MW:Reflex Official Thread - post your friend codes

lol I can see everyone is positive about the graphics.:P

As for me, I'm eagerly anticipating this title. While I probably won't be getting it until Christmas, I'll be checkin' up on YouTube on a regular basis to hear what people say about it.:)

To be honest, though, I don't get why some people are calling this a lazy port. We all know Call Of Duty Modern Warfare is a great game; being on Wii doesn't make it a worse game. The only thing this game doesn't have that MW does is gorgeous graphics. Other than that, it's the same awesome game with the same awesome features, so I don't get why people aren't going to buy it. Are the graphics really stopping you?

Well in keeping with the past few days' trend of Reflex overload, and being that I'm just super excited about it myself, I figured I'd share more. And like the topic said this is easily the best footage I've seen. It really shows how gorgeous the game really is. It stands against the 360 counterpart for sure (btw that doesn't mean I'm saying it's as good graphically. I know people would go nuts on me for that if I didn't clarify). Well here it is. Enjoy!

Reflex action!

And another for you! (the second and third videos on this page)

Please keep all MW2 related discussion right here in this sticky. Here. Feel free to post pics, discuss the merit of purchasing vs non purchasing, and all that other very important super serious business internet stuff. -HarlockJCDarth-Samus

Thanks for all the videos, dude. This game looks great. :)

I might get it for Christmas. I'm first going to get New Super Mario Bros. Wii

I've added a couple of new ampaign videos and they're both excellent. I'm starting to wonder if I'm more excited for the campaign now than the multiplayer.

no. okami wasnt upgraded.it was downgraded for the wii.gets your facts straight.But since the ps2 is a hd console i guess it makes sense.But even downgraded okami was a good game. I dont see this as any cheap money making scheme given that it involved a team of 30 developers over several months doing the unthinkable to fit this game on the wii.On trilogy, they did remove as many effects and added bloom.The water in the trilogy looks like barf, compared the the last gen Cube version.How sad is that

shoryuken_

@shoryuken - about intro... your post made sense. his didnt. *cough*ps2isahdconsole*cough*

[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="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.

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="shoryuken_"]

[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.

rgame1

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...

Wow. I literally have no words to say - besides the fact that gamers on forums really, really irritate me.

I WOULD SAY THIS IS BETTER GRAPHICALLY THAN METROID CRAPPY PRIME 3. all MP has is crappy bloom lighting and teh uber coolz 60 fps...NOTHING ELSE.rgame1

Wow...I'm at a loss for words.

[QUOTE="shoryuken_"]

[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.

rgame1

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...

all i am going to say is i love your cat!!rgame1

Haha I wish My cats (which are my gf's cats blech) lwere that cool. That pic is actually not mine. When Harlock stickied my thread he randomly put that picture in there lol. I have no idea why but it's hilarious.

MWR looks like crap in parts and decents in others. It loses its cinematic feel making its transition over to the Wii. It felt like a blockbuster, high-end movie on the other platforms. On the Wii it looks like a decent FPS.

It retains quite a bit of what made MW, MW -- though it losses what made Modern Warfare special to me over other FPS -- which as I said earlier, was that blockbuster, cinematic engaging presentation and feel.

[QUOTE="shoryuken_"]

[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.

rgame1

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...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....? :shock::shock::shock::shock:

Okay hold thephone forone second. Back that up.

Guy....I am one of the biggest supporters in these forums and of anyone I know of Reflex. Both in how great it will be and how great it looks as well. All of those things you said were true.

But NOW WAY IN THE GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY OF LEONIDAS' SPARTAN SPORTING SPEEDO IS METROID PRIME 3 CRAPPY OR WORASE LOOKING THAN REFLEX.That's blasphey on a level I cannot allow.

I might consider getting this, it looks good

I'm considering this too.. But there are too many other games coming out. I just picked up RE4 Wii Edition today, then I'm getting NSMB Wii, Spirit Tracks, Red Steel 2 in January, and I'm sure there are many others I can't remember at the moment.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="intro94"] *tries to understand wtf you're talking about* ... *fails* i suppose it's sarcasm... if not, it's the biggest nonsense i've read in months.intro94

@shoryuken - about intro... your post made sense. his didnt. *cough*ps2isahdconsole*cough*

[QUOTE="intro94"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]

@shoryuken - about intro... your post made sense. his didnt. *cough*ps2isahdconsole*cough*

BrunoBRS

Well I nevr played the PS2 version but I just can't imagine it could look worse on the WIi. The Wii is four times the system the PS2 was.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="intro94"] i was being sarcastic on that fact. Okami for wii lost graphical filters for no reason.Devs said due to lack of time... Is a playstation 2 system for crying out loud. I understand if a Playstation 3 game has to suffer to get into the wii.I cant accept a playstation 2 game to look worse on a wii.The Okami version gained absolutely nothing! (only lost credits). On MW they had to at least figure and program the netcode and fit online in a whole different network(the nintendo one), repack the memory to fit by using extensive programing, add leaning from PC version, presicion mode and so forth.RE4 was a cube game,but thanks god it got a few features.But okami..gosh..Darth-Samus

Well I nevr played the PS2 version but I just can't imagine it could look worse on the WIi. The Wii is four times the system the PS2 was.

[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

Please tell me that you know the Wii's GPU is 10Mhz slower than the Xbox's, its CPU is 4Mhz slower, and the Wii only has 24MB more of system RAM than the original Xbox

Everyone acts like Trey had a billion years to make this

Guess what guys, Trey has probably spent a year at max porting this, seems to have everything from the original in except the good graphics, and also they are probably working on COD 7 on Wii, PS2, PS3, 360, PC for 2010 already. And since the Wii COD versions are different from PS2 versions that means Trey is making a port of COD4 to the Wii, building a COD7 for PS2, building a COD7 for 360/PS3, building a COD7 for Wii and building a COD7 for PC all at the same time.

I'd say making a port that is everybit as good as the original, minus what we all knew would be compromised (graphicsm resolution, some physics areas) isn't bad at all and this will sell 1 million + in the next year and get a A/AA score while being the best online Wii game out until, well until Trey releases a COD next year

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="intro94"] i was being sarcastic on that fact. Okami for wii lost graphical filters for no reason.Devs said due to lack of time... Is a playstation 2 system for crying out loud. I understand if a Playstation 3 game has to suffer to get into the wii.I cant accept a playstation 2 game to look worse on a wii.The Okami version gained absolutely nothing! (only lost credits). On MW they had to at least figure and program the netcode and fit online in a whole different network(the nintendo one), repack the memory to fit by using extensive programing, add leaning from PC version, presicion mode and so forth.RE4 was a cube game,but thanks god it got a few features.But okami..gosh..Darth-Samus

Well I nevr played the PS2 version but I just can't imagine it could look worse on the WIi. The Wii is four times the system the PS2 was.

actually the Wii is roughly 2.5 times more powerful than the PS2

290Mhz CPU to 729Mhz, 88MB RAM to 32MB RAM

doesn't justify the okami differences between ps2 and wii but i wanted to straightened that out

Please tell me that you know the Wii's GPU is 10Mhz slower than the Xbox's, its CPU is 4Mhz slower, and the Wii only has 24MB more of system RAM than the original Xbox

darth-pyschosis

but i doubt anyone else here gets what you're talking about. so please, elaborate.

all i know is, i look at an xbox game and a wii game, and when i see the wii game, i see a game with better graphics/sound than any game on the xbox.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] ... i feel like the only person who thinks okami looks way better on the wii :?darth-pyschosis

Well I nevr played the PS2 version but I just can't imagine it could look worse on the WIi. The Wii is four times the system the PS2 was.

actually the Wii is roughly 2.5 times more powerful than the PS2

290Mhz CPU to 729Mhz, 88MB RAM to 32MB RAM

doesn't justify the okami differences between ps2 and wii but i wanted to straightened that out

Well the way I walways understood it is that the GC was twice as powerful as the PS2. And the Wii is twice as powerful as the GC.

[QUOTE="rgame1"]@intro94: yes a couple things i forgot to add, reflections on the scopes, excellent use of lighting effects including reflextions, lots and lots of physics all over the darn place, helicopter +air strike + UAV happening all at once + all the rest all at once, yes blood splatter aswell, shadows on bloody everything, THIS IS HAPPENING ALL AT ONCE. MP3 comes no way near it. @haziq: sorry mate, i don't know why it irritates you. MWR cleary beats MP3 graphically considering what is doing. @hipyoung: please tell me why you are in loss of words? @gamefan: so while you agree with most of what i say, you still say "Reflex wishes it could look as good......." so you actually disagree (sentence structure fail mate)? And yes its crappy to me. MP3 graphics are way over rated. Not only that, the game was generally crap. Music was crap, controls are already way out dated, and the TECH used in game is being out shined now by MWR. GET IT IN YOUR HEAD, MWR BEATS IT.gamefan67

Wow. Just...none of those things are true, as gorgeous as Reflex is. Just a bunch of lies.

And Gamefan, when you said Mp3's aiming is the smoothest of Wii shooters I assume you really meant ALL shooters right? ;)

THAT KILLS QUANTUM OF SOLACE IM SO MAD NOW LOL trey arch should give this to iw and let the m remake it

THAT KILLS QUANTUM OF SOLACE IM SO MAD NOW LOL trey arch should give this to iw and let the m remake it

mariokart64fan

Yeah it looks pretty awesome man. Can't wait. Tomorrow at midnight!

[QUOTE="gamefan67"][QUOTE="rgame1"]@intro94: yes a couple things i forgot to add, reflections on the scopes, excellent use of lighting effects including reflextions, lots and lots of physics all over the darn place, helicopter +air strike + UAV happening all at once + all the rest all at once, yes blood splatter aswell, shadows on bloody everything, THIS IS HAPPENING ALL AT ONCE. MP3 comes no way near it. @haziq: sorry mate, i don't know why it irritates you. MWR cleary beats MP3 graphically considering what is doing. @hipyoung: please tell me why you are in loss of words? @gamefan: so while you agree with most of what i say, you still say "Reflex wishes it could look as good......." so you actually disagree (sentence structure fail mate)? And yes its crappy to me. MP3 graphics are way over rated. Not only that, the game was generally crap. Music was crap, controls are already way out dated, and the TECH used in game is being out shined now by MWR. GET IT IN YOUR HEAD, MWR BEATS IT.Darth-Samus

Wow. Just...none of those things are true, as gorgeous as Reflex is. Just a bunch of lies.

And Gamefan, when you said Mp3's aiming is the smoothest of Wii shooters I assume you really meant ALL shooters right? ;)

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="gamefan67"] Actually my sentence structure is not fail......the simple fact of the matter is that Modern Warfare Reflex might be pushing more tech, but Metroid Prime 3 still looks leagues better......Just like TCon is pushing a lot of tech but it still does not look better than MP3(and TCon is a ground up Wii game hmmmmm). Modern Warfare Reflex is a decent looking game, but it is clearly inferior to Metroid Prime 3 in the looks department and imo gameplay department. And MP3's controls are far from dated.....MP3 still has the smoothest aiming out of any Wii FPS.gamefan67

Wow. Just...none of those things are true, as gorgeous as Reflex is. Just a bunch of lies.

And Gamefan, when you said Mp3's aiming is the smoothest of Wii shooters I assume you really meant ALL shooters right? ;)

True that.

[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. darth-pyschosis

Please tell me that you know the Wii's GPU is 10Mhz slower than the Xbox's, its CPU is 4Mhz slower, and the Wii only has 24MB more of system RAM than the original Xbox

Everyone acts like Trey had a billion years to make this

Guess what guys, Trey has probably spent a year at max porting this, seems to have everything from the original in except the good graphics, and also they are probably working on COD 7 on Wii, PS2, PS3, 360, PC for 2010 already. And since the Wii COD versions are different from PS2 versions that means Trey is making a port of COD4 to the Wii, building a COD7 for PS2, building a COD7 for 360/PS3, building a COD7 for Wii and building a COD7 for PC all at the same time.

I'd say making a port that is everybit as good as the original, minus what we all knew would be compromised (graphicsm resolution, some physics areas) isn't bad at all and this will sell 1 million + in the next year and get a A/AA score while being the best online Wii game out until, well until Trey releases a COD next year

Just because the GPU is 10 mhz slower doesnt mean its worse, and its actually 10mhz faster. remember we are talking about console architecture here not PC. The wiis Ram uses a system similar to DDR3 giving its 88mb preformance similar 278mb. Mario galaxy could never be stored on 88mb of DDR. The GC's CPU was 300mhz slower than the xbox's 730mhz, but it had a powerPC architecture making it preform like an 800mhz intel 3 compared to a 730mhz intel the xbox used & it has shorter pipelines than the xbox's CPU which allows data to be proccesed faster.. The wii's CPu uses the same powerPC architecture at around 730mhz and because it has a powerPC design & is a much newer build as well as faster FBS & shorter pipeline it is similar to 1.1ghz. On top of that it has more than 2x as much cache. The wii's GPU is also mroe powerful than the xbox's mainly because it has a faster clock speed, more VRam & uses a GDDR3 system similar to DDR2. the GPU also has a coproccesor called starlet that adds another 200mhz for both GPU functions & CPU functions. Take all this into consideration and the Wii is 30% or more powerful than the xbox 1. You cannot just use sheer numbers to determine preformance. You need to take the architecture into consideration aswell. Treyarch & Activision have no excuse for making the game look the way it does. The wii is perfectly capable of advanced shader effects seen on other consoles. The functions would take about 10 miniutes extra to program for aslong as the engine has a proper design. Stop misleading people. I suggest you do some reading. If the GC was just as powerful as the xbox than the wii is surely more powerful. John Carmack siad that if teh GC had more Ram Doom 3 could have been put on the GC and would be comparable to the xbox version.

[QUOTE="darth-pyschosis"]

[QUOTE="Pices"] Please tell me that you're joking. The Wii can do better graphics than what the Xbox and GC have donepainguy1

Please tell me that you know the Wii's GPU is 10Mhz slower than the Xbox's, its CPU is 4Mhz slower, and the Wii only has 24MB more of system RAM than the original Xbox

Everyone acts like Trey had a billion years to make this

Guess what guys, Trey has probably spent a year at max porting this, seems to have everything from the original in except the good graphics, and also they are probably working on COD 7 on Wii, PS2, PS3, 360, PC for 2010 already. And since the Wii COD versions are different from PS2 versions that means Trey is making a port of COD4 to the Wii, building a COD7 for PS2, building a COD7 for 360/PS3, building a COD7 for Wii and building a COD7 for PC all at the same time.

I'd say making a port that is everybit as good as the original, minus what we all knew would be compromised (graphicsm resolution, some physics areas) isn't bad at all and this will sell 1 million + in the next year and get a A/AA score while being the best online Wii game out until, well until Trey releases a COD next year

Just because the GPU is 10 mhz slower doesnt mean its worse, and its actually 10mhz faster. remember we are talking about console architecture here not PC. The wiis Ram uses a system similar to DDR3 giving its 88mb preformance similar 278mb. Mario galaxy could never be stored on 88mb of DDR. The GC's CPU was 300mhz slower than the xbox's 730mhz, but it had a powerPC architecture making it preform like an 800mhz intel 3 compared to a 730mhz intel the xbox used & it has shorter pipelines than the xbox's CPU which allows data to be proccesed faster.. The wii's CPu uses the same powerPC architecture at around 730mhz and because it has a powerPC design & is a much newer build as well as faster FBS & shorter pipeline it is similar to 1.1ghz. On top of that it has more than 2x as much cache. The wii's GPU is also mroe powerful than the xbox's mainly because it has a faster clock speed, more VRam & uses a GDDR3 system similar to DDR2. the GPU also has a coproccesor called starlet that adds another 200mhz for both GPU functions & CPU functions. Take all this into consideration and the Wii is 30% or more powerful than the xbox 1. You cannot just use sheer numbers to determine preformance. You need to take the architecture into consideration aswell. Treyarch & Activision have no excuse for making the game look the way it does. The wii is perfectly capable of advanced shader effects seen on other consoles. The functions would take about 10 miniutes extra to program for aslong as the engine has a proper design. Stop misleading people. I suggest you do some reading. If the GC was just as powerful as the xbox than the wii is surely more powerful. John Carmack siad that if teh GC had more Ram Doom 3 could have been put on the GC and would be comparable to the xbox version.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="darth-pyschosis"]

Please tell me that you know the Wii's GPU is 10Mhz slower than the Xbox's, its CPU is 4Mhz slower, and the Wii only has 24MB more of system RAM than the original Xbox

Everyone acts like Trey had a billion years to make this

Guess what guys, Trey has probably spent a year at max porting this, seems to have everything from the original in except the good graphics, and also they are probably working on COD 7 on Wii, PS2, PS3, 360, PC for 2010 already. And since the Wii COD versions are different from PS2 versions that means Trey is making a port of COD4 to the Wii, building a COD7 for PS2, building a COD7 for 360/PS3, building a COD7 for Wii and building a COD7 for PC all at the same time.

I'd say making a port that is everybit as good as the original, minus what we all knew would be compromised (graphicsm resolution, some physics areas) isn't bad at all and this will sell 1 million + in the next year and get a A/AA score while being the best online Wii game out until, well until Trey releases a COD next year

young80s

Just because the GPU is 10 mhz slower doesnt mean its worse, and its actually 10mhz faster. remember we are talking about console architecture here not PC. The wiis Ram uses a system similar to DDR3 giving its 88mb preformance similar 278mb. Mario galaxy could never be stored on 88mb of DDR. The GC's CPU was 300mhz slower than the xbox's 730mhz, but it had a powerPC architecture making it preform like an 800mhz intel 3 compared to a 730mhz intel the xbox used & it has shorter pipelines than the xbox's CPU which allows data to be proccesed faster.. The wii's CPu uses the same powerPC architecture at around 730mhz and because it has a powerPC design & is a much newer build as well as faster FBS & shorter pipeline it is similar to 1.1ghz. On top of that it has more than 2x as much cache. The wii's GPU is also mroe powerful than the xbox's mainly because it has a faster clock speed, more VRam & uses a GDDR3 system similar to DDR2. the GPU also has a coproccesor called starlet that adds another 200mhz for both GPU functions & CPU functions. Take all this into consideration and the Wii is 30% or more powerful than the xbox 1. You cannot just use sheer numbers to determine preformance. You need to take the architecture into consideration aswell. Treyarch & Activision have no excuse for making the game look the way it does. The wii is perfectly capable of advanced shader effects seen on other consoles. The functions would take about 10 miniutes extra to program for aslong as the engine has a proper design. Stop misleading people. I suggest you do some reading. If the GC was just as powerful as the xbox than the wii is surely more powerful. John Carmack siad that if teh GC had more Ram Doom 3 could have been put on the GC and would be comparable to the xbox version.

thank you :D i do my best to check up on my homework

considering that MWR has, bodies all over the map, weapons all over the map, tonnes of detail, bodies do not disappear for a decent time, same with guns, grenades have explosive detail ie it leaves mark on the ground, when you shoot walls you see the bullet marks, fantastic animations, fantastic character models, improved hit detection yes much improved, great geometry in enviroments, large maps, and all this with 5v5 I WOULD SAY THIS IS BETTER GRAPHICALLY THAN METROID CRAPPY PRIME 3. all MP has is crappy bloom lighting and teh uber coolz 60 fps...NOTHING ELSE.intro94

amen brother.imagine if Mprime 3 had online mode with 10 different samus models(with bones like the models of COD, not prearranged animation like prime). Treyarch developer confirmed for reflex hundreths of bones for each SINGLE MODEL in order to keep physics in place(and not merely pre canned animations), MW has grenades explosions and air strikes from huge drawn distances,extensive smoke and particule effects, while keeping dynamic shadows(Something prime 3 doesnt do) for every single model in combat, a freakin chopper, blood splatter and huge stages .Play COD4 and see how much happens at every moment.Im prime happens much much less(and since theres no online THERES no way you can make MORE happen than what its set to), and the game still cant do lightling reflection OR dynamic shadows!.I still dont see how people think prime pushes the wii in any way or form.rgame1

To the two of you: The optometrist just called. It's time for your appointment!

[QUOTE="young80s"][QUOTE="painguy1"]

Just because the GPU is 10 mhz slower doesnt mean its worse, and its actually 10mhz faster. remember we are talking about console architecture here not PC. The wiis Ram uses a system similar to DDR3 giving its 88mb preformance similar 278mb. Mario galaxy could never be stored on 88mb of DDR. The GC's CPU was 300mhz slower than the xbox's 730mhz, but it had a powerPC architecture making it preform like an 800mhz intel 3 compared to a 730mhz intel the xbox used & it has shorter pipelines than the xbox's CPU which allows data to be proccesed faster.. The wii's CPu uses the same powerPC architecture at around 730mhz and because it has a powerPC design & is a much newer build as well as faster FBS & shorter pipeline it is similar to 1.1ghz. On top of that it has more than 2x as much cache. The wii's GPU is also mroe powerful than the xbox's mainly because it has a faster clock speed, more VRam & uses a GDDR3 system similar to DDR2. the GPU also has a coproccesor called starlet that adds another 200mhz for both GPU functions & CPU functions. Take all this into consideration and the Wii is 30% or more powerful than the xbox 1. You cannot just use sheer numbers to determine preformance. You need to take the architecture into consideration aswell. Treyarch & Activision have no excuse for making the game look the way it does. The wii is perfectly capable of advanced shader effects seen on other consoles. The functions would take about 10 miniutes extra to program for aslong as the engine has a proper design. Stop misleading people. I suggest you do some reading. If the GC was just as powerful as the xbox than the wii is surely more powerful. John Carmack siad that if teh GC had more Ram Doom 3 could have been put on the GC and would be comparable to the xbox version.

painguy1

thank you :D i do my best to check up on my homework

Am I right or am I right?

Am I right or am I right?

shoryuken_

You chose the worst possible photo out for MW:R :lol: Unfair comparison is unfair.

trugs26

Don't you find it odd that if this game looks and runs as great as people have been saying in this thread, that Treyarch has only released a handful of screenshots and no gameplay videos?

Here is what Gamespot has besides the one I posted..

Seriously, some of the people posting in this thread have acted like this is the first time they have seen a helicopter, explosions (and marks from explosions), physics, etc. in a videogame. This kind of stuff has been done many years ago..I don't comprehend how people could possibly think this game is AAA quality.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="young80s"] That was impressiveyoung80s

thank you :D i do my best to check up on my homework

thanks:P its good to know that some people actually understands something about the consoles hardware & hardware in general. i hate it when i end up typing the specs & comparisons though. half the time i tell myself, "why am i even doing this?", but i still end up typing it lol.

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

You chose the worst possible photo out for MW:R :lol: Unfair comparison is unfair.

shoryuken_

Don't you find it odd that if this game looks and runs as great as people have been saying in this thread, that Treyarch has only released a handful of screenshots and no gameplay videos?

Here is what Gamespot has besides the one I posted..

Seriously, some of the people posting in this thread have acted like this is the first time they have seen a helicopter, explosions (and marks from explosions), physics, etc. in a videogame. This kind of stuff has been done many years ago..I don't comprehend how people could possibly think this game is AAA quality.

I appreciate your sentiment here as Corruption is the prettier gme...butI agree with him these are the worst shots to choose. They're outdated alread and don't have any merit now that the footage has show us what the game really looks like. It's leaps and bounds better than this, and the game is easily a AAA title. It's modern warfare duder. It was AAA on the 360, and this will be the superior version thanks to the updated controls and the uncompromised campaign and online multiplayer experience. In short: it....willl....rock :)

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

You chose the worst possible photo out for MW:R :lol: Unfair comparison is unfair.

shoryuken_

Don't you find it odd that if this game looks and runs as great as people have been saying in this thread, that Treyarch has only released a handful of screenshots and no gameplay videos?

Here is what Gamespot has besides the one I posted..

*old crappy pics*

Seriously, some of the people posting in this thread have acted like this is the first time they have seen a helicopter, explosions (and marks from explosions), physics, etc. in a videogame. This kind of stuff has been done many years ago..I don't comprehend how people could possibly think this game is AAA quality.

Those screens are old and 100% irrelevant now. Have you looked at any recent ones or watched any videos? -_-

How is the game not AAA quality? It's the same game minus the graphics with better controls. The only reason the graphics are being talked about alot is because they're much better than what was expected.

I appreciate your sentiment here as Corruption is the prettier gme...butI agree with him these are the worst shots to choose. They're outdated alread and don't have any merit now that the footage has show us what the game really looks like. It's leaps and bounds better than this, and the game is easily a AAA title. It's modern warfare duder. It was AAA on the 360, and this will be the superior version thanks to the updated controls and the uncompromised campaign and online multiplayer experience. In short: it....willl....rock :)

Darth-Samus

I'll repeat myself again: Isn't it odd that Treyarch hasn't released anymore screenshots or videos? We have been relying on leaked YouTube videos for the past few days.

I actually have a very hard time believing this will be anywhere near an AAA title. The standards for Wii FPS' have improved since World at War Wii was released. I think this Modern Warfare port will have a tough time even getting AA. Although I agree with you that the controls will be superior to the other console versions, I don't think that this aspect alone will make it the definitive version of Modern Warfare.

I'll tell you this though: Due to the Wii's inferior hardware and poor online system, this version will not be better than the other ones. Want proof? No Wiispeak support, no local multiplayer, number of people in match lowered to ten, (much) worse graphics, etc. Aside from the controls, how exaclty will this be the superior version? The lack of communication online (alongside Nintendo's friend code system) in and of itself makes it inferior the the HD versions. The single player campaign will also be adversely affected simply because the Wii does not have the power to make the game feel as cinematic as the 360/PS3/PC editions. Controls alone will not make this game AAA. If Gamespot even decides to review this game, it will be inevitable that they will be comparing it to the HD version (especially since Modern Warfare 2 is about to come out).

Honestly, I think you are getting way too excited over a two year old port. If this was Modern Warfare 2, I would understand. But not for this game. I don't even own a 360 or PS3 and I've already played it.

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.

painguy1

Compromises != Laziness

Game development (Wii or not) is full of compromises. As a game developer, you should be the first person to know that. Developers can never include all their ideas and wants into the game. They are limited by the hardware, by the budget, by the deadline, and so on. They have to decide what is important and what is not, what to concentrate on and what to drop.

Yes, MWR doesn't push Wii graphical capabilities to the limit. But, that is by choice. They could've increase the polygon count of the watermelon and slap a high quality texture on it. But, they didn't. They decided that keeping the core gameplay experience of the orignal game in tact as more important. You gave MWR a 10/10 for gameplay. So what is the problem? Why all the hate towards Treyarch?

HVS tackled the harder part of development, but that was the wrong decision. The game was mediocre and the graphics wasn't even that good. Are we suppose to give them credit for being stupid?

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

I appreciate your sentiment here as Corruption is the prettier gme...butI agree with him these are the worst shots to choose. They're outdated alread and don't have any merit now that the footage has show us what the game really looks like. It's leaps and bounds better than this, and the game is easily a AAA title. It's modern warfare duder. It was AAA on the 360, and this will be the superior version thanks to the updated controls and the uncompromised campaign and online multiplayer experience. In short: it....willl....rock :)

shoryuken_

I'll repeat myself again: Isn't it odd that Treyarch hasn't released anymore screenshots or videos? We have been relying on leaked YouTube videos for the past few days.

I actually have a very hard time believing this will be anywhere near an AAA title. The standards for Wii FPS' have improved since World at War Wii was released. I think this Modern Warfare port will have a tough time even getting AA. Although I agree with you that the controls will be superior to the other console versions, I don't think that this aspect alone will make it the definitive version of Modern Warfare.

I'll tell you this though: Due to the Wii's inferior hardware and poor online system, this version will not be better than the other ones. Want proof? No Wiispeak support, no local multiplayer, number of people in match lowered to ten, (much) worse graphics, etc. Aside from the controls, how exaclty will this be the superior version? The lack of communication online (alongside Nintendo's friend code system) in and of itself makes it inferior the the HD versions. The single player campaign will also be adversely affected simply because the Wii does not have the power to make the game feel as cinematic as the 360/PS3/PC editions. Controls alone will not make this game AAA. If Gamespot even decides to review this game, it will be inevitable that they will be comparing it to the HD version (especially since Modern Warfare 2 is about to come out).

Honestly, I think you are getting way too excited over a two year old port. If this was Modern Warfare 2, I would understand. But not for this game. I don't even own a 360 or PS3 and I've already played it.

"I'll repeat myself again: Isn't it odd that Treyarch hasn't released anymore screenshots or videos? We have been relying on leaked YouTube videos for the past few days." - Are you trying to say that just...what?...just because the videos are leaked they don't exist? Are you denying their merit solely for your argument? Dude come on bro. That's kind of silly. They're leaked, but they are showing us what the game looks like now, today, months after those screens were captured. Just because screens haven't been officially released and just because they're leaked doen't mean that they aren't real. You had better believe that they are solid evvidence of how good the game looks. And more so than the old pics due to the time the videos have appeared.

"I actually have a very hard time believing this will be anywhere near an AAA title. The standards for Wii FPS' have improved since World at War Wii was released. I think this Modern Warfare port will have a tough time even getting AA. Although I agree with you that the controls will be superior to the other console versions, I don't think that this aspect alone will make it the definitive version of Modern Warfare." - Well this is partially true and partially exaggerated. The standards on Wii have improved? Well....based on what in the last year. The only FPS released on the Wii, save for the Metroid Trilogy, is The Conduit. Now I think the Conduit is great. Better than WaW. But not by a lot. WaW is great. And nothing from the one title that is The Conduit have so drastically changed how we come to think ok FPS's. Reflex is the likely title to do that for the time being.

"I'll tell you this though: Due to the Wii's inferior hardware and poor online system, this version will not be better than the other ones. Want proof? No Wiispeak support, no local multiplayer, number of people in match lowered to ten, (much) worse graphics, etc. Aside from the controls, how exaclty will this be the superior version? The lack of communication online (alongside Nintendo's friend code system) in and of itself makes it inferior the the HD versions. The single player campaign will also be adversely affected simply because the Wii does not have the power to make the game feel as cinematic as the 360/PS3/PC editions. Controls alone will not make this game AAA. If Gamespot even decides to review this game, it will be inevitable that they will be comparing it to the HD version (especially since Modern Warfare 2 is about to come out)." - Also...if the Wii version is the exact same campaign and more importantly online experience (save for voice chat), and the graphics while not as great, are still solid, and the controls are now far superior as even you stated in your previous quote....then what argument could possibly be made to state that the Wii version is not the definitive Modern Warfare experience? The only....ONLY thing that could be said is just the graphics. The graphics! Big deal. Anyone making that claim is stating that a prettier game is better experience than a superior playing game. Now I know people have the right to enjoy whatever aspects they want, but that.....is ludicrous. There is no legitimate gaming integrity in that line of thinking, bottom line. If you're not a fan of MW then so be it. Othrwise only a genuine fool would thnk something like that nonsense to be true. And again it's even less relevent given how good Reflex has turned out in the graphics department anyway. Therefore it is assinine to not consider Reflex the definitive MW.

:)

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

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.

canadianloonie

Compromises != Laziness

Game development (Wii or not) is full of compromises. As a game developer, you should be the first person to know that. Developers can never include all their ideas and wants into the game. They are limited by the hardware, by the budget, by the deadline, and so on. They have to decide what is important and what is not, what to concentrate on and what to drop.

Yes, MWR doesn't push Wii graphical capabilities to the limit. But, that is by choice. They could've increase the polygon count of the watermelon and slap a high quality texture on it. But, they didn't. They decided that keeping the core gameplay experience of the orignal game in tact as more important. You gave MWR a 10/10 for gameplay. So what is the problem? Why all the hate towards Treyarch?

HVS tackled the harder part of development, but that was the wrong decision. The game was mediocre and the graphics wasn't even that good. Are we suppose to give them credit for being stupid?

"They decided that keeping the core gameplay experience of the orignal game in tact as more important. You gave MWR a 10/10 for gameplay. So what is the problem? Why all the hate towards Treyarch?" - I completely agree with you! That's ll that should matter. But again I still find the graphics more than good in Reflex.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

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.

canadianloonie

Compromises != Laziness

Game development (Wii or not) is full of compromises. As a game developer, you should be the first person to know that. Developers can never include all their ideas and wants into the game. They are limited by the hardware, by the budget, by the deadline, and so on. They have to decide what is important and what is not, what to concentrate on and what to drop.

Yes, MWR doesn't push Wii graphical capabilities to the limit. But, that is by choice. They could've increase the polygon count of the watermelon and slap a high quality texture on it. But, they didn't. They decided that keeping the core gameplay experience of the orignal game in tact as more important. You gave MWR a 10/10 for gameplay. So what is the problem? Why all the hate towards Treyarch?

HVS tackled the harder part of development, but that was the wrong decision. The game was mediocre and the graphics wasn't even that good. Are we suppose to give them credit for being stupid?

"I'll repeat myself again: Isn't it odd that Treyarch hasn't released anymore screenshots or videos? We have been relying on leaked YouTube videos for the past few days." - Are you trying to say that just...what?...just because the videos are leaked they don't exist? Are you denying their merit solely for your argument? Dude come on bro. That's kind of silly. They're leaked, but they are showing us what the game looks like now, today, months after those screens were captured. Just because screens haven't been officially released and just because they're leaked doen't mean that they aren't real. You had better believe that they are solid evvidence of how good the game looks. And more so than the old pics due to the time the videos have appeared.

"I actually have a very hard time believing this will be anywhere near an AAA title. The standards for Wii FPS' have improved since World at War Wii was released. I think this Modern Warfare port will have a tough time even getting AA. Although I agree with you that the controls will be superior to the other console versions, I don't think that this aspect alone will make it the definitive version of Modern Warfare." - Well this is partially true and partially exaggerated. The standards on Wii have improved? Well....based on what in the last year. The only FPS released on the Wii, save for the Metroid Trilogy, is The Conduit. Now I think the Conduit is great. Better than WaW. But not by a lot. WaW is great. And nothing from the one title that is The Conduit have so drastically changed how we come to think ok FPS's. Reflex is the likely title to do that for the time being.

"I'll tell you this though: Due to the Wii's inferior hardware and poor online system, this version will not be better than the other ones. Want proof? No Wiispeak support, no local multiplayer, number of people in match lowered to ten, (much) worse graphics, etc. Aside from the controls, how exaclty will this be the superior version? The lack of communication online (alongside Nintendo's friend code system) in and of itself makes it inferior the the HD versions. The single player campaign will also be adversely affected simply because the Wii does not have the power to make the game feel as cinematic as the 360/PS3/PC editions. Controls alone will not make this game AAA. If Gamespot even decides to review this game, it will be inevitable that they will be comparing it to the HD version (especially since Modern Warfare 2 is about to come out)." - Also...if the Wii version is the exact same campaign and more importantly online experience (save for voice chat), and the graphics while not as great, are still solid, and the controls are now far superior as even you stated in your previous quote....then what argument could possibly be made to state that the Wii version is not the definitive Modern Warfare experience? The only....ONLY thing that could be said is just the graphics. The graphics! Big deal. Anyone making that claim is stating that a prettier game is better experience than a superior playing game. Now I know people have the right to enjoy whatever aspects they want, but that.....is ludicrous. There is no legitimate gaming integrity in that line of thinking, bottom line. If you're not a fan of MW then so be it. Othrwise only a genuine fool would thnk something like that nonsense to be true. And again it's even less relevent given how good Reflex has turned out in the graphics department anyway. Therefore it is assinine to not consider Reflex the definitive MW.

:)

Darth-Samus

1. I was just remarking that it was odd, that's all. If Treyarch had something to show off, they would have done so. The leaked videos are not that impressive IMO. Was I supposed to be impressed by a two year old downgraded port?

2. The Conduit raised the bar for what an FPS should be on the Wii. Customizable controls will no longer be something the developer adds in as an extra, it will be something to be expected. Not only that, The Conduit had a very technically impressive engine (although they missed it with the artistic and creative side). Also, HvS pushed online forward by including things like WiiSpeak, etc.

3. My complaints about this game were not solely graphics based. You are just taking select parts of my argument and using them against me, rather than looking at the whole thing. Here are some complaints that I have about this game: Friend codes, less players online, no local multiplayer, and no voice communication. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that Nintendo's friend code system is a hassle to deal with and many people don't even bother going through the trouble to exchange friend codes. Less players online - I think that is pretty self-explanable. There is no option of local multiplayer, something which was included on the other versions. There is no WiiSpeak support - talking to to others online, especially in an online FPS, is a standard nowadays. Even your argument that the controls are better in the Wii version is debatable. To be missing out on that is absolutely ridiculous.

Back to my point about graphics, I meant that the game will have a less cinematic feel simply because of the Wii hardware and the lazy effort that Treyarch has given to this game. Not only that, the physics and the animations are easily inferior to other versions. Regarding your point about the controls, many would argue that the mouse and keyboard is far superior to any other scheme, including the Wiimote and Nunchuck. I've mentioned all of these features that are either completely missing or gimped in the Wii version, yet you argue that it is the superior playing version? It's not just the graphics, it is all of those other things I discussed that make for a worse experience. On top of all that has been said, this is also a TWO YEAR OLD PORT. Having all of these downgrades is unacceptable, especially seeing as this game is two years late and is coming out around the day of its sequel. Looking at all of these cons, I have no idea how this is supposed to be the definitive version of Modern Warfare or how it will manage to be AAA when it features so many notable downgrades. The end of your post also about me being assinine and speaking nonsense holds no merit because you were wrongly under the impression that the only fault I found in this game was the graphics. I'm shocked that you could possibly think that this is the superior playing game or that you are getting the same experience as the other versions when you clearly are not. This is such an obvious ploy by Activision or Treyarch or whoever you want to blame to make quick and easy money off of easily swayed people such as yourself.

Just because the GPU is 10 mhz slower doesnt mean its worse, and its actually 10mhz faster. remember we are talking about console architecture here not PC. The wiis Ram uses a system similar to DDR3 giving its 88mb preformance similar 278mb. Mario galaxy could never be stored on 88mb of DDR. The GC's CPU was 300mhz slower than the xbox's 730mhz, but it had a powerPC architecture making it preform like an 800mhz intel 3 compared to a 730mhz intel the xbox used & it has shorter pipelines than the xbox's CPU which allows data to be proccesed faster.. The wii's CPu uses the same powerPC architecture at around 730mhz and because it has a powerPC design & is a much newer build as well as faster FBS & shorter pipeline it is similar to 1.1ghz. On top of that it has more than 2x as much cache. The wii's GPU is also mroe powerful than the xbox's mainly because it has a faster clock speed, more VRam & uses a GDDR3 system similar to DDR2. the GPU also has a coproccesor called starlet that adds another 200mhz for both GPU functions & CPU functions. Take all this into consideration and the Wii is 30% or more powerful than the xbox 1. You cannot just use sheer numbers to determine preformance. You need to take the architecture into consideration aswell. Treyarch & Activision have no excuse for making the game look the way it does. The wii is perfectly capable of advanced shader effects seen on other consoles. The functions would take about 10 miniutes extra to program for aslong as the engine has a proper design. Stop misleading people. I suggest you do some reading. If the GC was just as powerful as the xbox than the wii is surely more powerful. John Carmack siad that if teh GC had more Ram Doom 3 could have been put on the GC and would be comparable to the xbox version.

painguy1

You finally showed darth-pyschosis why you can't just pull out hardware specs and try and make an argument that bigger is always better. Take the PS3 and 360, they both have pros and cons in the hardware yet most multiplat games look worse on the PS3 because the architecture of the hardware in the PS3 is a complete ass to work with. The PS3 has a new hardware architecture not seen before though, the Wii is basically an updated Gamecube. There is no excuse why games don't look better on the Wii.

The Wii is not as powerful as the PS3 or the 360 but it sure is more powerful than what most devs are pushing. I have yet to see games look as good as Ninja Gaiden, Riddick, Dead or Alive 3 or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory from the Xbox on the Wii when it comes to realistic looking games. Hell, Some Gamecube games like Rouge Squadron 2 and 3 and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes still easily rivals the best looking Wii games. I'm not saying the Wii is much more powerful but with a little work it should easily be able to develop games looking as good as the ones I mentioned.