It's so cute when Wii-only gamers try to play with the big boys with their stripped-down COD.

Infinity Ward chose to keep the first Modern Warfare off the Wii for a reason... then Treyarch had to go and make that god-awful "Reflex" version for it.

The only Wii COD I have played is Modern Warfare (1). It was almost on par with the HD ones but since I've played Modern Warfare 2 on the 360, I assume that BO and MW3 on Wii just won't be able to keep up with the improvemments.

well in my personal opinion if its COD it sucks. so far i've seen no redeeming qualities about MW3 recommend to rent let alone a buy.

my user review will be .5 lower then the ign wii score, and i'm reviewing it for both PS3 and 360 cause i've played both and they suck. i'm just glad i don't have to play it on the Wii. who ever gave MW3 a 8.5 or higher need not review a game ever again.

and now sadly its your turn. ryan your getting sloppy. you failed to post the vgc review score while complaining about the IGN score which i'm sure is an accurate score, and your rant went a little to long like most of Joelcools threads/post.

i score your rant and thread a 7/10

People may say you have to compare it to Wii games, but I compare it to it's other counterparts on the Xbox and PS3, and well.... it sucks. All the good aspects about CoD games are hampered on the Wii so yeah... what do you expect? And if you compare it to other Wii games, like Mario ones that don't max out it's processor... yeah it's not as good as those either because those play smoothly and are meant for the Wii. MW3 is not. It's sole reason for being on there is to make some more money, and that is it.

Oh come on! If Pixar made a 2 version of Toy Story, or the Incredibles or... one the CGI version we all know and the other a traditional hand drawn cartoon d'ya think movie reviewers would have rated them independently? Or do you think movie reviewers would have compared the CGI version with the hand-drawn version and rated them relative to each other?

My vote is most movie reviewers would rate 2 versions of the same movie relative to each other. And movie re-makes get the same treatment.  So don't go all boo hoo not fair to down rate Wii version because it's visuals don't stack up to the PS360 version. Nintendo made the choice to have low-fi graphics power, and for games that rely on graphics as much or more so than gameplay for gamer attraction marking down the Wii version is legit.

The experience of MW3 on Wii is not as good as the experience on PS360. That's the revewer's opinion and it's right to score the Wii version lower as a result. 4.5/10 does seem a tad harsh though, but some of the criticisms aren't strictly about the non-HDness.

My problem is the content-score dissonance. The review described a good game, if not quite above average, with good control and gameplay, if a bit flawed. The score reflects a subpar game that is halfway playable at best.

So I think how good the game actually is doesn't matter. The score is more about hating a game for being on the Wii, more than the actual content of this version, or the versions on the other systems.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the flaws noted in the review. I haven't played this version to judge that. If it turns out the flaws in the review were outright exaggerated, then I can call the whole thing BS. But assuming it's true, my dissonance argument still stands.

This is why I like Angry Joe's reviews (just google the name). Even if I don't agree with his opinions, he makes sure his score reflects what he mentioned in his reviews.

well so far Torilinas review of UC3 and the Vita thread have gotten my 2 highest reviews so far. if i'm going to stay on vgc then have to intertain myself otherwise i'll spend more time doing something else.

sensitivity is for the weak people that feel and have emotions and that doesn't sound like me.

To be fair that's a far more accurate review than the HD versions. MW3 = 5/10 at best.