KungKras said:
Soundwave said:
The Call of Duty audience was never staying on Wii. The system simply couldn't run the "real" COD engine, gamers are not stupid, outselling the PS3 version for a year is kind of an overrated metric because the PS3 was selling worse than the GameCube its first year due to a $600 price point.
The other COD games on the Wii did have some decent effort put into them, for example Black Ops and World At War were better reviewed games than COD3, the hardware simply wouldn't allow Activision to give Wii owners the proper COD experience -- and that's 100% Nintendo's fault.
If the $200 GameCube could be a full generational leap over the N64, there was no excuse for the $250 Wii to be that weak. It should have been at minimum 2/3rds of an XBox 360. In which case Nintendo would've gotten pretty much every third party game on the PS3/360. The Wiimote was a $10 piece of plastic at most, there's no way the hardware cost all went there.
|
If it was the right decision to give the WIi the specs that it had is a separate discussion. But the Wii hardware did allow for the CoD experience. Goldeneye Wii had all the relevant features, the split screen multiplayer and everything. Hell, Perfect Dark did had all the relevant features too, on the N64. There was nothing that was impossible to do on the Wii except the HD graphics.
|
Having 1/6th the RAM, 1/10th the polygon draw power, 1/10th the compute power for physics makes a difference bro.
The COD games on the Wii *were* pretty decent, so what exactly are you complaining about? They got good reviews, Activision put a good amount of effort into them. People are not stupid though the guy who wants COD was not going to buy the (by comparison) Wii version.
GoldenEye on the Wii didn't exactly break sales records either.
