I can say that Bozon got the score right. He perhaps overplayed the cinematic aspect and underplayed the annoying aspects. He's right in that there is good mission diversity. He's wrong about the sniper rifle, this is a game which has scoped weapons where you cannot adjust the zoom. It's not a patch on the MOHH2 sniper rifle.
Guess who posted that IGN review 
Still surprised to see the 360/PS3 version score into the 9s. But I always thought IGN PS3 and 360 overrated games anyways.
Iga_Bobovic said:Guess who posted that IGN review
Still surprised to see the 360/PS3 version score into the 9s. But I always thought IGN PS3 and 360 overrated games anyways.
Since the design is the same they're basically saying that it has better graphics and a couple more online modes. I've played a few next gen games which are basically getting extra overall points for presentation. I like great production values, but if a game is lacking in design or lacking in fun then I can't look past those flaws. That's why even with games which have some superlative production values, eventually they can bore me.
COD World at War has some spiffy production values but also has some limited and frustrating design that stops if from being a great experience.
If they had limited the frustration, got rid of some archaic design bits like spawn points and trigger points and made a dynamic and fun AI system, the game would be much better. Its also limited by its WW2 trappings, enemies that look the same, old weapons with few bullets and poor accuracy. The insistence on cinematic flair over gameplay: for instance throwing smoke all over the screen, so you can't aim at anything, or shaking the screen with every explosion which makes aiming a bitch. Or having old guns with no stability which kick up and force you to constantly re-adjust. Or the old WW2 battle system of pressing forward into clustered defence points. It's quite linear design and having a very slow basic movement means that the levels don't flow as well as they could. Seeing how they are both WW2 FPS on Wii I booted up MOHH2. Basically COD5 blows it away on cinematic scope and large levels, but the gameplay in MOHH2 is just so much smoother and more accurate it's not even funny. If the games could combine both aspects they would have something pretty special. That's why I'm not suprised over the 9 scores for the PC version because at least they might not have purposely dumbed down some of the aiming like they seem to have done on the Wii version. Why ADS aiming is lagging is beyond me. MOHH2 gave you super accurate controls but compensated by making the game harder with more accurate enemies that punished you outside cover.
I seems reviewers cannot appreciate level design anymore. Most FPS games have bland corridor level design, but yet they score well. Or sometimes they just but a huge sandbox and fill it with boring missions and stuff. Stupid reviewers.
"This remains a Call of Duty game through and through. What that means is that the action is fast and fluid, as well as rigidly scripted. The success of the franchise proves that there's a vast audience for that, and this won't change anyone's mind. Enemy soldiers and your computer-controlled teammates respawn endlessly until you advance far enough to hit the triggers to make them stop reappearing. Then you advance to the next firefight and repeat the process over again. The thing is, you're far too busy shooting and ducking and dying to really notice much of the time. The sense of immersion is pretty complete. " Pretty much says it all. Regardless of system, graphics etc the design is the same. I don't feel that the immersion overides the frustrations or design linearity, but it does hold everything together and make it generally fun, except for the instant deaths.
Iga_Bobovic said:I seems reviewers cannot appreciate level design anymore. Most FPS games have bland corridor level design, but yet they score well. Or sometimes they just but a huge sandbox and fill it with boring missions and stuff. Stupid reviewers.
But it can't be linear!! A big empty area you have to wander around to find what to do is not "non-linear", it's non-fun.
And infinite-respawn, outside of an arcade game (or bullet bill, if that counts 
), is always bad design.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
It would take a lot to make me buy another FPS on Wii. I don't think this game would have any of the aiming problems on the PC.
Then again, I think Combat Arms is an awesome online FPS . Not to mention it's free... if you've never heard of it, check it out. combatarms.nexon.net
My problem with the game is that it's yet another WWII game. Seriously, how many WWII games do we need?
Ravenprose said:My problem with the game is that it's yet another WWII game. Seriously, how many WWII games do we need?
Not a lot else you can do with shooters. Do you want a 14th century game with muskets? Otherwise you're pretty much confined to 19th century weapons (COD, MOH), modern weapons (Rainbow 6, SOCOM), or future weapons (lasers, Battlefield 2142). You could argue the whole genre is overdone though.
Yarcofin said:Ravenprose said:My problem with the game is that it's yet another WWII game. Seriously, how many WWII games do we need?
Not a lot else you can do with shooters. Do you want a 14th century game with muskets? Otherwise you're pretty much confined to 19th century weapons (COD, MOH), modern weapons (Rainbow 6, SOCOM), or future weapons (lasers, Battlefield 2142). You could argue the whole genre is overdone though.
You're right, FPS are overdone.
I kinda want tog et this. But the last "fresh" WWII game was the original CoD. Then again, CoD4 is awesome, and that doesn't play a whole lot different to 1.
I was looking into purchasing this game for the Wii (only because I can't afford the other consoles this year) but after watching several videos and reading two reviews I decided to catch up on DS gaming instead. I don't know what the deal is regarding multiplatform releases such as this - on one side publishers simply want to cash in on the Wii by supporting it at all and thinking that Wii-only owners (like myself) will be so happy that a 360 or PS3 port is available for the system that we'll forgive all it's faults. On the other side hardcore gamers want more third-party support and publishers argue that they're just supporting gamers' wishes (although as cheaply and lazily as possible) thereby angering gamers and causing them to blow off the Wii.
I don't know, I'm going in circles because I guess the mentality of publishers today is that because the Wii is underpowered compared to the other consoles that they just don't feel obligated to perform at their best, spending their programming dollars on the 360 and PS3 versions. Using CoD: WoW as an example, do you think that third-party developers shouldn't even bother making Wii ports if they're not going to try their best, or should Wii owners just be thankful that a Wii port has shown up AT ALL?
"History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside." - John F Kennedy.
jwallace said:I was looking into purchasing this game for the Wii (only because I can't afford the other consoles this year) but after watching several videos and reading two reviews I decided to catch up on DS gaming instead. I don't know what the deal is regarding multiplatform releases such as this - on one side publishers simply want to cash in on the Wii by supporting it at all and thinking that Wii-only owners (like myself) will be so happy that a 360 or PS3 port is available for the system that we'll forgive all it's faults. On the other side hardcore gamers want more third-party support and publishers argue that they're just supporting gamers' wishes (although as cheaply and lazily as possible) thereby angering gamers and causing them to blow off the Wii.
I don't know, I'm going in circles because I guess the mentality of publishers today is that because the Wii is underpowered compared to the other consoles that they just don't feel obligated to perform at their best, spending their programming dollars on the 360 and PS3 versions. Using CoD: WoW as an example, do you think that third-party developers shouldn't even bother making Wii ports if they're not going to try their best, or should Wii owners just be thankful that a Wii port has shown up AT ALL?
No Wii should have exclusive content, not watered down ports.
Yarcofin said:It would take a lot to make me buy another FPS on Wii. I don't think this game would have any of the aiming problems on the PC.
Then again, I think Combat Arms is an awesome online FPS
After completing it and toying around with the settings I can say that the ADS which is zoomed in with normal guns (not scoped) view works fine horizontally but poor vertically. It's not that the control in this game is bad at all, it's just that MOHH2 has blown it out and has such great, responsive, pinpoint controls. The basic movement and aiming controls are fine here and its fine to play, but it feels brutal at first because they are flashing up instructions on the screen in real time while people are throwing grenades at your feet.
Foolz said:I kinda want tog et this. But the last "fresh" WWII game was the original CoD. Then again, CoD4 is awesome, and that doesn't play a whole lot different to 1.
After completing it I have to say that I was entertained and suprised that I could be by a WW2 game after so many. It really has some exciting stuff, the russian campaign in particular. It has this epic feel, so even though everything is rigidly scripted, it's just exciting to be part of these epic battles.
jwallace said:I was looking into purchasing this game for the Wii (only because I can't afford the other consoles this year) but after watching several videos and reading two reviews I decided to catch up on DS gaming instead. I don't know what the deal is regarding multiplatform releases such as this - on one side publishers simply want to cash in on the Wii by supporting it at all and thinking that Wii-only owners (like myself) will be so happy that a 360 or PS3 port is available for the system that we'll forgive all it's faults. On the other side hardcore gamers want more third-party support and publishers argue that they're just supporting gamers' wishes (although as cheaply and lazily as possible) thereby angering gamers and causing them to blow off the Wii.
I don't know, I'm going in circles because I guess the mentality of publishers today is that because the Wii is underpowered compared to the other consoles that they just don't feel obligated to perform at their best, spending their programming dollars on the 360 and PS3 versions. Using CoD: WoW as an example, do you think that third-party developers shouldn't even bother making Wii ports if they're not going to try their best, or should Wii owners just be thankful that a Wii port has shown up AT ALL?
This game is the wrong game to make those arguments about. I think IGN hit the nail on the head when they said that it was pretty special. Treyarch have blown it out, the visuals look great, everything is suitable epic, the frame rate rarely dips. This is a full fledged epic production on the Wii and it's fine. I am glad I bought this game, not just because of this weird obligation some people feel, to support third parties, but because they have made a great engine and some epic environments and scenarios. It just shows what can be done when a 3rd party decides to go all out and deliver using traditional development cycles and appropiate resources and dedication.
Now I've completed the game and gone back to it I can say that yes, it can be frustrating, yet it definetely is rigidly scripted, but on the other hand with the generous checkpoints, infinite continues that is bearable. And the rest of the game is just a spectacle to behold and exciting - if linear. I want to restart and play it again. Just note that you will have to tweak the hell out of the controls and practice because whilst pretty good (preferable to dual analogue) MOHH2 control is just in another league to most other FPS on the system.
Found some decent looking screens of the game here. As always it looks better in motion etc, so don't get hung up on the odd low poly textures. The levels are huge so the game is constantly streaming textures off the disc, so sometimes you can turn around and suddenly a temporary ass looking texture, looks good.
Got this game on Friday for Wii and within the first two hours was seriously pissed off with it. I was thinking that I had been screwed and wanted to return or sell it on ebay as soon as possible. You see this is a game that drops you in the shit from the first second, no introduction, no time to test the controls or see what each button does. And the first level is so dark you can't see jack (literally, Jack, Jack Bauer who does the VA) and he's screaming his head off as he does most of the game and the controls initially suck and you want to break your rifle on Bauers back and tell him to shut the hell up.
The controls start off awfully, you need to tweak the hell out of them to get them to an acceptable level. The problem being that there is no training area, no opportunity to sit back and test things. Once settled though at around the third level mark you will appreciate them. The problem is that MOHH2 has set a control benchmark and is deadly smooth, fast and accurate. So taking a step back into a world where things are notably less then perfect is a harsh reality check.
Things do pick up after the horrid playing and looking first level. Firstly the COD 4 engine looks great on Wii. Really good actually, I can definetely agree with the previews that said at a glance the game could trick you into thinking it was a 360 game. Sure, look closely and you will see behind the smoke and mirrors, low poly textures are definetely littered about and it generally looks like a 360 game on PC low settings I suppose you could say. The game fakes some shader effects, rather than making custom shaders they have used what the developers call a texture filter which gives a quasi shader effect to some textures. There are some definite higher detail levels, mainly the indoor sections and it has realistic animation. But the games greatest graphical acheivement is movement and size. The levels are huge, fog free environments with tons of explosions and effects and on screen characters at once. Sure there is the odd drop in framerate but nothing that bothers you.
I would check out this europe on fire video to check out the visuals on Wii, although as usual it looks better on your actual TV (SDTV)
A bigger complaint is the ADS down the sights aiming. Stacked up against other wii IR games with pixel perfect accuracy and responsiveness, this game has lag. Significant lag between your aiming and the scope on screen when in ADS mode. It feeld like you are dragging something across the screen rather than naturally moving across it and after hitting headshots time after time on Disaster Day of Crisis, it comes as an unwelcome shock. Did Treyarch deliberaltey slow down wii IR controls because otherwise it might make the game too easy? Not only that they are completely stingy with their reticule. You almost have to have a scoped rifle in every level in this game and yet they are absent throughout much of it. You are given a pea sized ring to fire through, it barely zooms in the screen, the ADS movement is slow and they are constantly shaking the screen or using tons of smoke to obscure the screen. This is not fun.
The game has a bigger problem though, instant deaths. I have been killed upwards of 30 times by now, there are cheap deaths. Mainly due the patented call of duty grenades which cause instant death. It's really cheap to make it halfway through a level, only to have someone shout "grenade" and then LESS than a second later it expodes in your face. The game knows that its cheap too as they like to remind of you of dying. "You were killed by an exploding truck, a grenade, stabbed in the face etc." And it gets worse, there are japanese soldiers who all blend into the jungle environments and who take delight in suddenly appearing behind you and shoving a bayonet in your gut. You die and die and die and die and die again. It's cheap. Thankfully the checkpoints are plentiful.
Another thing that annoys me is the slow movement speed, your character at full tilt walks as fast as a man trudging through waist high mud and you have to hit the run button through most of the level and its generally like the roadie run in GOW, you cant shoot and can only go forwards. But the game is also limited by its setting, WW2. I am sick to death of using archaic guns with 5 or 10 bullet magazines, sick of aiming through realistically proportioned tiny metal circles and tired of fighting spawning enemies. Yes, you often sit there picking off enemy after enemy and the level only progresses when you run forward and trigger the level to move on. Its very artificial.
So what's good about it? Well, it's incredibly cinematic and the developer has put a huge amount of effort into making a fully fledged, presentationally sound Wii game in an era when many aren't bothering. The controls when you've practiced on them are still pretty fun, if imperfect and it can be additive and enjoyable in the moments between deaths. So yes, while it can exceedingly frustrating, it can be impressive and a good amount of fun, pressing forward to annihilate Hitler and pressing into Nazi Germany is fun and it draws you into its world quite well.