MW:Reflex Official Thread - post your friend codes

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

The simple existence of superior motion control makes this game an upgrade of the 360/ps3 version. Graphics be damned (although they do look great :) )

Darth-Samus

So, uh, missing features don't matter?

Oh it certainly would matter. However there is not one feature that didn't make it into the Wii version. It is 100% the same experience. Both on and offline :D That's a fact too. I'm not talking out my arse.

We've only seen few videos and already we know that the Killcam was taken out. Can't wait to see what else is missing.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

So, uh, missing features don't matter?

Lord_Nas3k

Oh it certainly would matter. However there is not one feature that didn't make it into the Wii version. It is 100% the same experience. Both on and offline :D That's a fact too. I'm not talking out my arse.

We've only seen few videos and already we know that the Killcam was taken out. Can't wait to see what else is missing.

I am actually surprised it look so good :O but, i've always thought modern warfare was an ugly game. Sure it had "details" on the 360, but it was still so bland. Also, the textures of the buildings and floor were ugly/ smeared, only in more pixals than the wii one. The one thing i hate in pretty much all shooters are those "doors" that have the painted look, the ones you arent supposed to happen. When isaw that on the pc version of modern warfare, i was like, wth, is this a n64 game? maybe its cause i was spoiled with running crysis on high settings, but any game (at least shooter) with "realistic" visuals, just seem so ugly and boring to me. That's why i am sticking to team fortress 2. Something i realized after picking up the conduit is that i just dont like plain run n guns shooters. You'd think i would learn that after getting halo 3. But, really, the wii version looks good. I am actually quite surprised. Of course, my comparison isnt too reliable cause i dont remember exacttly how the 360 version looks like since i spent more time on the pc version, which looks MuCH better (in terms of pixels, i still dont really like the look. its like a hybrid between good looking and smeared ugly paintings)

Looks way better than the first screenshots. Good work Bethesda!

Looks way better than the first screenshots. Good work Bethesda!

Wikipedian

Oh god, I think I just lol'd.

[QUOTE="Wikipedian"]

Looks way better than the first screenshots. Good work Bethesda!

Lord_Nas3k

Oh god, I think I just lol'd.

with this?

:P

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

[QUOTE="Wikipedian"]

Looks way better than the first screenshots. Good work Bethesda!

BrunoBRS

Oh god, I think I just lol'd.

with this?

:P

Crapsticks! I mean Treyarch!

I don't think it looks good

Infinity Ward's work has been torn down. The atmosphere is completely gone from the game

If there was never a Modern Warfare game anywhere else you could say this was an ok title, nothing great nothing horrible.

Since everyone has seen what Modern Warfare is supposed to be this just feels wrong

It's the mistake that so many devs make on the Wii. Instead of making something that plays to the Wii's strengths they instead majorly downgrade a game and call it a day

I don't appreciate this kind of laziness anymore. It's 3 years since the Wii launched and it's owners deserve better efforts then this

Jaysonguy

I think graphically its still a disappointment. However, its still Modern Warfare. Now, what were you hoping for? ANOTHER on-rails shooter?

The Wii's strength should be FPS. Give these guys credit for at least trying.

I don't think it looks good

Infinity Ward's work has been torn down. The atmosphere is completely gone from the game

If there was never a Modern Warfare game anywhere else you could say this was an ok title, nothing great nothing horrible.

Since everyone has seen what Modern Warfare is supposed to be this just feels wrong

It's the mistake that so many devs make on the Wii. Instead of making something that plays to the Wii's strengths they instead majorly downgrade a game and call it a day

I don't appreciate this kind of laziness anymore. It's 3 years since the Wii launched and it's owners deserve better efforts then this

Jaysonguy

disagree with most, except that the atmosphere is definately gone.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

So, uh, missing features don't matter?

Lord_Nas3k

Oh it certainly would matter. However there is not one feature that didn't make it into the Wii version. It is 100% the same experience. Both on and offline :D That's a fact too. I'm not talking out my arse.

We've only seen few videos and already we know that the Killcam was taken out. Can't wait to see what else is missing.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] the year is 200X. doctor willy modified his own creations to aid him in his quest for world domination. it is up to you, darth-samus, to defeat the evil scientist and restore peace.BrunoBRS

Whoa sweet! Like Dragonball Z?!?

Oh bro...lol....I'm 29. No worries I know my old school ;) I just didn't catch the "Wily". My bad!

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

Oh it certainly would matter. However there is not one feature that didn't make it into the Wii version. It is 100% the same experience. Both on and offline :D That's a fact too. I'm not talking out my arse.

gamefan67

We've only seen few videos and already we know that the Killcam was taken out. Can't wait to see what else is missing.

Totally true. And every legitiamte gameplay feature is present in this version. They've done an amazing job.

That looks pretty awesome.

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

is it me or does the gamplay look really blurry

like when the guy is running the screen is so blurry

is it me or does the gamplay look really blurry

like when the guy is running the screen is so blurry

its_a_username

Yeah. That's the video itself not the game though. I know what you're talking about?

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

painguy1

Lol what? Bro, this game is the very definition of a non-lazy port. It exemplifies how well any game on any console can run and be made better on the Wii. Saying you're not interested because this is a "lazy port", is like throwing away a box of crayons because you don't like apples.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

Darth-Samus

Lol what? Bro, this game is the very definition of a non-lazy port. It exemplifies how well any game on any console can run and be made better on the Wii. Saying you're not interested because this is a "lazy port", is like throwing away a box of crayons because you don't like apples.

having programmed for the wii myself (not gonna say what, but i think u can figure that out easly) i know the wii is capable of MUCH more. I believe a while back i wrote a 2 page post detailing the wiis capabilities. Its obvious no one payed attention or didnt understand the termonology i used & thats to bad. Through my eyes MW is a lazy port. It may be more fun than the Conduit, but that doesnt mean it isnt a lazy port. The conduit may have sucked badly, but at least the devs tried. Treyarch isnt trying. Graphics is the hardest thing the program for. Scripting gun functions, trigger sequences, AI, collsion detection etc isnt as hard as developing a graphics engine. Thats one of the hardest parts of develoment especially on a wii with its unussual hardware architecture. If a game on the wii looks good i know the devs put effort because thats the hardest part of development on this console. On the 360 graphics engines are much easier to develop and so i measure a games quality based on gameplay not graphics. Im not saying gameplay doesnt matter. Its the MOST important aspect of videogames, But its called a Videogame for a reason. I want Video & a Game not just video or just a game. If either of these two are missing somethings wrong. The PS3 and 360 have displayed that Game aspect is harder to achieve. the wii has shown the Video aspect is harder to achieve. So i those are my benchmarks in a sense when i judge a game. Do u see what i mean? Im not saying COD MWR isnt fun. It actually is very fun. Ive played it hehe, but it looks horrible. in terms of gamplay it gets a 10/10. teh wiimote rly brings it too life, but the Video is missing BIG time. The conduit had the video, but it didnt have the game, but unlike treyarch, HVS tackled the harder part of development. Do u see what i mean now? on the 360 or PS3 for example Farcry 2 had the video. thats the easy part, but the game ws missing.

Lol what? Bro, this game is the very definition of a non-lazy port. It exemplifies how well any game on any console can run and be made better on the Wii. Saying you're not interested because this is a "lazy port", is like throwing away a box of crayons because you don't like apples.

Darth-Samus

You originally called Dead Space Extraction a lazy effort, even though it's a ground-up, brand new game. Yet you deny that Reflex is a lazy effort, even though it's a simple graphically down-graded port. And your explanation of Extraction seems to apply here, too. You said that EA made the lazy decision of making a rail shooter instead of a TPS or FPS, then Visceral took that idea to the fullest. By the same train of thought, Activision made the lazy decision of porting a two-year old game instead of porting the brand new game, then Treyarch did what they could with the Wii hardware, REALLY focusing on the controls (which hopefully work really well) and bringing as much to the online experience as possible.

So I'm kind of throwing your logic from before back at you here. The main difference is that Reflex is simply a port of a two-year old game and Extraction is a brand new game, so the perceived laziness should be even greater in the case of Reflex.

I honestly don't think there's laziness in either case.... just bad decisions. EA made a bad decision because Extraction probably won't sell that well in the long run, based on early sales figures (even though it's a good game), and Activision made a bad decision because most people who wanted to play CoD4 already have, AND it's being released on the same day as it's sequel that at this point will only appear on competing consoles. But just as in the case of Extraction, some people will love Reflex... I just don't see how it was a good decision in the long run.

I don't think it looks good

Infinity Ward's work has been torn down. The atmosphere is completely gone from the game

If there was never a Modern Warfare game anywhere else you could say this was an ok title, nothing great nothing horrible.

Since everyone has seen what Modern Warfare is supposed to be this just feels wrong

It's the mistake that so many devs make on the Wii. Instead of making something that plays to the Wii's strengths they instead majorly downgrade a game and call it a day

I don't appreciate this kind of laziness anymore. It's 3 years since the Wii launched and it's owners deserve better efforts then this

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

I don't think it looks good

Infinity Ward's work has been torn down. The atmosphere is completely gone from the game

If there was never a Modern Warfare game anywhere else you could say this was an ok title, nothing great nothing horrible.

Since everyone has seen what Modern Warfare is supposed to be this just feels wrong

It's the mistake that so many devs make on the Wii. Instead of making something that plays to the Wii's strengths they instead majorly downgrade a game and call it a day

I don't appreciate this kind of laziness anymore. It's 3 years since the Wii launched and it's owners deserve better efforts then this

Serraph105

Lol opinions are wrong,

I don't think it looks good

Infinity Ward's work has been torn down. The atmosphere is completely gone from the game

If there was never a Modern Warfare game anywhere else you could say this was an ok title, nothing great nothing horrible.

Since everyone has seen what Modern Warfare is supposed to be this just feels wrong

It's the mistake that so many devs make on the Wii. Instead of making something that plays to the Wii's strengths they instead majorly downgrade a game and call it a day

I don't appreciate this kind of laziness anymore. It's 3 years since the Wii launched and it's owners deserve better efforts then this

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Nas3k"]

So, uh, missing features don't matter?

Lord_Nas3k

Oh it certainly would matter. However there is not one feature that didn't make it into the Wii version. It is 100% the same experience. Both on and offline :D That's a fact too. I'm not talking out my arse.

We've only seen few videos and already we know that the Killcam was taken out. Can't wait to see what else is missing.

i wouldn't call killcam a feature, i'd turn it off if i can

and to fair, they also put the DLC other console owners payed for onto the Wii version, no charge

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

painguy1

Treyarch makes what activison tells them to make. Activision writes all the checks.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

goblaa

Treyarch makes what activison tells them to make. Activision writes all the checks.

Whoever did it doesnt mean the game isnt a lazy port

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

painguy1

Treyarch makes what activison tells them to make. Activision writes all the checks.

Whoever did it doesnt mean the game isnt a lazy port

True. Just stop blaming trearch for getting given a lazy port to do and doing a great job.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

Treyarch makes what activison tells them to make. Activision writes all the checks.

goblaa

Whoever did it doesnt mean the game isnt a lazy port

True. Just stop blaming trearch for getting given a lazy port to do and doing a great job.

fine i wont blame treyarch. I will blame activision for giving out a lazy port. the game still is low quality & IS NOT A GREAT JOB. its a hunk of junk. Its called a Video game for a reason. MWR has the Game, but not the Video. If a game is missing both aspects then it sucks through my eyes bcause it isnt a VideoGame. Whether Activision didnt fund enough doesnt change the fact that treyarch is making a bad port. during the development of the original COD4 they could have intgrated proper wii support into the engine. It would have taken about 2 months & they would have had enough money aswell. treyarch also has money of its own. It doesnt only recieve money from activision. they recieve a share of the profits therefore they have an income. They still have enough money to update the engine, but y spend money when they can still earn millions without spending a dime? ill tell u why, because poeple obviously posting in this forum want to buy junk & give lazy devs money. You go buy the game, ill be playing my MW & MW2 on my PC with added wiimote support through some mods. Seriously i rly would like to know, why do u think this game is a good quallity port when it doesnt even push the wii to its limits? when the devs arent even trying? yes it may be fun, but it is no longer the MW that i have on my PC. its a port with no atmosphere, with no feeling of a war torn land. I no longer feel that im playing MW. I feel like im playing an opensource game for the iphone

i've never seen so many ppl complain about getting a game they know is good coz of its previous reviews and the devs previous record with making FPS on Wii

its silly. lets go ahead and wait for the next AAA FPS on Wii (oh wait)

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

Whoever did it doesnt mean the game isnt a lazy port

painguy1

True. Just stop blaming trearch for getting given a lazy port to do and doing a great job.

fine i wont blame treyarch. I will blame activision for giving out a lazy port. the game still is low quality & IS NOT A GREAT JOB. its a hunk of junk. Its called a Video game for a reason. MWR has the Game, but not the Video. If a game is missing both aspects then it sucks through my eyes bcause it isnt a VideoGame. Whether Activision didnt fund enough doesnt change the fact that treyarch is making a bad port. during the development of the original COD4 they could have intgrated proper wii support into the engine. It would have taken about 2 months & they would have had enough money aswell. treyarch also has money of its own. It doesnt only recieve money from activision. they recieve a share of the profits therefore they have an income. They still have enough money to update the engine, but y spend money when they can still earn millions without spending a dime? ill tell u why, because poeple obviously posting in this forum want to buy junk & give lazy devs money. You go buy the game, ill be playing my MW & MW2 on my PC with added wiimote support through some mods. Seriously i rly would like to know, why do u think this game is a good quallity port when it doesnt even push the wii to its limits? when the devs arent even trying? yes it may be fun, but it is no longer the MW that i have on my PC. its a port with no atmosphere, with no feeling of a war torn land. I no longer feel that im playing MW. I feel like im playing an opensource game for the iphone

Because quality is not measured by how much a game pushes a hardware's limits. Cod 4 is a AAA game. Even with low res graphics, it's sill a great game.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

True. Just stop blaming trearch for getting given a lazy port to do and doing a great job.

goblaa

fine i wont blame treyarch. I will blame activision for giving out a lazy port. the game still is low quality & IS NOT A GREAT JOB. its a hunk of junk. Its called a Video game for a reason. MWR has the Game, but not the Video. If a game is missing both aspects then it sucks through my eyes bcause it isnt a VideoGame. Whether Activision didnt fund enough doesnt change the fact that treyarch is making a bad port. during the development of the original COD4 they could have intgrated proper wii support into the engine. It would have taken about 2 months & they would have had enough money aswell. treyarch also has money of its own. It doesnt only recieve money from activision. they recieve a share of the profits therefore they have an income. They still have enough money to update the engine, but y spend money when they can still earn millions without spending a dime? ill tell u why, because poeple obviously posting in this forum want to buy junk & give lazy devs money. You go buy the game, ill be playing my MW & MW2 on my PC with added wiimote support through some mods. Seriously i rly would like to know, why do u think this game is a good quallity port when it doesnt even push the wii to its limits? when the devs arent even trying? yes it may be fun, but it is no longer the MW that i have on my PC. its a port with no atmosphere, with no feeling of a war torn land. I no longer feel that im playing MW. I feel like im playing an opensource game for the iphone

Because quality is not measured by how much a game pushes a hardware's limits. Cod 4 is a AAA game. Even with low res graphics, it's sill a great game.

yeah it has game, but not video. dont forget that. its supposed to be a Videogame, if it is missing either then it isnt a videogame. If a game has video, but no game then it is also bad.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

fine i wont blame treyarch. I will blame activision for giving out a lazy port. the game still is low quality & IS NOT A GREAT JOB. its a hunk of junk. Its called a Video game for a reason. MWR has the Game, but not the Video. If a game is missing both aspects then it sucks through my eyes bcause it isnt a VideoGame. Whether Activision didnt fund enough doesnt change the fact that treyarch is making a bad port. during the development of the original COD4 they could have intgrated proper wii support into the engine. It would have taken about 2 months & they would have had enough money aswell. treyarch also has money of its own. It doesnt only recieve money from activision. they recieve a share of the profits therefore they have an income. They still have enough money to update the engine, but y spend money when they can still earn millions without spending a dime? ill tell u why, because poeple obviously posting in this forum want to buy junk & give lazy devs money. You go buy the game, ill be playing my MW & MW2 on my PC with added wiimote support through some mods. Seriously i rly would like to know, why do u think this game is a good quallity port when it doesnt even push the wii to its limits? when the devs arent even trying? yes it may be fun, but it is no longer the MW that i have on my PC. its a port with no atmosphere, with no feeling of a war torn land. I no longer feel that im playing MW. I feel like im playing an opensource game for the iphone

painguy1

Because quality is not measured by how much a game pushes a hardware's limits. Cod 4 is a AAA game. Even with low res graphics, it's sill a great game.

yeah it has game, but not video. dont forget that. its supposed to be a Videogame, if it is missing either then it isnt a videogame. If a game has video, but no game then it is also bad.

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

yeah it has game, but not video. dont forget that. its supposed to be a Videogame, if it is missing either then it isnt a videogame. If a game has video, but no game then it is also bad.

painguy1

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

goblaa

You missed his point. What Painguy means about the graphical aspect is that it should push the hardware of the console the game is on. Contrary to what many people have stated in this thread, this Modern Warfare port is not pushing the Wii at all. People seriously compared this to SMG and MP3...

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

shoryuken_

You missed his point. What Painguy means about the graphical aspect is that it should push the hardware of the console the game is on. Contrary to what many people have stated in this thread, this Modern Warfare port is not pushing the Wii at all. People seriously compared this to SMG and MP3...

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

Because quality is not measured by how much a game pushes a hardware's limits. Cod 4 is a AAA game. Even with low res graphics, it's sill a great game.

goblaa

yeah it has game, but not video. dont forget that. its supposed to be a Videogame, if it is missing either then it isnt a videogame. If a game has video, but no game then it is also bad.

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

that was last gen. last gen is the past. we are now in 2009 i expect 2009 quality games. you know exactly what i mean when i say i want both video & game so stop twisting my words. wouldnt u want a better quality game knowing the devs could do better or would u stick with the lower quality even though there could be more? i assure that that treyarch is capable of more. they are an amazing company with lots of potential, but they are lazy when it comes to the wii. heres a test: If Treyarch came to you and siad, "Hey goblaa were making MWR for the wii. Now we can do 1 of two things for you. We can give you MWR with similar graphics to 360/PS3/PC & new controls, BUT you need to wait 3 more months or we can release the game tommorow with butt ugly looking visuals, and new controls. Which will you choose goblaa? Btw there will no be no price increase for the game." so what would you do in that situation? if you say i want the butt ugly looking version I SWEAR GOBLAA I WILL HIT MYSELF IN THE HEAD 7 TIMES WITH A FRYING PAN!!!!!!!!! ill post a picture and everything just to show you how stupid that response would be( not u but the response). Do not say the first option isnt possible. I assure you it is. It would look like MW on low with low res realtime shadows & 2 dynamic lights instead of 7(not rly noticible only thing it adds is varying shadow angles),and 3,000-4,000 poly characters instead 9,000-12,000.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

yeah it has game, but not video. dont forget that. its supposed to be a Videogame, if it is missing either then it isnt a videogame. If a game has video, but no game then it is also bad.

painguy1

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

that was last gen. last gen is the past. we are now in 2009 i expect 2009 quality games. you know exactly what i mean when i say i want both video & game so stop twisting my words. wouldnt u want a better quality game knowing the devs could do better or would u stick with the lower quality even though there could be more? i assure that that treyarch is capable of more. they are an amazing company with lots of potential, but they are lazy when it comes to the wii. heres a test: If Treyarch came to you and siad, "Hey goblaa were making MWR for the wii. Now we can do 1 of two things for you. We can give you MWR with similar graphics to 360/PS3/PC & new controls, BUT you need to wait 3 more months or we can release the game tommorow with butt ugly looking visuals, and new controls. Which will you choose goblaa? Btw there will no be no price increase for the game." so what would you do in that situation? if you say i want the butt ugly looking version I SWEAR GOBLAA I WILL HIT MYSELF IN THE HEAD 7 TIMES WITH A FRYING PAN!!!!!!!!! ill post a picture and everything just to show you how stupid that response would be( not u but the response). Do not say the first option isnt possible. I assure you it is. It would look like MW on low with low res realtime shadows & 2 dynamic lights instead of 7(not rly noticible only thing it adds is varying shadow angles),and 3,000-4,000 poly characters instead 9,000-12,000.

Prove it.

This thread has gone stupid really really fast....... None of us know how much better Modern Warfare Reflex could've look without compromising the core game. Do people still not realize that the Wii is not much more powerful than a Xbox? Reflex looks very good for what it is(a port of an HD with a scaled down engine that was designed for an HD game). Please stop your complaining. If you dont want to play the game or support a good port (something very rare on Wii) then just go. We all know it is 2009, but the Wii has tech from 2001, so what Goblaa said still holds much weight. No Wii game looks leaps and bounds better than the highest quality Xbox or Gamecube game, so if you guys were expecting some technical marvel/masterpiece then you are gaming on the wrong console. gamefan67

[QUOTE="gamefan67"]This thread has gone stupid really really fast....... None of us know how much better Modern Warfare Reflex could've look without compromising the core game. Do people still not realize that the Wii is not much more powerful than a Xbox? Reflex looks very good for what it is(a port of an HD with a scaled down engine that was designed for an HD game). Please stop your complaining. If you dont want to play the game or support a good port (something very rare on Wii) then just go. We all know it is 2009, but the Wii has tech from 2001, so what Goblaa said still holds much weight. No Wii game looks leaps and bounds better than the highest quality Xbox or Gamecube game, so if you guys were expecting some technical marvel/masterpiece then you are gaming on the wrong console. Pices

[QUOTE="Pices"][QUOTE="gamefan67"]This thread has gone stupid really really fast....... None of us know how much better Modern Warfare Reflex could've look without compromising the core game. Do people still not realize that the Wii is not much more powerful than a Xbox? Reflex looks very good for what it is(a port of an HD with a scaled down engine that was designed for an HD game). Please stop your complaining. If you dont want to play the game or support a good port (something very rare on Wii) then just go. We all know it is 2009, but the Wii has tech from 2001, so what Goblaa said still holds much weight. No Wii game looks leaps and bounds better than the highest quality Xbox or Gamecube game, so if you guys were expecting some technical marvel/masterpiece then you are gaming on the wrong console. gamefan67

This is how you do ports on Wii, the visuals took a hit but the gameplay is intact. The amount of action in some of the newer videos is alot like some stages of the Rogue Squadron games.

Best tech game on Gamecube/Wii? Rogue Squadron 3 Rebel Strike.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

By that logic, all games last gen were not video games. I'm pretty sure MWR has graphics. You won't be staring a blank screen or playing call of duty modern warfare the official boardgame.

goblaa

that was last gen. last gen is the past. we are now in 2009 i expect 2009 quality games. you know exactly what i mean when i say i want both video & game so stop twisting my words. wouldnt u want a better quality game knowing the devs could do better or would u stick with the lower quality even though there could be more? i assure that that treyarch is capable of more. they are an amazing company with lots of potential, but they are lazy when it comes to the wii. heres a test: If Treyarch came to you and siad, "Hey goblaa were making MWR for the wii. Now we can do 1 of two things for you. We can give you MWR with similar graphics to 360/PS3/PC & new controls, BUT you need to wait 3 more months or we can release the game tommorow with butt ugly looking visuals, and new controls. Which will you choose goblaa? Btw there will no be no price increase for the game." so what would you do in that situation? if you say i want the butt ugly looking version I SWEAR GOBLAA I WILL HIT MYSELF IN THE HEAD 7 TIMES WITH A FRYING PAN!!!!!!!!! ill post a picture and everything just to show you how stupid that response would be( not u but the response). Do not say the first option isnt possible. I assure you it is. It would look like MW on low with low res realtime shadows & 2 dynamic lights instead of 7(not rly noticible only thing it adds is varying shadow angles),and 3,000-4,000 poly characters instead 9,000-12,000.

Prove it.

answer the question first and i will PM u a link to a site that will prove it. hopefully u are smart enough to understand the content on the site, If u have a hard time let me know AND I WILL EXPLAIN. TP had a link model with 6,800 poly's. How do i know this? i ripped the model from the game heres a pic. This is a GC game btw so the wii could push more. after using the MW debug an average polygon count was 36,000 poly's with 3 characters and about 250 poly's making up the ground do some simple division and exclude that 250 poly;s & u get 12,000 poly's on average per character. In this pic the model has 6,800 poly's plus the 4,224 for the bones which are never rendered in the final product making a total of 11,054. So now that you have pictures & i have proof to back up that im a graphic designer & proof to back up my estimates on MWR stat's answer the question instead of avoding it. If you avoid it ill make my assumption that you choose the first option. So 6800 for Tp, but on MWR seems to only have 2000 for the models. It may be difficult for u to tell, but being a 3d modler its alot easier for me to tell. Im pretty sure u can tell though, u just wont say. you need to face the fact that this game looks worse than a lowend GC game. Sure it may be fun(i have the game & yes it is), but it looks bad, very bad & there is no excuse for this considering that the Wii is more capable let alone the GC. theres ur proof. used average stats for a GC game to prove that a wii should be much more capable if a GC game surpases MWR.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

painguy1

Lol what? Bro, this game is the very definition of a non-lazy port. It exemplifies how well any game on any console can run and be made better on the Wii. Saying you're not interested because this is a "lazy port", is like throwing away a box of crayons because you don't like apples.

having programmed for the wii myself (not gonna say what, but i think u can figure that out easly) i know the wii is capable of MUCH more. I believe a while back i wrote a 2 page post detailing the wiis capabilities. Its obvious no one payed attention or didnt understand the termonology i used & thats to bad. Through my eyes MW is a lazy port. It may be more fun than the Conduit, but that doesnt mean it isnt a lazy port. The conduit may have sucked badly, but at least the devs tried. Treyarch isnt trying. Graphics is the hardest thing the program for. Scripting gun functions, trigger sequences, AI, collsion detection etc isnt as hard as developing a graphics engine. Thats one of the hardest parts of develoment especially on a wii with its unussual hardware architecture. If a game on the wii looks good i know the devs put effort because thats the hardest part of development on this console. On the 360 graphics engines are much easier to develop and so i measure a games quality based on gameplay not graphics. Im not saying gameplay doesnt matter. Its the MOST important aspect of videogames, But its called a Videogame for a reason. I want Video & a Game not just video or just a game. If either of these two are missing somethings wrong. The PS3 and 360 have displayed that Game aspect is harder to achieve. the wii has shown the Video aspect is harder to achieve. So i those are my benchmarks in a sense when i judge a game. Do u see what i mean? Im not saying COD MWR isnt fun. It actually is very fun. Ive played it hehe, but it looks horrible. in terms of gamplay it gets a 10/10. teh wiimote rly brings it too life, but the Video is missing BIG time. The conduit had the video, but it didnt have the game, but unlike treyarch, HVS tackled the harder part of development. Do u see what i mean now? on the 360 or PS3 for example Farcry 2 had the video. thats the easy part, but the game ws missing.

Huh. Wow, well said buddy. I see a lot of what you're saying here. I'm really shcked to hear you say that the graphics are so terrible. I didn't know you played it yet. I'm going to stand by the videos I'e seen that show how good it looks. I feel one thing that a lot of people may be subconsciously forming their opinion on, is soley thge comparing of Reflex to the original. They're only making the mental note of "the 360 version looks better" as opposed to "this game just looks good itself". Without comparison, you know? I think as a stand alone title it's visually very appealing. But beyond that I'm right there with ya that the gameplay matters most. And since you've played it and with what you said about the gamepla and your remarks about the Wiimote, then I feel just as god as ever that it will more than live up to expectaions.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

that was last gen. last gen is the past. we are now in 2009 i expect 2009 quality games. you know exactly what i mean when i say i want both video & game so stop twisting my words. wouldnt u want a better quality game knowing the devs could do better or would u stick with the lower quality even though there could be more? i assure that that treyarch is capable of more. they are an amazing company with lots of potential, but they are lazy when it comes to the wii. heres a test: If Treyarch came to you and siad, "Hey goblaa were making MWR for the wii. Now we can do 1 of two things for you. We can give you MWR with similar graphics to 360/PS3/PC & new controls, BUT you need to wait 3 more months or we can release the game tommorow with butt ugly looking visuals, and new controls. Which will you choose goblaa? Btw there will no be no price increase for the game." so what would you do in that situation? if you say i want the butt ugly looking version I SWEAR GOBLAA I WILL HIT MYSELF IN THE HEAD 7 TIMES WITH A FRYING PAN!!!!!!!!! ill post a picture and everything just to show you how stupid that response would be( not u but the response). Do not say the first option isnt possible. I assure you it is. It would look like MW on low with low res realtime shadows & 2 dynamic lights instead of 7(not rly noticible only thing it adds is varying shadow angles),and 3,000-4,000 poly characters instead 9,000-12,000.

painguy1

Prove it.

answer the question first and i will PM u a link to a site that will prove it. hopefully u are smart enough to understand the content on the site, If u have a hard time let me know AND I WILL EXPLAIN. TP had a link model with 6,800 poly's. How do i know this? i ripped the model from the game heres a pic. This is a GC game btw so the wii could push more. after using the MW debug an average polygon count was 36,000 poly's with 3 characters and about 250 poly's making up the ground do some simple division and exclude that 250 poly;s & u get 12,000 poly's on average per character. In this pic the model has 6,800 poly's plus the 4,224 for the bones which are never rendered in the final product making a total of 11,054. So now that you have pictures & i have proof to back up that im a graphic designer & proof to back up my estimates on MWR stat's answer the question instead of avoding it. If you avoid it ill make my assumption that you choose the first option. So 6800 for Tp, but on MWR seems to only have 2000 for the models. It may be difficult for u to tell, but being a 3d modler its alot easier for me to tell. Im pretty sure u can tell though, u just wont say. you need to face the fact that this game looks worse than a lowend GC game. Sure it may be fun(i have the game & yes it is), but it looks bad, very bad & there is no excuse for this considering that the Wii is more capable let alone the GC. theres ur proof. used average stats for a GC game to prove that a wii should be much more capable if a GC game surpases MWR.

Oh my. A lot's been going on here. All I can say is nothing I've seen shows me that Reflex will bea lazy port. All to the contrary. It looks gorgeous, atmospheric, and the gameplay and online look spot on. AAA to me! ;)

ill give treyarch some credit. It still seems to play like MW, BUT i am still not going to buy this game because its a lazy port. Trayarch could make an amazing looking wii game if they wanted, but its obvious they arent even trying. Im mean seriously look at those textures. I swear they are using .bmp or .jpeg instead of .dds. Its as if they arent even trying. I know for sure the wii is more capable of this. This looks worse than Shenmue on the dreamcast. Seriously WTH!!!!! (btw shenmue looked amazing for its time so im not hating on shenmue, but i am on this game)

painguy1

It's not a lazy port and Treyarch could NOT have made a new CoD game for Wii. Activision and IW basically ordered them to port the game straight up; they weren't even allowed to add anything new to MWR because Activision just said no. The Treyarch dev that's been posting on forums also said how hard it was to port the game and that they're proud of the final product, and I can see why because it looks much better than WaW.

Who cares if you have dev experience on the Wii, have you made a full CoD game? No, then you don't know what they could have done. Treyarch deserves more respect for this game under these circumstances + the fact that Infinity Ward has their logo and credits all over the game when they didn't do **** while Treyarch did all the work and only get a mention at the end of the credits.

Wow! I've been stickied lol.

Anyway I have....of course....some new amazing footage to show you. Here's hoping for more heated debate and excitement over the title!

Reflex Sweetness (Campaign) Enjoy!

Wow! I've been stickied lol.

Anyway I have....of course....some new amazing footage to show you. Here's hoping for more heated debate and excitement over the title!

Reflex Sweetness (Campaign) Enjoy!

Darth-Samus