wtf? couldn't they review it from the Wii prospective instead of comparing it to the HD versions?

LOL who cares about MW3 on the wii.?

Also 30 fps LOL sub-HD graphics LO-

oh wait.....

Meh.
One of my favorite things about CoD is the 60fps on the HD games. That could not be achieved here, thus worse and less responsive controls.
Also, one thing is the game not looking like the HD games, another is the game having some laughable pop-in and performance issues.

a couple of sentences were batshit stupid "basically this scene isnt as engaging because its not HD" completely stupid.. a scene is a scene regardless of resolution.. if didnt effect you then its not gonna do so 1080.

His constant comparisons to other platform and visuals pretty much sums up 4.5 is for being in HD.

I despise this cosmetically focused era

Im not going to lie, that score seems harsh. If the lag is truly that bad, that players have to compensate then thats a problem. But is it really that bad, GE had little lag and the maps and players were about the same size. I did notice pop in watching videos and i could see how that would be annoying. The game is missing things from the HDs and im not talking resolution

Sounds like a standard IGN reader (13 yr old boy who only plays COD) wrote this.

I think they did, I read that review, the main arguments were the game having a really bad frame-rate, making a game designed to be super fast paced feel sluggish and unresponsive, and the main graphical criticisms were "constant pop-in" and performance issues (lag and frame-rate). 

Look I haven't played Modern Warfare 3 on Wii but I did play both Black Ops and World At War. I have no problem accepting what IGN said as being factual because the Wii versions of both BO and WoW were terrible in comparison to the 360/PS3 versions. Every problem IGN had with MW3 I had with those two games.

So to see that MW3 is much like those other two does not surprise me at all. The Wii hardware is at its limit and Call Of Duty's strong suit is its amazing graphics and flawless online and offline multiplayer. But if the graphics aren't there and the online multiplayer is lagged to kingdom come and the friend codes interfere. Well the game doesn't have its strong suites.

I think what this review underlines is the fact that Call Of Duty is not a great game. When you take the pretty graphics out and the flawless online your left with a peice of shit. Most gamers want story in their game, they want good scripting they want the game to feel real they want to be immersed. Call of Duty doesn't make for an immersive game, when you play CoD its not for the story or the writting etc...etc.. its for the beautiful explosions.

In fact many CoD fans I know haven't even played the MW3 campaign yet, they went straight home to play online. The game is not a high quality title if you like a good plot line. The game is not great as a shooter if you remove all the graphics.

I for one am not surprised at all, to be honest after MW2 I decided I likely would never buy another Call of Duty. The only reason I might buy CoD MW3 is for the split screen multiplayer because no other games do it. But in the end Call of Duty has not improved since CoD4, it doesn't look like it will in the near future either.

Plus if I do end up buying CoD I'll buy it for 360, the graphics and online are what make the game playable. They are the only reason to buy the game, take those two factors out by releasing it on Wii and the game is utter shit!

will comment tommorow when I have time to read the OP. I'm going to bed. *yawns*

It is fair, then, if the game was poorly optimized for the Wii