • BartonFink #29 4 years ago

    LOL - another stellar FPS for the Wii
  • Aretak #30 4 years ago

    "A 5 seems a little harsh guys!"

    Played it, have you? Thought not.
  • Paukl #31 4 years ago

    Is this the game that Gamespot were spaffing over in their 'End of Year Awards Spectacular' or whatever the hell it is they call it?

    Wonder how much those kind words cost?
  • darc #32 4 years ago

    5 strikes me as a little harsh, too. But then I don't really have the perspective/context the reviewer has, in so far as I've played very few WWII FPS's over the years. That said, it all comes off kind of strange, boiling down to: we hate this game because it's just like a dozen other games... which we mostly liked and occasionally raved about. (Ironically, I was already bored w/ WWII shooters back then.)

    As for the screenshots, well you knew the graphics were gonna suck. It's a Wii. Trying to crank out an FPS. The graphics are on par with an old XBox game, and those haven't left us permanently scarred or anything.

    IMO, the game deserves better treatment on account of the control scheme alone (which the review acknowledges.) There's nothing out there with quite the versatility and intuitiveness of aiming the remote at the screen, and leaning around cover by tillting the nunchuck. (Silly that the Zapper is even "supported" since it throws this right out the window.) I might even prefer this to mouse and WASD. I really wish one of the graphically intensive next-gen consoles would make this sort of thing available by way of alternate controllers. That would be the best of both worlds.

    Disclaimer: I only played this for a few hours on rental, and I don't doubt it's short. Then again I can't think of many games that wouldn't benefit by being shorter.

    7/10 :)
  • symbiote #33 4 years ago

  • Muddtallica #34 4 years ago

    darc - "As for the screenshots, well you knew the graphics were gonna suck. It's a Wii. Trying to crank out an FPS."

    So what? That means we give developers free rein to simply not put any effort in whatsoever, and accept the low-poly visuals of a thrown-together PSP port as a system standard? This argument never held any water before, and it holds even less since the likes of Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros. Brawl have shown us what the hardware can truly aspire to. What's with this "trying to crank out an FPS" talk, like it's a hard thing to do? This isn't 1996; every post-Dreamcast console has the horsepower to do far more than "crank out" an FPS, and Metroid Prime 3, which easily looks five times as good as this, proves that the Wii certainly can.

    Yes, the Wii's the least powerful system, and yes, it will reach the limits of its capabilities long before either of the competing systems; it's not reached them yet, however, and it sure as hell hasn't reached them with this pig-ugly handheld port.
  • rotmm #35 4 years ago

    Muddtallica: "This argument never held any water before, and it holds even less since the likes of Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros. Brawl have shown us what the hardware can truly aspire to."

    While I appreciate the point you are making, not every game can resort to covering up the low res, low poly characters and environments by creative use of a simplistic cartoon look.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/08 @ 18:36
  • trotskyicepick #36 4 years ago

    FPS on Wii: sux

    someone get it sorted! surely it should be a match made in heaven!!
  • Muddtallica #37 4 years ago

    rotmm: [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64477 ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    Please go and look at any one of the fifty-odd screenshots of SMG in that gallery. "Simplistic cartoon look" or not, if you cannot see that the texture work, poly-count, shading, lighting, effects, model-work and environmental design is literally a hundred better in Mario Galaxy than it is in Medal of Honor, then you are either blind, or you are absolutely and bafflingly dead-set against giving people credit where it is due.

    In any case, you're splitting hairs here. I already cited Metroid Prime 3, a game that does infinitely more with non-"simplistic cartoon" graphics than MoH does; hell, Resident Evil 4 looks far better than this, and that's a GCN game. Whichever way you slice it, graphics like this are simply not something anyone, developer or consumer, should be prepared to accept.
  • Hulle #38 4 years ago

    Gamespot and IGN rated this game quite high.. IGN even said that the controls were better than Metroids.
    I must admit that I'd rather play fps on Wii than any other console. In my opinion the controllers work way better for this kind of game, than a 360 or PS3 controller.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/08 @ 19:57
  • darc #39 4 years ago

    Mudtallica, I'm not sure why your reply is as agressive as it is (or maybe I'm just reading you wrong. I was being a little flip with the "you knew the graphics were gonna suck" bit, to boot.) Maybe you think I'm trashing on the Wii and I know that can put people off. That really wasn't my point at all. (I love the Wii, BTW.) At the heart of it, my point was simply that the graphics aren't all that important with this game. It's neither the game nor the platform that I would look to to impress me in 2008, with the likes of CoD4 for the 360 sitting right next to it. These very same graphics would have been fine with us two years ago, they're not that bad, and they're not that important, so let's move on. (After all there is a *game* to be played here.)

    Developing further on that, I agree that the Wii is capable of better, and that we can expect much more from it in the years to come. (I'm still amazed at what I see out of recent Gamecube and PS2 titles.) On the other hand, I think a "realistic" WWII FPS makes very specific demands both technically and stylistically which prevent developers (and artists) from exploiting a console's strengths and sidestepping its weaknesses. Games like Mario Galaxy (a masterpiece) and even Metroid Prime present fantastical landscapes that can dazzle us with color schemes etc (while distracting from what is *not* present) because we don't carry preconceptions as with a real-world, historical setting.

    So yeah, the Wii can probably do better, but I don't think the devs just took a dive on account of laziness either. (On the other hand, comparing the design work w/ a Mario title puts any competing developer at disadvantage. Nintendo knows they're going to sell Mario games, and won't hesitate to invest the person-hours in design.)

    Hulle, I'm with you.
    Edited by 3 at 06/02/08 @ 20:15
  • darc #40 4 years ago

    Sorry - guess I'm feeling a little verbose this afternoon. And no one here wants to talk about abstract vs. historically accurate game design. :) What's the opposite of "wiilols"?
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/08 @ 20:25
  • Nookyalar #41 4 years ago

  • Muddtallica #42 4 years ago

    darc: Hmmm...well, I didn't mean to be as aggressive as I ended up being - just got a wee bit carried away, is all - but this is just a point that's been annoying me lately; playing Mario Galaxy has left me in little doubt that the Wii IS markedly more powerful than the GCN, PS2 and probably the Xbox, which has in turn vastly reduced my tolerance for developers releasing games such as this that look notably sub-last-gen. For me, it's become about more than the simple objective fact of what the game looks like; it's a point of principle about how much I feel the developer is actually trying to take advantage of the hardware.

    Wii is doing...OK software-wise at the minute, but if it does ultimately fail, it will be because of the sizable contingent of lazy publishers willing to shovel out low-cost, low-effort ports and gimmick games to turn a quick buck. MoH, to be fair to it, does seem to have made genuine efforts to adapt to the Wii control scheme, and it deserves some credit for that, but when you're releasing identical-looking versions of the same game on Wii and PSP, either that means you've tried REALLY hard on PSP, or that you've not tried on Wii at all. After all, Xbox games routinely looked a lot better than their PS2 counterparts; why are developers often settling for sub-PS2 graphics on Wii? I'm not sure the realistic artstyle can be used as an excuse, either; as I said, Resi 4 remains to me a lovely-looking realistically-styled game, and given the additional horsepower of Wii, developers should be aiming to match that kind of standard at least; that they haven't, leaving a three-year-old Cube port as the best-looking game of its style on the system, suggests to me that something is going wrong.

    I like my Wii just fine, and I didn't think you were trashing it at all; my point was that as Wii owners, we can and should expect more from the system than PSP-quality production values, and that doing so might be a good thing for the system...

    PS - the opposite of "Wiilol" is "Loliiw".
  • dsmx #43 4 years ago

    When you make a console the cheapest do develop on you take the risk that developers are going to make crap for it, you just have to hope that enough gems get made to distract people from the crap that surrounds them.
  • rotmm #44 4 years ago

    Muddtallica: "Please go and look at any one of the fifty-odd screenshots of SMG in that gallery. "Simplistic cartoon look" or not, if you cannot see that the texture work, poly-count, shading, lighting, effects, model-work and environmental design is literally a hundred better in Mario Galaxy than it is in Medal of Honor, then you are either blind, or you are absolutely and bafflingly dead-set against giving people credit where it is due."

    Thanks for the link to the pictures that prove my point, at the same time as proving that it is you suffering from a strange kind of blindness. The textures are flat and lack detail, the poly-count is very low (cleverly the developers managed to make a game where they don't even have to have a far draw distance), the shading is simple, the lighting doesn't even cast dynamic shadows, the model work is nice and low-poly and the environmental design is simplistic.

    Don't get me wrong, the developers have done a fantastic job of creating a look that fits perfectly with the cartoonish Mario world, but it is very much a case of art direction and the clever use of colours creating the illusion of the game being more technically impressive than it is.

    But you talk about not giving credit where it's due, yet seem hell bent on attacking the developers of MoH on the Wii, who have attempted (and largely succeeded) creating a "realistic look" on a console that, despite your protestations, has nothing like the rendering power of the original Xbox. Yet they have still managed to create a gameworld chock full of environmental details and with an impressive draw distance, that can have many decent looking characters on screen with soft shadows, has nice looking weapon models, solid animations and particle effects such fire and smoke the really do the job. And it does all of that while running smoothly at pretty much all times and supports up to 32 players online.

    To me, it's clear which game is more impressive from a technical viewpoint. And it's not the one your selective blindness forces you to think it is.
  • figaro7 #45 4 years ago

    Ive just heard from various people who have bought the game locally Australia, the online play has been removed from the AU version. This is a complete an utter joke for those who were looking forward to some online FPS action! So to those who visit eurogamer from down under, please be aware of this or purchase the UK version.
  • smelly #46 4 years ago

    sigh.. another mediocre wii game.. another thread full of 360 owning trolls wanking each other off telling themselves that the wii is shit and their console is great.

    "but that's not nearly enough to mask the insipid level design, sloppy AI and all-round feeling of contractual apathy surrounding this thoroughly mediocre effort."

    Sounds like they reviewed halo 3 by mistake


    "FPS on Wii: sux

    someone get it sorted! surely it should be a match made in heaven!!"


    They did.. it's called metroid prime 3. And it's quite possibly the best first person game where you shoot things released last year. (I dont consider FPS to be a genre - but a play style.. i.e. Metroid 3 is an intelligent thinking mans action adventure where you shoot things first person. Halo 3 is a mindless wander in a straight line 'em up while you shoot things in first person.)
  • smelly #47 4 years ago

    "
    But you talk about not giving credit where it's due, yet seem hell bent on attacking the developers of MoH on the Wii, who have attempted (and largely succeeded) creating a "realistic look" on a console that, despite your protestations, has nothing like the rendering power of the original Xbox."


    I love it when fanboys with no actual knowledge of what is/isnt possible post wank like this on forums!

    I bet they sit their with their cock in their hand thinking "oooh.. ooh, i know how to convince everyone to buy my machine.. i'll make up some "facts" about the power of the machine and tout them as fact"... Whack whack whack

    (wonders if they get as far as the return key before exploding their mess everywhere..)


    But okay.. i'll bite.. want a "realistic look", want a "decent fps" look at metroid 3. Yes you can wank yourself silly that it's in 480p instead of halo's MASSIVE 640p (or whatever it actually was).. But the fact of the matter is it looks great graphically.

    This game doesnt... And its obviously a cheap cash in port without much time/effort put in.

    And as such is not indicative of the wii's power/capabilities. Right i'm off to go back to metroid 3 which i STILL havent finished after 60 hours of gameplay (halo 3 was finished in 8 hours.. wow.. great value for money there!)

    (It's amazing how quickly 360 owning fangirls forget the great wii games when they rush into threads like this isnt it? I can only presume they're bored after finishing halo 3 in a day, and are now waiting for their birthday so mummy can give them something else to play.)


    Personally, look at this .. think "meh.. crap.. i'll go back to metroid.. smash bros out next month.. then mario kart.. joy joy joy!"

    Edited by 1 at 07/02/08 @ 02:23
  • Muddtallica #48 4 years ago

    rotmm: Well, clearly we have reached an impasse here; I'm sure we're looking at the same pictures (mostly because I gave you the damn link), but are somehow arriving at completely opposite conclusions, which suggests to me that our two brains contains certain nerves or synapses which are simply connected differently/wrong. Since I've stated my stance pretty clearly, as have you, continuing to belabour the point doesn't seem as though it would benefit anyone. I will say this, though; even if you don't think the Wii can outperform the first Xbox, my point remains that a quickie conversion of a PSP game is hugely unlikely to be the game that maximises the Nintendo system's potential. If you deem MoH to be an impressive technical showcase already, cool; hopefully, you'll be even more impressed very soon, because Wii is capable of much, much more than this, if the devs would just put in the effort...

    smelly: Who are you even talking to? No-one mentioned the 360 or Halo 3 until you brought them up.
  • smelly #49 4 years ago

    @Muddtallica: Its the same faces which pop up in every wii game thread saying how crap it is.. who (suprise suprise) also appear in threads for 360 games, etc etc..

  • Daymare #50 4 years ago

    @rotmm

    MoH:H2 more impressive from a technical viewpoint than SMG? Is that suppose to be funny? First of all, none of them are impressive from a technical viewpoint, not even if you compare them, but one of them has a great art design and looks beautiful and the other one doesn't and we all know which one that is. Except, maybe, you.

    As for Xbox being more powerful than Wii - are you presenting your observations like facts or are you going to provide us links to back up your claim?
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/08 @ 06:38
  • rudedudejude #51 4 years ago

    Any vehicle levels?

    Tank Driving, Jeep Driving?
  • rotmm #52 4 years ago

    smelly,

    Funny you using the term "fanboy". Here I am, defending a game on the Wii and making no mention of games on other platforms, and there you go attacking a completely unrelated game on another platform.

    That speaks volumes.
  • rotmm #53 4 years ago

    Muddtallica,

    It seems we have reached an impass ;) All I can suggest is that you go over to Gametrailers and have a look at some videos of MoH in action. While I agree that the game doesn't look that great in static screenshots (which I still contend is because EA have tried to go for realism over cartoon), in motion it looks fantastic.
  • Kami #54 4 years ago

    I think there is one thing to note here.

    The Wii is capable of some great visuals. IF the developer can be arsed. Nintendo clearly can be and we can see in their shots a quality of texturing and modelling - cartoon in Mario or not-so in Metroid Prime 3 - that right now are a million miles ahead of the third parties. But this rule applies to all systems and has applied to all systems. The PS2 in its early days had some amazingly bad titles as developers looked upon the hardware as, "It's got the biggest market so we don't need to give a shit!". But eventually you burn out that phase and people focus on pushing the hardware, and look what we got at the end of the 'Cube and PS2's lifespan. RE4. God of War 2. FFXII. Twilight Princess. Seriously pretty titles on aging hardware.

    I can say as a Wii owner I am a bit fed up of the shitty games, but then - I think I must have felt this way during the PS2's lifespan at some point, as quality dropped and I wondered if it would ever get better.

    We forget that this happens in every single bloody generation. YES, I agree, I would prefer developers and manufacturers learned from these past mistakes and kept pushing things, keeping quality high. But they never do and you know what, I sincerely doubt they ever will. They'll burn out some money from the market at the start and then invest it in better titles that push systems harder.

    My overall point? If you think the current situation is bad, and you've been a gamer for any decent length of time, it may be time to crawl out from under that rock because the same shit happens every. Single. Generation.

    This is not excusing EA or any other company for some of the utter tripe they churn out though. Shit is shit is shit and I don't care how you dress it up or how HD it is or how tyextured or how much waggling you do with the remote. But it's our job as decent consumers to sniff out that shit, leave it alone and buy the good titles and send the message back. The real reason we go through this phase is because it's still the formative years of this generation of hardware, most consumers will buy any franchised shit because they think it'll be good, without educating themselves.

    Rant over. Good day to you.
  • Darren #55 4 years ago

    @Kami - I think the Wii does graphics best when they're cartoony or stylised, any attempt at doing "real" and there's a far, far greater tendency for it to fail as the hardware is just not powereful enough. Games like Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy and Zack & Wiki all look lovely on the Wii due to terrific artwork and a graphical style that doesn't even remotely strive for realism. While games like Resident Evil 4 look fine artisitically, technically they tend to be weak with lots of aliasing and low-res, flat-looking textures. Just my opinion, mind, I don't expect anyone to agree with me and at the end of the day, a game can still be good without great graphics.
  • MilkYMoO #56 4 years ago

    Aaaaarrgghh, I was looking forward to this for months. I have the psp version but unfortunately its shite.
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/08 @ 13:52
  • darc #57 4 years ago

    smelly, you seem to be fighting your own personal flamewar up there. I'll be honest - I enjoy an old-fashioned flamewar for entertainment now and again. But stirring one up by way of "complaining" about it? That's so 2003. :) And we get it: Metroid 3 is a good game.

    Mudtallica, I see where you're coming from now, and I do agree. Alot of what we're seeing here is about market availability. A passable game this season is likely to make more money than a great game next season, by virtue of the Wii's visibility. At Christmas the Wii was a primetime news item! From a software business perspective, everybody *needed* to ship product. To complicate matters, it seems like several developers got tripped up in the transition from GC to Wii. (Nintendo themselves are actually the best example, with the underwhelming (IMO) Super Paper Mario, which doesn't even look as good as it's GC predecessor.) They have what are plainly unreleased GC games that need homes... and hello, Wii. So yeah, everybody's cutting their losses and shipping these products as is, and it's a little disappointing. I just take it for what it's worth, and if there's a decent game mechanic behind an aging graphics engine, call it a win. (Better than the other way around, right?) It ought to turn around with the next generation of software as a matter of course, as all these older properties make their way through their lifespans.

    Anyway, I hope the Wii proves its mettle soon - I bought one for my bro for Christmas, and I think he secretly wanted an XBox360. :o Meanwhile, the controls do rock.
  • darc #58 4 years ago

    P.S. I think I played the PSP demo, and if I've got the right game in mind, we are overstating the case a bit. The Wii version looks much much MUCH better than that! :)
  • smelly #59 4 years ago

    Rottm:

    "
    Funny you using the term "fanboy". Here I am, defending a game on the Wii and making no mention of games"

    Why you defending this game? it's shit?


    " on other platforms, and there you go attacking a completely unrelated game on another platform."

    1. It was stated the wii had no decent fps games (so i picked a "decent" *cough* game to compare against)
    2. The dicks in this forum who are all slagging off the wii all own a 360. So therefor it stands to reason during a discussion/argument/etc that you'd use what they have as examples..



    "That speaks volumes."

    Not really no.

    I own a 360. I dont own a ps3.

    Do i go into all ps3 threads of crap games.. and go "hahahaha - ps3 is shit"? Nope.. as that's the realm of the fanboy tard
  • orac1971 #60 4 years ago

    Got this game on saturday and its really good - more along the lines of IGN 8.4/10 and gamespot 8/10 than this review.

    Of course the graphics cannot compete with fps on 360 and PS3 but the controls are brilliant (actually genius I would say) and the other consoles cannot compete at all on that level... and it brings much to the game. Formulaic levels? well check some of the COD4 ones (yes I have completed that game). Dodgy AI? yes its not great... nor was MOH: Airbourne - COD4 is ahead on this part of the game.

    Online works well - easy to set up and no lag.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/08 @ 11:10
  • And3 #61 4 years ago

    rotmm:
    The game certainly does not look fantastic. I've played for ~3 hours now and i can't really tell the difference between a grey brown dock, a grey brown city and a grey brown monastery. Everything in this game is grey. Mixed with a little brown (wooden doors, some trees or so..).
    But let's not be graphic whores, let us get to the main part of the game.
    This game in multiplayer mode is fun. That's what it should be. It is only sometimes frustrating because of the unlimited health you have.
    Singleplayer mode is so frustrating and only challenging because for every enemy you kill, three others spawn. Also the enemies refuse to attack your teammates, they're dumb anyway and they only attack you. (Like: 'No, let's not kill these rangers, everyone kill _this_ guy instead. Buaahahaha! And don't forget to tell everyone in the whole country about him!' - That's what the singleplayer feels like.) Even if you are the furthest one away, enemies attack you from so far away, they have to have binoculars implanted or some weird eye enhancement. Additionally they shoot so precise, they even hit you with their MP40 from 300 yards away. Seriously, who or what am I fighting against. The Nazis or some Ubersoldiers who are dumb, have unlimited ammo and can see you everywhere. Ah right, it's the Ubersoldiers I want to take care of.
    For me it seems, they did not write any AI, they simply set enough respawn points to make the game harder. Choose the difficulty hero and you will hate this game so much, you regret buying it in the first place.
    I can keep on ranting, but will write a detailed review anyway after finishing this mess.

    To clear some things: I own this game and currently play it on the difficulty level 'Veteran'. And yes, my inner child died after completing the first two missions :( .

    I think a 5/10 is even too high. A 3 or 4 out of 10 would be just right.
    Edited by 1 at 12/02/08 @ 09:33