Official Nintendo Magazine

Log in to access exclusive Nintendo content, win prizes and post on our forums. Not a member yet? Join for free

Call Of Duty Modern Warfare: Reflex Edition Review

Was it worth the wait?

Call Of Duty Modern Warfare on Wii has a funny little subtitle: Reflex Edition. It's a little out of place because one thing Activision hasn't done with this Modern Warfare is display particularly fast reflexes! Despite releasing a version of Modern Warfare on DS in 2007, it has taken them two more years to bring out a version of their world beating shooter on the Wii.

But here we are at last and amazingly it's almost exactly the same game, in structural terms at least, as the hi-def version. Obviously it falls down on the visual front but you're not so shallow as to judge a book entirely by its cover, or a war game by how well it does whacking great explosions, so we'll put that aside just for a moment.

Click to view larger image

Friendly Banter

So faithfully does Reflex stick to the Modern Warfare template that we don't actually get any Wii-specific levels. The firing range is our first port of call, where we're called a 'muppet' just like in the other versions, and then it's the assault course and killing house. So far, so old. But here we come across a major Wii trump card in the ability to completely customise your controls. Attempt the speed run again and you can fine tune everything, completely rearranging commands and controls to suit your play-style. Wii wins its first skirmish.

So it's on to the first mission proper, with those friendly SAS chaps aboard the rolling tanker, and a chance to scope out how the game feels for real. The first time you clap eyes on the wildly undulating seas chucking the ship about, well, you might mistake it for a giant, dark tablecloth being flapped up and down by thousands of hands. Or, as someone pointed out behind us, a mountain range. It was hard to tell.

But steaming through its cargo hold, and indeed the rest of the game, is a lot of fun. There's a fierce level of intensity to the big setpiece fire fights, enemy AI is relentless and there's even a Wii co-op mode called Squadmate which allows a second player to drop into the action follow you around, mopping up straggler gunmen. For those of you who have yet to come into contact with Modern Warfare, you'll enjoy the fast-paced chopping and changing between British and American forces' viewpoints and the claustrophobic Eastern European and Middle Eastern levels.

Online Frontline

And for online gaming, there's support for up to ten players, two more than World At War managed. Search & Destroy, Free For All and Domination will be where you spend most of your time and, best of all, the comprehensive perks and unlocks are included. That means you will be playing this solidly for months online.

Click to view larger image
Yet despite packing in all the features from the original and the comprehensive online modes, Reflex isn't the perfect shoot 'em up experience and predictably it's the visuals that let it down. The whole fuss around the original Modern Warfare arose because it was a punchy depiction of modern, dirty combat and unfortunately, this Wii version with its flat and muddy textures and short draw distances just can't compete. Given the extra two years Treyarch had to squeeze every last drop of polish from the Wii, this is underwhelming visually. It looks okay for a Wii game - that's the dreaded caveat - but it's not even up there with Metroid Prime: Corruption.

Having said that, Modern Warfare is still an excellent shooter packed with options and it should be a big player online so we can welcome it to the Wii family. It's about flamin' time!

Comments

156 comments so far...
Add a comment

  1. darkman2300 Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:05

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)

  2. Gynjanynja Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:08

    Damn you ONM you have given me a tough choice to make now with ur infuriating 80%. Good but mayb not quite good enough to warrant a purchase.

    Is it as good as world at war? I know obviously WAW percentage is higher but when compared directly which is better?

  3. Prince_Ashitaka Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:10

    Couldn't you have got better screenshots then the ones that came with the announcement months ago?

  4. AdmiralCheese Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:13

    i feel this review is somewhat unfair
    ill admit i havent played it - yet

    but the graphics are better than WaW wii and the game itself is almost universally agreed to be better than waw so why did this get such a worse review?

    it makes me feel as if it was marked harshly purely for coming late with no media coverage or hype which is a damn shame

    seriously, almost every previewer has been amazed at how similar this looks to its hd cousins
    it's almost as if you judged the graphics based soley on those pre apha screens

    that 2nd to last paragraph just seems so wrong in so many ways and again makes me question my subscription when i cant trust what is written

  5. magneto3 Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:15

    I thoroughly disagree, this is miles better than WaW. :roll:

  6. dm_1782 Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:20

    I thoroughly disagree, this is miles better than WaW. :roll:

    I too agree its definitely better. The visuals arent too bad either a little washed out at times but when youre in the heat of battle with bullets flying past you, you hardly notice the rough edges and just get stuck into what is a very enjoyable game. There are lots of options and game modes and I think this should have been rated higher than WAW.

  7. Giga Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:24

    Read it from what I can tell you make the gamedown because:
    1) It is too much like the Modern Warfare that came out in 2007 (surely thats a good thing, I know it's a port but still).
    2) The graphics (As people have pointed out they are better than WAW yet you say they are bad, I've seen it played and they looked good to me).
    3) It has the custom controls "trump card", why did you even point that out just about every game availible on the market these days have custom controls.

    Anyway not sure what to think of this review they seemed to hammer the score down for things that were in WAW.

  8. Lanky031 Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:28

    I thoroughly disagree, this is miles better than WaW. :roll:

    I too agree its definitely better. The visuals arent too bad either a little washed out at times but when youre in the heat of battle with bullets flying past you, you hardly notice the rough edges and just get stuck into what is a very enjoyable game. There are lots of options and game modes and I think this should have been rated higher than WAW.


    I agree with these two.
    80%!!!Cos the visuals are'rough around the edges'and'its 2 years late',you deny it a GoldAward?!?!?!!!?
    Its has loads of maps,all the modes,all single player missions.....
    You should have marked NSMB.Wii down for being the same game,with 'added+new stuff'!!!This is why MWR is better than WaW,because it has all the content,bit better visuals....
    This is the first time i have EVER disagreed with your reviews ONM.And yes,i have played the game.Toodle pip now,im off to play it!

  9. SteveMega Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:38

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...

  10. bazmeistergen Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:44

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...

    Grow up, child!

    They gave CoD WaW 90% and this is not 10% worse. It's an improvement, but we all have different views. Why not go to a forum that discusses real consoles rather than wasting your time with us idiots that play with and enjoy imaginary ones?

  11. SteveMega Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:47

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...

    Grow up, child!

    They gave CoD WaW 90% and this is not 10% worse. It's an improvement, but we all have different views. Why not go to a forum that discusses real consoles rather than wasting your time with us idiots that play with and enjoy imaginary ones?


    So is your first name Baz or Chill?

    And what are you mentioning WaW for? That game was terrible across all systems.

  12. Ubahquiet Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 22:50

    I'm just going to wait until I get a PS3 at Christmas and then pick up the original version preowned, myself. Good to know that it isn't completely rubbish, though.

  13. adam-ell Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 23:42

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

  14. bazmeistergen Tuesday 10th Nov 2009 at 23:42

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...

    Grow up, child!

    They gave CoD WaW 90% and this is not 10% worse. It's an improvement, but we all have different views. Why not go to a forum that discusses real consoles rather than wasting your time with us idiots that play with and enjoy imaginary ones?


    So is your first name Baz or Chill?

    And what are you mentioning WaW for? That game was terrible across all systems.

    I'm relaxed.

    Perhaps you should play the game before passing comment. Some of us are already enjoying it.

    Thanks.

  15. N.A.T.O Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 00:11

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...

    Real consoles?

    What like the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast?

    Oh...you mean those poorly constructed and vastly over rated "HD multi-media entertainment centres".

    Pip squeeks like you need to be schooled in the definition of proper consoles.

  16. ChrisONM Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 00:21

    Wow, I certainly wasn't expecting a score like that! I judged the book by it's cover and estimated 70% max. How wrong I was :)


    How wrong you was in thinking that the ONM staff wouldn't overrate, promote and fornicate with a 'big release' game ported crappy from the real consoles onto this miserable pile of whatever the hell it is?

    How wrong you were...


    Funny that, because there are people who have already commented on here, who have actually played it and are enjoying it. Though, of course, I'm sure you wouldn't be accusing us of "overrating" something without having played it yourself already, would you?

  17. Fern244 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 00:57

    I own the game already and I would have to say that this is a disgraceful review. How dare you give it only an 80, just because visuals aren't as good as 360/PS3 visuals. Isn't it us Nintendo Wii gamers who are always saying "Gameplay comes first, and then visuals"
    Apart from that, I'd like to compare scores. ONM gave Call of Duty 3 (definitely a worse game with worse visuals) a score of 86! Everything is miles better in Call Of Duty 4, and yet you give the game 6% less?
    One again, this is a disgraceful review. Readers beware, this is a terrible review, the game is definitely better than an true 80% game. Dissapointed.

    Look for yourselves. Does this game really deserve only 80% : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GhTe3HgCe8

  18. bob901 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 07:20

    I think 80% is a completely unfair score to the game:
    1) I'll admit the visuals aren't the best but they do their job well enough.
    2) The online is just as good as the other versions in my opinion apart from no voice chat. Everything else is there the controls are perfect and the gameplay is amazing.
    It may be a 2 year-old game but I've never had the chance to play this game properly so to me its brand new.
    90% at least.
    It's 10x better than COD3 and bout 3 times better than WAW.

  19. Galahad Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 07:42

    This game has amazing graphics for a wii game. The drawing distance is incredible. There is so much going on the screen, with effects like explosions and blur-focus, perfect animations, lots of buildings and soldiers, while rockets missiles and helicopters are flying all over.I couldn't imagine the Wii pulling it off. The textures substantially improved, though some places still look ragged or smeared, unlike Mario galaxy. But It's realistic, and has much more going on the screen by a large margin.
    Secondly, no game by Nintendo offers such freedom of multilayer options - It's probably the only serious hardcore game that does so for the wii.
    Giving it 80% is a joke, It should get 95 easily, I'll take it over Metroid any day. Just fix your review, and give it 85, cause us readers won't leave you alone...

  20. Garbin Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 07:44

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.

  21. Hughdude Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 08:18

    This game has amazing graphics for a wii game. The drawing distance is incredible. There is so much going on the screen, with effects like explosions and blur-focus, perfect animations, lots of buildings and soldiers, while rockets missiles and helicopters are flying all over.I couldn't imagine the Wii pulling it off. The textures substantially improved, though some places still look ragged or smeared, unlike Mario galaxy. But It's realistic, and has much more going on the screen by a large margin.
    Secondly, no game by Nintendo offers such freedom of multilayer options - It's probably the only serious hardcore game that does so for the wii.
    Giving it 80% is a joke, It should get 95 easily, I'll take it over Metroid any day. Just fix your review, and give it 85, cause us readers won't leave you alone...

    Quite right. I remember someone asking me if they just favoured nintendo or mario games when I was Rambiling on about the Magazine and I said"No they give a fair score to everyone"but now I'm not so sure. How did this get less than COD 3. Madmen. Ta se amadan. AMADAN.kinda

    P.s no offence

  22. ShadowofPain Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 08:25

    I find this review rather unfair. After all the good things you said about the game you only give it 80%? C'mon ONM. At least for once we are getting the FULL pacakge here. Everything included.

    I think it's rather unfair that you mark it down 20% because of visuals alone. It deserves at least 85-95% (a diamond in the rough as stated in the magazine which is exactly what this is).

  23. Hughdude Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 08:50

    Sorry about posting so soon after my last but to anyone who has the game does it have a vechicle level and is squadmate mode another person or just another pionter like in WAW. I have seen the game in action but have not played yet

  24. metal_mario Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 10:25

    To be honest this just proves how the wii is really falling behind, modern warfare 2 that was released on the same day - I seriously doubt that would ever be able to run on wii. And if the visuals are poor on this one and its 2 years old (I forget) I don't think the wii will be keeping up with current gen games for much longer.

  25. robgomm Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 11:01

    i feel this review is somewhat unfair
    ill admit i havent played it - yet

    but the graphics are better than WaW wii and the game itself is almost universally agreed to be better than waw so why did this get such a worse review?

    it makes me feel as if it was marked harshly purely for coming late with no media coverage or hype which is a damn shame

    seriously, almost every previewer has been amazed at how similar this looks to its hd cousins
    it's almost as if you judged the graphics based soley on those pre apha screens

    that 2nd to last paragraph just seems so wrong in so many ways and again makes me question my subscription when i cant trust what is written

    What do you expect from a Simon Bramble review? His reviews often read like he just rushed through the game and you get a random score at the end of it. Definately ONM's worst reviewer.

  26. Fern244 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 11:37

    This game should definitely be reviewed again.

  27. neongiratina Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 11:46

    Wait so this Isn't MW2 Wii Edition?
    oh ffs Activision, I want MW2 on Wii

  28. X-Azure-rain-x Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 11:56

    Why does the review keep harping on about how eveyrthing is included?!

    No it bloody isn't!

    There's STILL no local 4 player multiplayer! And as you'll find, there is in all other versions of cod4.

    Not to mention half the online modes are missing on wii.

    I mean, come on! Is it too much to ask for an fps on wii that has local and online multiplayer capabilities?

    Even the conduit promised that and in the end they fell back on their word.

  29. SeriouslyLaughin Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 12:41

    I like this version better than either of those (under)HD-Ready MW's!!! But I don't like that everyone, reviewers and readers, keeps talking almost exlusively about graphics!!! This is not a very good looking game even in Wii-standards! At least it is ok and surely has improved from W@W, but we should talk about the CONTROLS!!! D@MN IT!!! Wiimote is the reason, why I like it more than any FPS on any HD-Ready-console! Aiming is fast, precise and feels like you are shooting things yourself! That immersion cannot be found anywhere else! I ususally play these games on a PC(because of mouse and FULL-HD, not something 600p), but Wiimote is so fun alternative to mouse, that I'm super excited of Wii's FPS's now! Mouse is fast and precise, but not very immersive.

  30. Tommson Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 13:44

    Don't understand that review at all. Sorry.

  31. Sabrewulf Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 14:07

    Simple answer for a lot of you guys, if you have already made you mind up so strongly don't bother reading the review and commenting. It's all opinion-based at the end of the day.

    And on today of all days just take a step back to remember and think what people have gone through in real wars and all these quibbles pale into insignificance...

  32. monkeyfeet81 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 14:09

    Just had a look at other sites which seem to support the review.

  33. Kyle9r Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 14:29

    Got this yesterday, definite improvement over WAW.
    Played first part of campaign and some online, plays well, has double the amount of online maps and more multiplayer game modes.

    A definite improvement in my opinion, if you liked WAW, you'll like this.

    :D

  34. Goomba1993 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:01

    I'm actually really p*ssed off at this review. What magazine is always banging on about how game controls are so much more important than visuals? Why the hell did we buy a Wii if not for the controls?! Of course the graphics will be a bit rough but you're marking the game down 20% because of it?! The point is that i want Modern Warfare with intuitive controls and the Wii delivers that. If you want graphics buy MW2 on the 360! The graphics are at least better than WaW and yet its got a worse score, despite having more online modes, fully customisable controls, etc. This is better than all other shooters on the Wii hands-down. If you want a fun, immersive shooter get this game. This review is just completely hypocritical with ONM's ethics. And just to be certain, i have played this game and i'm not just harping on without experience. I got it on Monday and I am now rank 20 online and have completed half the campiagn so i know what i'm talking about. THIS IS THE WORST REVIEW BY ONM I HAVE EVER READ AND READ EVERY ISSUE, COVER TO COVER.

  35. Gynjanynja Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:03

    It annoyed me how the reviewer didnt relate it to WAW but gave it a score based on nothing. You would think that better online and controls would mean that it would get a higher score than WAW on wii however it gets 12% less which i cannot fathom. Are you minusing 12% for graphics that are actually better or equal than WAW no I think not.

    My personal opinion is that this review is possibly written by somebody who played the original on 360 or PS3 and is rating it down purely due to fanboyism or possibl dislike of the wii. Either that or he has not done his research in order to compare it with WAW!!!!

  36. nintendo_guy Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:09

    Oh dear. As Cod 6:MW2 comes out on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, getting scores in the high 90s, the Wii gets Modern Warfare Reflex, which gets just 80%.

  37. Fern244 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:19

    Petition for this to be reviewed again?

  38. chrispy321 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:21

    Look everyone. It only gets marked down because it's a bit of a disappointment because of the delay and the lack of EFFORT PUT INTO THE graphics. It's probably a good game in it's own right...

    And Simon Bramble is not a bad reviewer...

    And the PS3's only good for three things: shooting, driving, football...in other words, it's a chav...well, it doesn't wear stupid tracksuits or drink insane amounts...yet.

    The Wii and Xbox, though, are half decent...variety in both, controls in Wii, graphics in Xbox...

  39. Mr Hat Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:44

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.


    I can't stress how true this is.

  40. ChrisONM Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:48

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.


    I can't stress how true this is.


    Of course it isn't true. We mark each game on its own merits, and it just happens most Mario games are extremely well-made and enjoyable. With all respect, we're not going to give a great game like New Super Mario Bros Wii something like 70% just to keep the conspiracy theorists quiet. If we love the game, we give it a great score. Simple as that.

    If it was called "Call Of Duty: Mario Edition" (as ridiculous as that would be) the same issues Simon raised would still be valid.

  41. bob901 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 16:58

    Of course it isn't true. We mark each game on its own merits, and it just happens most Mario games are extremely well-made and enjoyable. With all respect, we're not going to give a great game like New Super Mario Bros Wii something like 70% just to keep the conspiracy theorists quiet. If we love the game, we give it a great score. Simple as that.
    If it was called "Call Of Duty: Mario Edition" (as ridiculous as that would be) the same issues Simon raised would still be valid.

    I think Most of your scores to Mario games are fair, but COD WAW got 92% and that had over half the stuff missing from it, so this one comes out with practically the ufll package and is the better game and you mark it down 12% I just dont understand.

  42. AdmiralCheese Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:02

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.


    I can't stress how true this is.


    Of course it isn't true. We mark each game on its own merits, and it just happens most Mario games are extremely well-made and enjoyable. With all respect, we're not going to give a great game like New Super Mario Bros Wii something like 70% just to keep the conspiracy theorists quiet. If we love the game, we give it a great score. Simple as that.

    If it was called "Call Of Duty: Mario Edition" (as ridiculous as that would be) the same issues Simon raised would still be valid.

    so why havent you responded to that the fact that it IS better than cod 3 wii (a direct ps2 port, ported by effing 2 people with nothing else but the single player campaign and arcade mode) and is generally viewed to be both a better designed game than waw and be closer to its hd cousins than waw

    face it, this was reviewed harshly purely out of bitterness - the review was only released on launch day in the evening whic makes me feel you probably had to buy your own copy on release with everyone else and then played and reviewed it in about 6 hours

    we dont buy your magazine for half assness so explain what is going on and dont only reply to the comments that are easy to respond to

  43. clarkie123 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:17

    Can I just point out that Simon didn't review either of the other two CoD games on Wii, and his opinion on tehm is probably different from the person that did.
    I agree that he should have gone into more detail about why the game got marked down, but you have to understand that they will have a word limit, and he probably felt there were more important things to be said.
    In the end, everyone has an opinion, and you can't just slate someone because it's different from your own, no matter how right you think you are.
    Besides, 80% is a decent score for Christ's sake, you'd think he'd given it in the low 50's the way some of you are talking.

  44. Paper Luigi Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:28

    Awful review, sorry...

    1. Different reviwer, so he cant compare to WaW.

    2. It wasnt compared to WaW atall

    3. No mention of online what so ever.

    4. It gets a lower score even though it has more content and better graphics.

  45. Zorganist Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:41

    I'm currently about half way through the main single-player mode and thus far I'm not sold on the game. While Treyarch managed to do a whole lot more with control customization this time around -- you'll find sliders, dead zone box customization, and dozens upon dozens of options -- the actual framerate and cursor tracking is on par with World at War, if not a little slower. Moving slightly with the Wii-mote doesn't always register in on-screen movement, so trying to dial in that precise pixel-by-pixel aiming is a serious chore. With the framerate also pretty inconsistent at times the cursor takes the brunt of the impact and the only real hope for precise shooting comes with the game's single player lock-on function. Just like with COD4, single player has a basic lock-on that occurs when pulling up into aim down sights mode, and if it wasn't for that option this would be a very trying experience. I'm convinced that some players will be able to find their perfect setup in Modern Warfare Reflex, but the game's choppy framerate will still ensure that a smoother experience can be found elsewhere on Wii with titles like Medal of Honor Heroes or The Conduit.

    That's taken from the Preview on IGN. I'm aware that control customisation is nothing new, but even so, they should still be accurate; One of the mian selling points of the Wii for FPS games is having a more accurate cursor.

    And read that last sentence again, The Conduit has smmother gameplay. And from what I've seen the graphics look pretty much the same, if not better, on The Conduit.

    On the subject of bias towards games developed by Nintendo, I get the sense that a lot more care and effort is put into them than third-party games. They deserve higher scores, because the quality is better.

    Finally, lets not forget that it is just a port. Isn't it about time a proper, quality FPS gets made from the ground-up for Wii?

  46. clarkie123 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:51

    ^^^
    Yeah I saw this too, however there are a lot of people strongly disagreeing in the comments box of that hands-on.

  47. snes2 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:53

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.


    I can't stress how true this is.


    Of course it isn't true. We mark each game on its own merits, and it just happens most Mario games are extremely well-made and enjoyable. With all respect, we're not going to give a great game like New Super Mario Bros Wii something like 70% just to keep the conspiracy theorists quiet. If we love the game, we give it a great score. Simple as that.

    If it was called "Call Of Duty: Mario Edition" (as ridiculous as that would be) the same issues Simon raised would still be valid.

    but it would probably get 96%

  48. DS2008 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:54

    Its too late now. XBOX360 owners are going MAD for Modern Warfare 2. Unless you don't want to betray Nintendo by buying a 360 or PS3, then there's no real point buying this if you've played it before.

  49. AdmiralCheese Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 17:56

    I'm currently about half way through the main single-player mode and thus far I'm not sold on the game. While Treyarch managed to do a whole lot more with control customization this time around -- you'll find sliders, dead zone box customization, and dozens upon dozens of options -- the actual framerate and cursor tracking is on par with World at War, if not a little slower. Moving slightly with the Wii-mote doesn't always register in on-screen movement, so trying to dial in that precise pixel-by-pixel aiming is a serious chore. With the framerate also pretty inconsistent at times the cursor takes the brunt of the impact and the only real hope for precise shooting comes with the game's single player lock-on function. Just like with COD4, single player has a basic lock-on that occurs when pulling up into aim down sights mode, and if it wasn't for that option this would be a very trying experience. I'm convinced that some players will be able to find their perfect setup in Modern Warfare Reflex, but the game's choppy framerate will still ensure that a smoother experience can be found elsewhere on Wii with titles like Medal of Honor Heroes or The Conduit.

    That's taken from the Preview on IGN. I'm aware that control customisation is nothing new, but even so, they should still be accurate; One of the mian selling points of the Wii for FPS games is having a more accurate cursor.

    And read that last sentence again, The Conduit has smmother gameplay. And from what I've seen the graphics look pretty much the same, if not better, on The Conduit.

    On the subject of bias towards games developed by Nintendo, I get the sense that a lot more care and effort is put into them than third-party games. They deserve higher scores, because the quality is better.

    Finally, lets not forget that it is just a port. Isn't it about time a proper, quality FPS gets made from the ground-up for Wii?

    i dont get why everyone hates ports - especially when they're done well like this
    stop being greedy, ports can still be good games and no one gives an eff if it's come out on something else before
    that doesnt somehow depreciate its value

    also, ive watched a lot of footage and have yet to see a single framerate problem and all the players ive seen seem to have no problems aiming so i think it's just ign after playing mw2

    anyone who has it want to confirm this?

  50. adam84 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 18:14

    this is very very harsh guys, could someones else review this please. good job i went out and bought the game before your review though. it is better than waw in every single way. more maps,more online modes,graphics,sound,single player mode, i could go on...i know 80% is still good but to give it 10% lower than waw is an insult.

  51. Garbin Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 18:33

    if this was called call of duty: mario edition it would get at least 95

    That is so very true.


    I can't stress how true this is.


    Of course it isn't true. We mark each game on its own merits, and it just happens most Mario games are extremely well-made and enjoyable. With all respect, we're not going to give a great game like New Super Mario Bros Wii something like 70% just to keep the conspiracy theorists quiet. If we love the game, we give it a great score. Simple as that.

    If it was called "Call Of Duty: Mario Edition" (as ridiculous as that would be) the same issues Simon raised would still be valid.

    Sorry Chris but I'm old enough (older than you young man) to have seen this time and again, in fact since games consoles first came out. Whilst I admit Nintendo games with Mario (and Sega games with Sonic) always had a little more polish than other games they rarely ever deserved the extra plaudits they automatically got. I always wanted to test reviewers by getting a perfectly average game and replacing all the sprites with Mario characters and sit back and watch you guys add 10% to the review score.

  52. Gynjanynja Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 18:33

    Can someone please confirm if this version has the bootcamp challenges i.e. crouch kills, knife kills etc. If so this is another positive which means the score should be considerabl;y higher and plus it will make me even happier to get it for crimbo :D

  53. swearingmonster Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 18:47

    I thoroughly disagree, this is miles better than WaW. :roll:


    Yh this is a very unfair review, you have been too harsh ONM!!! It's great! I have it :D

  54. Biggwedge Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 19:01

    This review is pathetic Simon, giving this lazy piece of trash a higher score than The Conduit? Not only that, but you also display some level of hypocrisy and give false information, which I doubt you're paid for.

    Modern Warfare Reflex (henceforth to be called MWR) looks like utter crap, it doesn't even have freaking shadows (unlike a ton of N64 games), and even the framerate is pretty spotty. Far inferior to The Conduit, which actually has more visual variety, some actual work put into it and is the most advanced game (in terms of graphics technology) that has ever existed on a Nintendo system so far (which you glazed over).

    You praise the controls and customization of MWR, yet chose to completely ignore said feature (which was widely advertised) with The Conduit that once again does it better. Instead you chose to rant about how you couldn't keep your arm straight when throwing a grenade (which can be changed funnily enough)...

    The online experience is not 'excellent', and doesn't have 'everything included' as others have stated. The customization features like perks (which doesn't count for all that much really...) do nothing to hide the fact that experience offered by The Conduit is far better (more modes, weapons, and Wii Speak).

    You talk about the AI being 'relentless', yet anyone who actually pays attention can tell you COD AI is the most basic ever. You didn't even cover AI in The Conduit yet it is superior (especially in the last chapters), the pathfinding is better, the enemies heal, behave differently depending on their type, actively seek cover (as opposed to running to scripted areas), they CHASE you and look for openings and even cheer.

    As for the gameplay, that is another argument entirely (this is about effort) but I enjoyed it. As far as I'm concerned the gameplay in COD is a mix of shallow shooting and scripted sequences where you have little control. The Conduit has deeper combat (thanks to better AI, more varied enemies and weapons), and dare I say wasn't as cheap so there is plenty of worth there.

    Sorry Simon, ONM has a lot of weight yet here you are telling kids that this quick, cheap and dirty jobbie is worth more than something that actually had some effort (and dare I say respect for the Wii) put into its making. I think you should stop reviewing Wii shooters otherwise we'll be stuck with minigames until Nintendo finally pull the plug...

  55. LiamGodOfFood Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 19:01

    How is slightly rough graphics -20%?
    Cod Waw had 10 times worse graphics, especially close up, but it got a miles higher score!
    What the hell is going on?!?!

  56. Grifter Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 19:11

    Simple answer for a lot of you guys, if you have already made you mind up so strongly don't bother reading the review and commenting. It's all opinion-based at the end of the day.

    And on today of all days just take a step back to remember and think what people have gone through in real wars and all these quibbles pale into insignificance...

    Absolutely right on all counts. Well said.

    And frankly I can't see any difference between PS2 and HD graphics anyway.

  57. crazyturtle1234 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 19:22

    And the PS3's only good for three things: shooting, driving, football...in other words, it's a chav...well, it doesn't wear stupid tracksuits or drink insane amounts...yet
    The Wii and Xbox, though, are half decent...variety in both, controls in Wii, graphics in Xbox


    ..yet some of the ps3s best games include valkyria chronicles, Demons Souls and Metal Gear Solid 4?
    3 games which involve tactical thinking and planning, intense stealth gameplay and great arpg gameplay?

    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. How wrong you are. If anything, the 360 and Wii are far more guilty of this than the ps3. You say that there is variety in both, yet the amount of sports games (fifa, mario strikers charged, wii sports resort, wii sports, mario golf, mario tennis, the list goes on), racing games (mario kart wiiiiii) and shooters (halo, gears of war, L4d) on the systems outweigh the number on the ps3 by far. The ps3 has a huge amount of variety in gameplay, from stealth (MGS4) to strategy (valkyria chronicles) to platforming (Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Uncharted), and puzzle/creation based games (littlebigplanet) as well as a few others. Frankly, the only shooters which I like on the ps3 (and some of the only ones on the console too) are the Uncharted games, but thats mainly due to the puzzles, the platforming, the climbing and the setpieces.

    You say that the ps3 is good for 'shooting, driving, football' yet the ps3 contains very few of these games, as I have already mentioned. So yeah, I suppose that wasn't the best anti-ps3 arguments ever made, was it?

  58. SimonBrambleSux Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 19:22

    This guy needs to get fired. Come on mate, why do I bother coming to this site to waste my time reading a review by someone who can't even do a proper job? People come here to read about how good the game is and how it compares against others. Taking off points because it comes two years after the console version makes you look like a child. Go put your big boy reviewer pants on and come back and maybe I will ever respect another word you say. Actually, that is probably a lie, I most likely won't ever respect anything you say after this horrible review. When coming to a gaming site and finding the comments of a review are 99% about the reviewer, that's a pretty good sign that you suck at your job.

  59. Zorganist Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:02

    i dont get why everyone hates ports - especially when they're done well like this
    stop being greedy, ports can still be good games and no one gives an eff if it's come out on something else before
    that doesnt somehow depreciate its value

    I'm not saying ports aren't good games, some of them are absoloutely wonderful (Okmai, for example), but it's the lack of effort to tailor-make games for the Wii that annoys me. In the grand scheme of things, I feel that the Wii is being neglected by most big-name game developers who, for the most part, laden us Wii owners with pointless shovel-ware or ports.

    Ports from 360 or PS3 games are always going to be out-classed by games built ground-up specifically for Wii, becuase the Wii is so radically different from other consoles. Originally, I thought the lower graphical capabilities and unusual control system the Wii has would force developers to use more imagination in making games on the Wii, but most of them jusn't haven't. So far the pioneering and innovative spirit of Nintendo hasn't managed to get too far out of the EAD offices, save for a handful of WiiWare developers and some of Ubisoft's production team.

    And I admire Biggwedge for his comments. It's good to see someone opposing the seething mass of angry fanboys that appear to have conglomerated to complian about the review.

  60. Biggwedge Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:22

    This guy needs to get fired. Come on mate, why do I bother coming to this site to waste my time reading a review by someone who can't even do a proper job? People come here to read about how good the game is and how it compares against others. Taking off points because it comes two years after the console version makes you look like a child. Go put your big boy reviewer pants on and come back and maybe I will ever respect another word you say. Actually, that is probably a lie, I most likely won't ever respect anything you say after this horrible review. When coming to a gaming site and finding the comments of a review are 99% about the reviewer, that's a pretty good sign that you suck at your job.

    Taking it a bit far aren't you little boy? I can only assume you are one (and hence ONM's target customer) from that post.

    I have a problem with the way Simon reviews for sure but I would never wish anyone to lose their job, especially not in this economic climate.

  61. Galahad Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:29

    The conduit has some shiny bumped textures, but they are scarce, and most of the level is totally blend. 90% of the game, including multilayer occurs in one track corridors, which usually look like a polished Goldeneye reproduction. You have to be totally blind, if you unable to see, that the polygon count in Reflex is 3-4 times larger, and the texture work, though a bit less sharp, is so varied and rich, whether it's the grass (Conduit has blend floor tiles), gritty sand, walls covered with dents and cracks, broken fences etc. Each texture is a complex montage, rather than a uniformed grid on a shape.
    In fact, the levels are so condensed and varied, it makes even Mario galaxy look like an easy exercise in geometry.
    The drawing distance is incomprehensible at times, you see so many buildings on the horizon, and still they retain the textures and general look. The conduit open spaces, are a joke in comparison, you easily detect plain shapes, with cheap textures (or non) covering them, while Reflex actually provides substantial structures furniture and decoration. Just observe the sheer amount of Items floating around, like guns and ammo, bottles, pots, signs and graffiti. The conduit has totally empty rooms, while even some of Rare's games on the N64 had more going on.
    I believe, that if the level design was specifically planed for the Wii, each view point would have been much tighter, and less smeared or jagged. Since they converted the whole experience, they had to compromise, making it less stellar than its cousins, but still totally amazing.

  62. AdmiralCheese Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:51

    This review is pathetic Simon, giving this lazy piece of trash a higher score than The Conduit? Not only that, but you also display some level of hypocrisy and give false information, which I doubt you're paid for.

    Modern Warfare Reflex (henceforth to be called MWR) looks like utter crap, it doesn't even have freaking shadows (unlike a ton of N64 games), and even the framerate is pretty spotty. Far inferior to The Conduit, which actually has more visual variety, some actual work put into it and is the most advanced game (in terms of graphics technology) that has ever existed on a Nintendo system so far (which you glazed over).

    You praise the controls and customization of MWR, yet chose to completely ignore said feature (which was widely advertised) with The Conduit that once again does it better. Instead you chose to rant about how you couldn't keep your arm straight when throwing a grenade (which can be changed funnily enough)...

    The online experience is not 'excellent', and doesn't have 'everything included' as others have stated. The customization features like perks (which doesn't count for all that much really...) do nothing to hide the fact that experience offered by The Conduit is far better (more modes, weapons, and Wii Speak).

    You talk about the AI being 'relentless', yet anyone who actually pays attention can tell you COD AI is the most basic ever. You didn't even cover AI in The Conduit yet it is superior (especially in the last chapters), the pathfinding is better, the enemies heal, behave differently depending on their type, actively seek cover (as opposed to running to scripted areas), they CHASE you and look for openings and even cheer.

    As for the gameplay, that is another argument entirely (this is about effort) but I enjoyed it. As far as I'm concerned the gameplay in COD is a mix of shallow shooting and scripted sequences where you have little control. The Conduit has deeper combat (thanks to better AI, more varied enemies and weapons), and dare I say wasn't as cheap so there is plenty of worth there.

    Sorry Simon, ONM has a lot of weight yet here you are telling kids that this quick, cheap and dirty jobbie is worth more than something that actually had some effort (and dare I say respect for the Wii) put into its making. I think you should stop reviewing Wii shooters otherwise we'll be stuck with minigames until Nintendo finally pull the plug...

    i dont know where to begin... just no
    (unless you're exaggerating for the sake of putting the review into perspective)

  63. tquinnathome1 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:53

    Muddy textures? Let down?

    What the Deuce? it's got the best graphics on the Wii, and I've shown some people it in motion who only use 360's, and they find it hard to distinguish. Go Nintendo team! How the hell are you supposed to market a product and a console, and appeal to your specific audience if all you do is bash the graphics? it's the Wiis' fault, not Treyarchs', and they've done a damn amazing job.

  64. clarkie123 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 20:58

    This guy needs to get fired. Come on mate, why do I bother coming to this site to waste my time reading a review by someone who can't even do a proper job? People come here to read about how good the game is and how it compares against others. Taking off points because it comes two years after the console version makes you look like a child. Go put your big boy reviewer pants on and come back and maybe I will ever respect another word you say. Actually, that is probably a lie, I most likely won't ever respect anything you say after this horrible review. When coming to a gaming site and finding the comments of a review are 99% about the reviewer, that's a pretty good sign that you suck at your job.


    :lol: Hahaha. It's actually laughable that someone would create an account called SimonBrambleSux just because his opinion differs to yours. You truly are a sad sad person, and I hope for the forums' sake that they ban you and your IP address.
    Ok sure, so Simon may have slipped up slightly with this review, but if that's his opinion, then that's his opinion and we should respect that.
    However much you dislike/disagree with this review, I think it's disgusting that you think he should lose his job because of this.

  65. tquinnathome1 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 21:00

    Jesus, sticks and stones.

  66. lol95 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 21:04

    Really I'd of liked to see some of the more experienced members of the team review this. No offence to Simon it's a good effort, but when he mentioned the graphics the example he used was the sea on the first mission. As you go through the game some of the graphics are brilliant much better than WaW Wii to be honest. Yes it's out two years later than other consoles versions yet it's a damn good port! The online desrves 5% extra for it's RPG system making you want to play more. The storyline (of which their wasn't much of an overview in the review) is good despite being two years old (+3%). The graphics could never live up to the 360 a PS3 versions they had to downgrade it so it'd run smoothly on the Wii. 88% at the least for this port which adds so much more to the "Gold Award deserving" WaW did. In fact I might work on a review for this in the appropriate forum section in a couple of days. Again no offence to Simon after all he is the one whose job is reviewing games not us, just think MWR desrves more.

  67. clarkie123 Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 21:15

    Really I'd of liked to see some of the more experienced members of the team review this. No offence to Simon it's a good effort, but when he mentioned the graphics the example he used was the sea on the first mission. As you go through the game some of the graphics are brilliant much better than WaW Wii to be honest. Yes it's out two years later than other consoles versions yet it's a damn good port! The online desrves 5% extra for it's RPG system making you want to play more. The storyline (of which their wasn't much of an overview in the review) is good despite being two years old (+3%). The graphics could never live up to the 360 a PS3 versions they had to downgrade it so it'd run smoothly on the Wii. 88% at the least for this port which adds so much more to the "Gold Award deserving" WaW did. In fact I might work on a review for this in the appropriate forum section in a couple of days. Again no offence to Simon after all he is the one whose job is reviewing games not us, just think MWR desrves more.


    Finally someone talking some sense and giving some constructive criticism, rather than just slating the guy.

  68. crazyrockboy Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 21:55

    This review is pathetic Simon, giving this lazy piece of trash a higher score than The Conduit? Not only that, but you also display some level of hypocrisy and give false information, which I doubt you're paid for.

    Modern Warfare Reflex (henceforth to be called MWR) looks like utter crap, it doesn't even have freaking shadows (unlike a ton of N64 games), and even the framerate is pretty spotty. Far inferior to The Conduit, which actually has more visual variety, some actual work put into it and is the most advanced game (in terms of graphics technology) that has ever existed on a Nintendo system so far (which you glazed over).

    You praise the controls and customization of MWR, yet chose to completely ignore said feature (which was widely advertised) with The Conduit that once again does it better. Instead you chose to rant about how you couldn't keep your arm straight when throwing a grenade (which can be changed funnily enough)...

    The online experience is not 'excellent', and doesn't have 'everything included' as others have stated. The customization features like perks (which doesn't count for all that much really...) do nothing to hide the fact that experience offered by The Conduit is far better (more modes, weapons, and Wii Speak).

    You talk about the AI being 'relentless', yet anyone who actually pays attention can tell you COD AI is the most basic ever. You didn't even cover AI in The Conduit yet it is superior (especially in the last chapters), the pathfinding is better, the enemies heal, behave differently depending on their type, actively seek cover (as opposed to running to scripted areas), they CHASE you and look for openings and even cheer.

    As for the gameplay, that is another argument entirely (this is about effort) but I enjoyed it. As far as I'm concerned the gameplay in COD is a mix of shallow shooting and scripted sequences where you have little control. The Conduit has deeper combat (thanks to better AI, more varied enemies and weapons), and dare I say wasn't as cheap so there is plenty of worth there.

    Sorry Simon, ONM has a lot of weight yet here you are telling kids that this quick, cheap and dirty jobbie is worth more than something that actually had some effort (and dare I say respect for the Wii) put into its making. I think you should stop reviewing Wii shooters otherwise we'll be stuck with minigames until Nintendo finally pull the plug...

    Hmmm...the condiut...I think you need to watch this my friend
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/869-The-Conduit

  69. SimonBrambleSux Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 22:29

    Taking it a bit far aren't you little boy? I can only assume you are one (and hence ONM's target customer) from that post.

    I have a problem with the way Simon reviews for sure but I would never wish anyone to lose their job, especially not in this economic climate.

    Do I truly wish him to lose his job, no, it was an exaggeration of how I feel about his latest reviews. Do I think he should be reviewing games, no. I want to see legit reasons and comparisons that will help me as a gamer make choices on what games to buy. That's why I come here, but it's not what I am getting.

  70. SimonBrambleSux Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 22:58


    :lol: Hahaha. It's actually laughable that someone would create an account called SimonBrambleSux just because his opinion differs to yours. You truly are a sad sad person, and I hope for the forums' sake that they ban you and your IP address.
    Ok sure, so Simon may have slipped up slightly with this review, but if that's his opinion, then that's his opinion and we should respect that.
    However much you dislike/disagree with this review, I think it's disgusting that you think he should lose his job because of this.

    Fair enough, was my response over the top, yes and if it deserves an apology then I apologize. My main issues still stand though. Is it not bad that most of the replies here are about the reviewer and not about the game? That to me shows that it is a poor review. We are all here for the same reason, yet we are discussing something different. In all honesty, I have not even read some of the high rated reviews for this game on other sites, just some of the lower ones. I read this one purely because it was so much lower and was curious as to why because sometimes there are more bits of truth in a review then what could come from a high rated 'fanboy' review. Unfortunately, I feel like this was a waste of my time to read. He made some good valid points and some that weren't. For the people though that only look at the numbers, the review doesn't add up. Waw got a 92% on this site, reflex seems to have made a lot of improvements yet gets 12 percentage points lower? If it is so much worse, please tell me why, that's the info I want and am not getting. Listen, I love this site. It is much better coming here where everyone is a fan rather then read through 100's of comments on other sites where people just bash the wii. I just feel a bit let down on this review and some of his others.

  71. Andew Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 23:09

    ^ onm just sucks really,

    their only good point is the forum,
    but moreso because of the people online and the somewhat quiet/niche attraction compared to gamefaqs or neogaf

  72. YoshiLimbo Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 23:13

    Do you guys have to compare every games visuals to Metroid? The graphics for this game are fantastic and so is the game. That is all...this deserves 92% not that WoW game.

  73. Biggwedge Wednesday 11th Nov 2009 at 23:39

    Taking it a bit far aren't you little boy? I can only assume you are one (and hence ONM's target customer) from that post.

    I have a problem with the way Simon reviews for sure but I would never wish anyone to lose their job, especially not in this economic climate.

    Do I truly wish him to lose his job, no, it was an exaggeration of how I feel about his latest reviews. Do I think he should be reviewing games, no. I want to see legit reasons and comparisons that will help me as a gamer make choices on what games to buy. That's why I come here, but it's not what I am getting.

    I feel exactly the same way you do, this review is trash as are many others from ONM. That really wasn't the way to go about it though, not even the real children on this site will be affected by it.


    Hmmm...the condiut...I think you need to watch this my friend
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/869-The-Conduit

    Hmmm, sorry to break it to you but Yahtzee is over, the internet has moved on. He spent about half the review bashing the controls, so I'm guessing he must have misplaced his glasses because even a freaking toddler could customize them to their liking.


    The conduit has some shiny bumped textures, but they are scarce, and most of the level is totally blend. 90% of the game, including multilayer occurs in one track corridors, which usually look like a polished Goldeneye reproduction. You have to be totally blind, if you unable to see, that the polygon count in Reflex is 3-4 times larger, and the texture work, though a bit less sharp, is so varied and rich, whether it's the grass (Conduit has blend floor tiles), gritty sand, walls covered with dents and cracks, broken fences etc. Each texture is a complex montage, rather than a uniformed grid on a shape.
    In fact, the levels are so condensed and varied, it makes even Mario galaxy look like an easy exercise in geometry.
    The drawing distance is incomprehensible at times, you see so many buildings on the horizon, and still they retain the textures and general look. The conduit open spaces, are a joke in comparison, you easily detect plain shapes, with cheap textures (or non) covering them, while Reflex actually provides substantial structures furniture and decoration. Just observe the sheer amount of Items floating around, like guns and ammo, bottles, pots, signs and graffiti. The conduit has totally empty rooms, while even some of Rare's games on the N64 had more going on.
    I believe, that if the level design was specifically planed for the Wii, each view point would have been much tighter, and less smeared or jagged. Since they converted the whole experience, they had to compromise, making it less stellar then its cousins, but still totally amazing.

    No my friend, blagging will not make this piece of poo look any better.

    The level design in The Conduit is not very strong (level 8 is pretty good though), that I will happily admit, aside from that you couldn't be more wrong.

    Did you just say that COD had a more varied set of textures?!?! Yes, it has more shades of grey than I thought possible, but The Conduit actually has some colour. Even though you say COD has a greater draw distance (which is incorrent, even Simon knows that), what you just described was a very bad draw distance.

    It doesn't take any resources at all to render small objects in a level, the fact that you can blow up TV's in COD means nothing because it is all scripting and animation. Look at The Grinder (which runs on The Conduit engine), that has plenty of destructibility.

    MWR may be totally amazing if you have no standards, the Wii has sunk really quite low it has to be said.

    The Conduit has more than 'shiny bumped textures' as you put it, far more...

    High Dynamic Range lighting
    Bloom lighting
    Dynamic lighting
    Dynamic shadows
    Bump mapping
    Normal mapping
    Gloss mapping
    Reflection
    Refraction
    Water geometry
    Projected textures
    Colour curve system
    Ragdoll physics system
    Depth of field

    Modern Warfare Reflex has... nothing, just regular bland geometry and textures.

  74. adam84 Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 00:29

    call of duty 3 got 86%????
    world at war got 92% (loved it and good review)
    Reflex 80% eh

    3rd one got higher and it had no multiplayer.
    just my opinion but reflex should be around 92-94% for me. easy.

  75. Galahad Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 04:50


    The Conduit has more than 'shiny bumped textures' as you put it, far more...

    High Dynamic Range lighting
    Bloom lighting
    Dynamic lighting
    Dynamic shadows
    Bump mapping
    Normal mapping
    Gloss mapping
    Reflection
    Refraction
    Water geometry
    Projected textures
    Colour curve system
    Ragdoll physics system
    Depth of field

    Modern Warfare Reflex has... nothing, just regular bland geometry and textures.

    Look, It doesn't matter if the engine can pull out more advance features from the hardware, what does matter is how well it is coded and optimized. Just by watching the first quantom3 engine demo, I immediately noticed it was built for convenience of the end programmers, rather than getting maximum performance.
    Even Lingo or visual basic, can pull out all the fancy features of today's graphic hardware. But they are built for the lame programmers, or faster work flow, which hinders performance by far.
    If you watch carefully, the Conduit's levels have a very simple geometric construction, which derives from the poor polygon count. Galaxy has much more going on, with the same effects. Reflex, I agree, seems to be less advanced, but it terms of optimization and sheer performance, beats both of them. Furthermore, even if it has less effects, the texture work seems more intricate, the environment more responsive, far better polygon count, and generally seems like a heavy duty engine.
    It is like comparing a professional quake3 engine, which does not support newer effects, to a 3d party attempt to build a new costumed engine, which can exploit the latest hardware, but is very poorly coded.

  76. Ben707 Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 07:49

    I really what problem you have with the visuals. It looks fantastic, of course it's not going to match 360 and PS3 versions but it still bloody amazing.

  77. robgomm Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 09:27


    :lol: Hahaha. It's actually laughable that someone would create an account called SimonBrambleSux just because his opinion differs to yours. You truly are a sad sad person, and I hope for the forums' sake that they ban you and your IP address.
    Ok sure, so Simon may have slipped up slightly with this review, but if that's his opinion, then that's his opinion and we should respect that.
    However much you dislike/disagree with this review, I think it's disgusting that you think he should lose his job because of this.

    Fair enough, was my response over the top, yes and if it deserves an apology then I apologize. My main issues still stand though. Is it not bad that most of the replies here are about the reviewer and not about the game? That to me shows that it is a poor review. We are all here for the same reason, yet we are discussing something different. In all honesty, I have not even read some of the high rated reviews for this game on other sites, just some of the lower ones. I read this one purely because it was so much lower and was curious as to why because sometimes there are more bits of truth in a review then what could come from a high rated 'fanboy' review. Unfortunately, I feel like this was a waste of my time to read. He made some good valid points and some that weren't. For the people though that only look at the numbers, the review doesn't add up. Waw got a 92% on this site, reflex seems to have made a lot of improvements yet gets 12 percentage points lower? If it is so much worse, please tell me why, that's the info I want and am not getting. Listen, I love this site. It is much better coming here where everyone is a fan rather then read through 100's of comments on other sites where people just bash the wii. I just feel a bit let down on this review and some of his others.

    I;m struggling to think of a decent thorough review Simon has done. As I said before, his reviews always feel rushed and unfinished. His Conduit review was the same, there are just so many inconsistences in his reviews.

  78. scudmonkey Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 12:14

    I'm not getting into the ps3, xbox, wii debate.
    Just to say that the videos that I've seen on youtube dont look a lot worse than what I got from my PC when I had CODMW. I will definitely be buying it for a bit of nostalgia, as my PC's graphics card died and I'm confined to playing bejewelled on facebook.

  79. Broken_Angel Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 12:42

    ok, heres my impression of the game so far:
    Gameplay: tight, atmospheric oh-so-much fun
    Controls: not really worth mentioning, cos if you dont linke them, you can change them to your specs
    Visuals: varies. playing it through a HDMI cable, some sections are nearly identical to the 360 version (the level where youre sniping some muppet from half a city away, for example).however, in the sections where there is a lot on screen (like when youre playing as the americans), the visuals take a significant nosedive. best example; when sniping an enemy from a couple of hundred yards, you should not be able to see the pixels in his blood!
    overall: a mixed bag thats equally fun and frustrating. sometimes, the "friendly" NPCs can be more deadly to you than the "enemies".....so fairly realistic. a little let down on the visuals, but more than willing to keep playing

  80. theringlord Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 16:10

    Oh dear GOD! Those graphics are terrible!

  81. Zorganist Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 16:27

    I checked the IGN review and they gave it the equivalent of 70%. It's looking to me that MWR just isn't worth bothjering with for any one other than a die-hard COD fanboy. And It loooks like most of you lot are.


    Do you guys have to compare every games visuals to Metroid?

    The visuals in Metroid are some of the best on the Wii. Compared to Metroid, the graphics on MWR just look rushed.

  82. PsychoPikmin Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 17:15

    I will not be buying this, but my opinion of Treyarch will improve if there's offline multiplayer here.

  83. Ubahquiet Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 17:35

    So we've seen the console war, The Conduit and Simon-bashing dragged in here, a comment thread for a review of a Call Of Duty port.

    ONM, I think you should just publish FPS reviews in the mag. A bit of the site seemingly goes ablaze whenever you post one.

  84. TheVelvetRoom Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 17:43

    And the PS3's only good for three things: shooting, driving, football...



    http://gamernode.com/upload/manager///Eddie%20Inzauto/Getting%20Copies%20Right/littlebigplanet1243876833.jpg
    http://www.onelastcontinue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ff13snowbattle.jpg
    http://defaultprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/god_of_war_3_rant.jpg

  85. wiiiscool22 Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 19:04

    i feel this review is somewhat unfair
    ill admit i havent played it - yet

    but the graphics are better than WaW wii and the game itself is almost universally agreed to be better than waw so why did this get such a worse review?

    it makes me feel as if it was marked harshly purely for coming late with no media coverage or hype which is a damn shame

    seriously, almost every previewer has been amazed at how similar this looks to its hd cousins
    it's almost as if you judged the graphics based soley on those pre apha screens

    that 2nd to last paragraph just seems so wrong in so many ways and again makes me question my subscription when i cant trust what is written

    Yep i agree

  86. SimonBrambleSux Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 19:20


    The visuals in Metroid are some of the best on the Wii. Compared to Metroid, the graphics on MWR just look rushed.

    The problem still is you are comparing a Wii only title to a multi platform title. MWR is taking resources specifically designed for the 360 and having to update them to 'work' with the Wii and still keep the integrity of the game. This is no different then why 360 or PS3 only titles look better then their multi platform brothers. I am more interested to hear peoples thoughts on what other ports for the Wii look better than this. You also need to take into account the nature of the game as MWR has some pretty big open spaces. Given that and comparing this to WaW for the Wii, I think this looks better in general.

  87. LiamGodOfFood Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 20:54

    I realise that a lot of the comments are suggesting an 'unfair' review, and I appreciate, probably agree with that.
    I mean, from Waw, they bring this game out so we get a game, they improve vsuals, cut less of the online play, appear to genuinely make an effort and create a game at least twice as good as WaW, and get blasted for it. What the reviewer was thinking when they deducted 12% from the score WaW got for bad graphics, which are actually improved from then, I don't know.
    However, one thing the review fails to mention is the split-screen. From what I have heard, it doesn't have it.
    Now two messages to people slagging off the review:
    1. Maybe the full review is being saved for issue 50?
    2. If you disagree with the score, isn't there a section where you argue your case and try to chnage that?

    And please stop posting comments not to do with the game or review!

  88. adam-ell Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 21:54

    i still agree with my earlier mario comment

    unfair review, being a port doesnt matter becos its still one of the greatest games in history

    as to the graphics i prefer them to mario galaxy(inferior to ratchet and clank anyway)

  89. Gynjanynja Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 22:01

    I still think most of the reviews I've read for this game so far come from a very fanboyish perspective of the original game. They also feel elitist of the HD versions and are therefore unwilling to give it a high score and are dismissive of it.

    Can I get a hell yeah?
    Does this game have BOOTCAMP CHALLENGES I.E 100 KNIFE KILLS ETC. thanks

  90. lol95 Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 22:31

    Gynjanynja, it does have all the challenges in and yeah I get what you're saying about the fanboys *cough RangersGreg*.
    This generally is my first time owning a CoD game and I think it's great despite not being a complete fanboy of the series.

  91. dixonrobert Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 22:47

    Whoever did this review obviously hasn't played online but guys it's his opinion so you have to just stick with it yeah, its like my cousin likes carnival funfair games i don't but you got to just live with it haven't you.
    You can't say that whoever wrote this review should be fired because they marked your favourite game down it isn't fair on him ok.

  92. Enigmatic Man Thursday 12th Nov 2009 at 23:47

    To all this may concern (most)

    Someone has a view different to yours. They must be a bad at writing reviews. For a forum who's members spout the word OPINION! at the slightest provocation you seem fine with being hypocrites.

    I would say the forum died a little bit more, but the intelligence-meter is already at rock bottom.

  93. lol95 Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 11:26

    To all this may concern (most)

    Someone has a view different to yours. They must be a bad at writing reviews. For a forum who's members spout the word OPINION! at the slightest provocation you seem fine with being hypocrites.

    I would say the forum died a little bit more, but the intelligence-meter is already at rock bottom.


    I must say good post because yes a lot of people are being idiots about this review. It is in the end the reviewers opinion that decides how a game is thought of. Aside from the blatant abuse from some mebers about this review, some have been offering constructive critisism. Also notice that most people slagging off Simon's review are quite new to the forums (25 kudos and under) if they want to be a part of the ONM community they'll have to start listening to opinions sooner or late otherwise older and somewhat Elitist members will rip them to shreds(at least that's what happened to me).

  94. shuggybarr Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 12:39

    Don't agree with the review. Not claiming bragging rights but I think I am the first to post on the site after having played the game (got it on Monday) on the "Will you buy it tomorrow?" forum. All I'm saying is as I said then, to paraphrase Ewan McGregor in Trainspotting, "It's Good! It's very f**king Good!" And I've not even tried it online yet.

  95. LiamGodOfFood Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 16:30

    I agree with the latest post; everyone should shut up moaning about the review, It's Simon's opinion, insulting him won't change it.

    Despite this, I agree with most of the forum members. It is an unfair review, and from everything I've seen and heard this game is brilliant, and even better than WaW.
    I also have to say I was expecting a lengthier, more useful review than a smallish one, half of which spouts about 'graphics' and how it is inferior to PS3 and xbox.
    I know this, and wanted to hear about the gameplay.
    No matter hat anyone says or does, I think this unfair review will stay.

  96. luke4liverpool Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 16:58

    Isn't it us Nintendo Wii gamers who are always saying "Gameplay comes first, and then visuals"

    Look for yourselves. Does this game really deserve only 80% : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GhTe3HgCe8

    AHMEN BROTHER!!! gameplay over visuals and from what i have herd the gameplay is amazing...also if the graphics are better that WaW and that (the grafixs) was the only bad thing shouldnt this get a...93% ish???

    really want this game now...

  97. nintendo_munki Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 19:25

    jesus christ guys, shut up.
    btw ive seen way too many vids of this on youtube, and i cant see why you all think its so awesome.
    it maybe deserves 87% (so more than cod3), but the graphics are naff and the framerate is VERY choppy.

    despite this, the gameplay is awesome, as i have played the pc version TO DEATH. a little more for the review then, but not enough to want to lynch simon.
    thats just a little retarded.
    simonbramblesux, im lookin at you.

  98. hazzajepson Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 20:04

    This is the most ridiculous review i have ever seen it is way better than waw, ONM U HAVE LET ME DOWN

  99. shadow puppet09 Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 21:11

    i would just play the game and make ur own minds up i personally think its btter than waw and the online is must better aswell

    anybody that owns this on the hd consoles obviously got better graphic's but who care's. The wii have proven realistic graphics dont always mean good gameplay and as much cod 4 is suppose to be realistic the wii dose a good job.

    The thing is if u took this back to the gamecube days this would of got a gold award hands down and from my personal point of view its only because
    1. its port of 2 year old
    2. It dosent have the graphics of nothing else of wii

    i would give it 90% just for the fact it only annouced a few months ago and u,ve got some seriously good gameplay to be had

  100. Biggwedge Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 22:08


    The Conduit has more than 'shiny bumped textures' as you put it, far more...

    High Dynamic Range lighting
    Bloom lighting
    Dynamic lighting
    Dynamic shadows
    Bump mapping
    Normal mapping
    Gloss mapping
    Reflection
    Refraction
    Water geometry
    Projected textures
    Colour curve system
    Ragdoll physics system
    Depth of field

    Modern Warfare Reflex has... nothing, just regular bland geometry and textures.

    Look, It doesn't matter if the engine can pull out more advance features from the hardware, what does matter is how well it is coded and optimized. Just by watching the first quantom3 engine demo, I immediately noticed it was built for convenience of the end programmers, rather than getting maximum performance.
    Even Lingo or visual basic, can pull out all the fancy features of today's graphic hardware. But they are built for the lame programmers, or faster work flow, which hinders performance by far.
    If you watch carefully, the Conduit's levels have a very simple geometric construction, which derives from the poor polygon count. Galaxy has much more going on, with the same effects. Reflex, I agree, seems to be less advanced, but it terms of optimization and sheer performance, beats both of them. Furthermore, even if it has less effects, the texture work seems more intricate, the environment more responsive, far better polygon count, and generally seems like a heavy duty engine.
    It is like comparing a professional quake3 engine, which does not support newer effects, to a 3d party attempt to build a new costumed engine, which can exploit the latest hardware, but is very poorly coded.

    Once again you are talking out of your bottom.

    What right do you have to say the Quantum3 engine is badly coded, have you secretly worked at HVS and mulled over the countless lines of code? No you haven't. If the game was 'badly optimized' as you say, then why the hell does it run really well even in the most hectic (both graphics and gameplay) sections, far better than MWR in actual fact?

    Mario Galaxy is a beautiful game, but it doesn't have half of the technology The Conduit has. That is a fact. What separates these games aside from the obvious, is the fact that Mario Galaxy had a ton of money and time, and was polished like crazy. The quality of the assets in The Conduit is questionable at times, but miles better than the crap MWR is made up of, and even Mario Galaxy has poor models for the 'Toad' characters.

    The engine for MWR is 'less advanced' you say? No, it is DISGUSTINGLY BASIC. I repeat, N64 games like Turok 2 have better technology (shadows for one...). The texture work is not 'more intricate', it is a sheer mass of grey, just looking at the image for the review at the top of the browser page makes me feel sick. 'More responsive' environment? I'll give you that but as I said before, that is a question of scripting, animation and overall design; not anything to do with the ability of the engine. I'm sorry, there is nothing to suggest MWR has a higher number of polygons in general than The Conduit, looking at the character models tells us the opposite...

    Visual Basic for graphics :lol: , maybe if you want to make a messy GUI, saying that they can pull out complex effects to anywhere near the degree of industry standard programs like Maya is laughable.

    You need to do more research.

  101. oreo Friday 13th Nov 2009 at 23:24

    So much flaming god would everyone calm down.... Breath in, breath out lol

  102. skullkid666 Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 00:24

    I thoroughly disagree, this is miles better than WaW. :roll:

    I too agree its definitely better. The visuals arent too bad either a little washed out at times but when youre in the heat of battle with bullets flying past you, you hardly notice the rough edges and just get stuck into what is a very enjoyable game. There are lots of options and game modes and I think this should have been rated higher than WAW.


    I agree with these two.
    80%!!!Cos the visuals are'rough around the edges'and'its 2 years late',you deny it a GoldAward?!?!?!!!?
    Its has loads of maps,all the modes,all single player missions.....
    You should have marked NSMB.Wii down for being the same game,with 'added+new stuff'!!!This is why MWR is better than WaW,because it has all the content,bit better visuals....
    This is the first time i have EVER disagreed with your reviews ONM.And yes,i have played the game.Toodle pip now,im off to play it!

    You all seem to be forgetting that it has a max 10 players which is 54 less than the other versions as well as the fact that the other consoles get the much better modern warfare 2

  103. Gynjanynja Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 09:02


    The Conduit has more than 'shiny bumped textures' as you put it, far more...

    High Dynamic Range lighting
    Bloom lighting
    Dynamic lighting
    Dynamic shadows
    Bump mapping
    Normal mapping
    Gloss mapping
    Reflection
    Refraction
    Water geometry
    Projected textures
    Colour curve system
    Ragdoll physics system
    Depth of field

    Modern Warfare Reflex has... nothing, just regular bland geometry and textures.

    Look, It doesn't matter if the engine can pull out more advance features from the hardware, what does matter is how well it is coded and optimized. Just by watching the first quantom3 engine demo, I immediately noticed it was built for convenience of the end programmers, rather than getting maximum performance.
    Even Lingo or visual basic, can pull out all the fancy features of today's graphic hardware. But they are built for the lame programmers, or faster work flow, which hinders performance by far.
    If you watch carefully, the Conduit's levels have a very simple geometric construction, which derives from the poor polygon count. Galaxy has much more going on, with the same effects. Reflex, I agree, seems to be less advanced, but it terms of optimization and sheer performance, beats both of them. Furthermore, even if it has less effects, the texture work seems more intricate, the environment more responsive, far better polygon count, and generally seems like a heavy duty engine.
    It is like comparing a professional quake3 engine, which does not support newer effects, to a 3d party attempt to build a new costumed engine, which can exploit the latest hardware, but is very poorly coded.

    Once again you are talking out of your bottom.

    What right do you have to say the Quantum3 engine is badly coded, have you secretly worked at HVS and mulled over the countless lines of code? No you haven't. If the game was 'badly optimized' as you say, then why the hell does it run really well even in the most hectic (both graphics and gameplay) sections, far better than MWR in actual fact?

    Mario Galaxy is a beautiful game, but it doesn't have half of the technology The Conduit has. That is a fact. What separates these games aside from the obvious, is the fact that Mario Galaxy had a ton of money and time, and was polished like crazy. The quality of the assets in The Conduit is questionable at times, but miles better than the crap MWR is made up of, and even Mario Galaxy has poor models for the 'Toad' characters.

    The engine for MWR is 'less advanced' you say? No, it is DISGUSTINGLY BASIC. I repeat, N64 games like Turok 2 have better technology (shadows for one...). The texture work is not 'more intricate', it is a sheer mass of grey, just looking at the image for the review at the top of the browser page makes me feel sick. 'More responsive' environment? I'll give you that but as I said before, that is a question of scripting, animation and overall design; not anything to do with the ability of the engine. I'm sorry, there is nothing to suggest MWR has a higher number of polygons in general than The Conduit, looking at the character models tells us the opposite...

    Visual Basic for graphics :lol: , maybe if you want to make a messy GUI, saying that they can pull out complex effects to anywhere near the degree of industry standard programs like Maya is laughable.

    You need to do more research.

    I think it is you who needs to do their research sir if you had done ur research you would know that those screenshots are not at all representative of the games in game graphics.

  104. City Of Delusion Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 12:11

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.

  105. magmortar Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 13:19

    :roll: hi this is my first post , this is an amazing game it deserved about the score you gave it :lol:

  106. Zorganist Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 16:10

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.

    Metacritic has a score of 76, and most of the reviews are around the 80-mark. IGN's review can be safely ignored, methinks, especially as they seem to be taking points for performance problems none of the other reviwers had.

    I'll probably end up buying this anyway, if only becuase it's the only FPS on Wii that isn't set in WWII, and isn't the Conduit.

  107. capmanchris Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 17:34

    bit vicious giving it an 80 for being rough round the edges

  108. bazmeistergen Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 17:43

    Interesting how one reviewer can give it 90% and another 65%.

    It's clearly better than WaW and it is much better than the Conduit. I enjoyed both of those games but have traded them in since getting this.

    This game is not grey. It's not as shiny as Conduit but there is a grander scale. The end of the Bog level, for example, demolishes anything seen in the Conduit.

  109. LiamGodOfFood Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 17:54

    Interesting how one reviewer can give it 90% and another 65%.

    It's clearly better than WaW and it is much better than the Conduit. I enjoyed both of those games but have traded them in since getting this.

    This game is not grey. It's not as shiny as Conduit but there is a grander scale. The end of the Bog level, for example, demolishes anything seen in the Conduit.

    Completely agree. 80% is extremely harsh.
    12% less for a game improved in graphics, textures, gameplay, and controls, amongst other things?
    ONM I am shocked and outraged.

  110. teeelo Saturday 14th Nov 2009 at 20:52

    ok, heres my impression of the game so far:
    Gameplay: tight, atmospheric oh-so-much fun
    Controls: not really worth mentioning, cos if you dont linke them, you can change them to your specs
    Visuals: varies. playing it through a HDMI cable, some sections are nearly identical to the 360 version (the level where youre sniping some muppet from half a city away, for example).however, in the sections where there is a lot on screen (like when youre playing as the americans), the visuals take a significant nosedive. best example; when sniping an enemy from a couple of hundred yards, you should not be able to see the pixels in his blood!
    overall: a mixed bag thats equally fun and frustrating. sometimes, the "friendly" NPCs can be more deadly to you than the "enemies".....so fairly realistic. a little let down on the visuals, but more than willing to keep playing


    looooooooooool

    Anyway, I'd say this has the same problem as the Conduit, it's fine for people who only own a Wii but personally watching gameplay videos of this just makes me want to play MW2 on my PS3.

  111. bazmeistergen Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 06:33

    ok, heres my impression of the game so far:
    Gameplay: tight, atmospheric oh-so-much fun
    Controls: not really worth mentioning, cos if you dont linke them, you can change them to your specs
    Visuals: varies. playing it through a HDMI cable, some sections are nearly identical to the 360 version (the level where youre sniping some muppet from half a city away, for example).however, in the sections where there is a lot on screen (like when youre playing as the americans), the visuals take a significant nosedive. best example; when sniping an enemy from a couple of hundred yards, you should not be able to see the pixels in his blood!
    overall: a mixed bag thats equally fun and frustrating. sometimes, the "friendly" NPCs can be more deadly to you than the "enemies".....so fairly realistic. a little let down on the visuals, but more than willing to keep playing


    looooooooooool

    Anyway, I'd say this has the same problem as the Conduit, it's fine for people who only own a Wii but personally watching gameplay videos of this just makes me want to play MW2 on my PS3.

    Fair enough. Some of us don't want a PS3 or 360 though. I prefer using the new style of controller. I'm bored with the traditional set-up. They just feel like shinier versions of games I have always played. New control styles make things feel fresh. I'm just nont bothered by graphics. Processing power helps, but does not make a game.

  112. super-mario1 Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 14:13

    You can't rate a game worse than it was supposed to be just because the game was 'rough around the edges' doesn't mean its a bad game.

  113. tquinnathome1 Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 18:21

    On the whole, I just feel that this review is a total let down. I've scoured the forum and found that because of this review alone, there are a fair number of people who won't be buying the game, when they had previously had WaW and enjoyed it.

    First and foremost, I'm not sure why the controls were praised and compared to the 'others'. We expected them to be good anyway, and they were, as good as World at War. What the review failed to state was that some buttons can only be assigned to certain others, meaning that locking the screen will often mean that you accidentally pick up weapons. That said, the controls are brilliant, but this doesn't need to be the main point of the review itself.

    The paragraph entitled "Online Frontline" was the shortest paragraph to describe the most fluent, precise, fun and incredible experience to ever hit the Nintendo Wii. There's so much to offer online. The Wii is already mistakenly thought to be mediocre online by a majority. Maybe consumers would be better off by knowing what the online experience actually has to offer, instead of having to read this, which regurgitates the basic things we already know it has; perks, modes and amount of players.

    I see a lot of 'yets' and 'buts' here in this review. It almost seems to be as if it's challenging those who already think the game will be perfect.

    Yet despite packing in all the features from the original and the comprehensive online modes, Reflex isn't the perfect shoot 'em up experience and predictably it's the visuals that let it down. The whole fuss around the original Modern Warfare arose because it was a punchy depiction of modern, dirty combat and unfortunately, this Wii version with its flat and muddy textures and short draw distances just can't compete. Given the extra two years Treyarch had to squeeze every last drop of polish from the Wii, this is underwhelming visually. It looks okay for a Wii game - that's the dreaded caveat - but it's not even up there with Metroid Prime: Corruption.

    I'd like for everyone who owns the game to just read that. No where can I find flat, muddy textures. I also have yet to find a map where I have to zoom in to see ahead, or see things popping up. The graphics are technically superior to Corruptions' in every way (and personally, I thought they weren't great. Not for what they were, with minimal enemies and action, and not a whole lot going on unless it was scripted). They're unique and detailed, and very sharp and colourful. There's also a ton of special effects.

    Lastly, someone tell me why the game is rough around the edges?

    In summary: I really can't believe that yet another top quality game has gotten an average score. On the other platforms, it received a 90% or higher, yet here, it's been sullied, and it's genuinely hard to understand why. Because it's been compared to a next-gen version? The graphics are incredible. Why are we comparing Wii games when that should not technically be possible? I'm saddened and angry that the Nintendo community are now running over yet another fantastic game. It's so much better than last years World at War, so why is the score average? I've been buying Nintendo Magazine since June 2004, and I shan't spend another Ł4 on it again. A disgrace. You should be bloody ashamed.

  114. Smash-bros fan Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 19:00

    This is very harsh. Ok the graphics arnt the best ive seen (the water graphics on the prologue are dreadful) and the controls might not be as polished as world at war, but overall its the better game.
    Personaly the graphics do the job so im not fussed, most of the controls can be changed and customized, plus it has ALL THE ORIGINAL MAPS AND ALL THE ORIGINAL GAMEMODES. Deserves at least 93%

  115. ChrisONM Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 21:41

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

  116. Jacen Sunday 15th Nov 2009 at 22:14

    Bah, they should have just gone and given us the sequel. Surely the Wii has proven itself to the critics by now..?

  117. thelastgogeta Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 13:43

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

    Well said Chris.
    I believe many of these people here and missing the point. The score being lower than another game doesn't mean it is worse. Especially when time and technology jumps into the game.

    Twilight Princess received the infamous 8.8 which is lower than Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 from 5 years earlier... why?
    http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/thele ... eview.html
    http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/tonyh ... iew&page=4

    Even without reading you can assume the issues are:
    + Time (Graphics Standards change the most with this, though nostalgia is a secondary effect)
    + Requirements (THPS3 had a much lower hype rating despite being a big series by then.

    In this case, CODMWR doesn’t step up enough to get a big shiny 90+%, it offers a lot of old things done here and there and is still a lacking (and late) port. COD3 was one of the only FPSs on the Wii at that point and overrating it is expectable, especially when these now compulsory things weren’t here like the near complete controls adaptation. Rating it in the 90s would completely downplay the actual titles which deserve it and lower respect even more than this.

    In conclusion:
    What does 94% mean? It doesn’t change the actual text typed about the game.

  118. hazzajepson Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 17:04

    I have just got the magazine in the post(cause im a subscriber) and what a suprise, the modern warfare reflex review wasn't in there. So this difinitavely proves that onm know they got it wrong!

  119. ChrisONM Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 17:31

    I have just got the magazine in the post(cause im a subscriber) and what a suprise, the modern warfare reflex review wasn't in there. So this difinitavely proves that onm know they got it wrong!


    No, it proves that Activision took so long to send us the review code that we couldn't actually get it in the magazine in time before it had to go to press. It'll be in issue 51.

  120. LiamGodOfFood Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 17:39

    I have just got the magazine in the post(cause im a subscriber) and what a suprise, the modern warfare reflex review wasn't in there. So this difinitavely proves that onm know they got it wrong!


    No, it proves that Activision took so long to send us the review code that we couldn't actually get it in the magazine in time before it had to go to press. It'll be in issue 51.

    But I thought you put the Spirit Tracks review up after MW? Surely If ST is in isuue 50, MW shoul be as well?

  121. Grifter Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 19:26

    Is the ONM team in consensus? Or is it the rooster hat all over again?

  122. Giga Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 19:48

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

    Call Of Duty Modern Warfare on Wii has a funny little subtitle: Reflex Edition. It's a little out of place because one thing Activision hasn't done with this Modern Warfare is display particularly fast reflexes!

    Given the extra two years Treyarch had to squeeze every last drop of polish from the Wii, this is underwhelming visually.

    My main gripes.

  123. tquinnathome1 Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 21:14

    How can you say that time and technology are a factor for the Wii? Especially for this game.

    It's because of time and technology that this game is even running on the Wii hardware in the first place. I'm the first person to jump up and defend the Wii in the graphics department, but come on. The graphics here are some of the best you will find on Wii. Superior to The Conduits plain simple graphics (and small maps and levels), and in terms of what's going on every couple of seconds on-screen, it's a damn site better than games like Metroid Prime 3 and even World at War.

    I've just about given up hope for the Wii community. When it actually gets a really well made game, control wise, graphic-wise, length and size-wise, and online-wise, it's totally slated. The review compared it to the other versions, yet that's impossible. It's been tailored to suit the needs of the Wiis' hardware, and you can tell that this is really pushing the Wii to the limits.

    Out of the hours of playing the game, I've yet to find a game crash or break. I was a fan of the Xbox version, and deep down I didn't believe that a faithful and worthwhile version would appear on the Wii. It has.

    Just a couple of notes too;

    We shouldn't be called muppets again, because quite frankly, your review should assume that because it is a new Wii game, your audience (or at least a large portion of it) will not have played the game at all for the other formats. That's all this review is. Assumptions.

    Secondly, I saw a conversation on this board earlier in relation to the reviewer losing his job. Whilst I will not bother giving my opinion here, I can say that there are thousands of qualified unemployed folk out there, and they would be willing to do the job you do, in a lot more depth, with a lot more focus and enthusiasm. Part of your job requires to play games for a living, and while I understand you're on a tight schedule every month, this is really unacceptable.

  124. ChrisONM Monday 16th Nov 2009 at 23:50

    I have just got the magazine in the post(cause im a subscriber) and what a suprise, the modern warfare reflex review wasn't in there. So this difinitavely proves that onm know they got it wrong!


    No, it proves that Activision took so long to send us the review code that we couldn't actually get it in the magazine in time before it had to go to press. It'll be in issue 51.

    But I thought you put the Spirit Tracks review up after MW? Surely If ST is in isuue 50, MW shoul be as well?


    That's not how it works though mate.

    On the website we put reviews up the day before (or sometimes the day of) release. So the Spirit Tracks review won't be on the site until the day before it's due out.

    In the magazine, we put in reviews as we get sent code. We didn't have COD code by the time we went to print, but Nintendo had sorted us with Zelda code. That's why Zelda is in issue 50 but COD isn't: because Activision was too later getting us the code before deadline.

    In the time between the magazine going to press (two weeks ago) and COD coming out, we finally got the code from Activision and were able to review it on the site. This also means the (now late, thanks to Actisivion) review will be in issue 51.

  125. crazyturtle1234 Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 11:28

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

    I think his point is that the other reviews actually complain about things other than the graphics, like the controls and framerate.

  126. Lost Cause Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 12:37

    Looks good, but I'm not sure about the graphics quality. But then I suppose I played the X360 version too much.

  127. hazzajepson Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 18:44

    I think chris knows that they got the review wrong! EXCUSES EXCUSES

  128. remagpie93 Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 20:13

    Any chance of the other ONM team members posting their opinions on the game?

    I feel the review was overly harsh and I'm not trying to mean but I always find Simon's reviews easy to spot due his seemmingly uncanny nack of always being somewhat dissappointed.

    BUT IT WAS HIS OPINION!!!!!

    Also, there was no answer earlier so ... how does squadmate mode work?

  129. frostykins Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 21:08

    i know it wasnt that bad but i just have to say "cock of doody: modern warfail

  130. Smash-bros fan Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 22:22

    How can you say that time and technology are a factor for the Wii? Especially for this game.

    [b] The graphics here are some of the best you will find on Wii. Superior to The Conduits plain simple graphics (and small maps and levels), and in terms of what's going on every couple of seconds on-screen, it's a damn site better than games like Metroid Prime 3 and even World at War.


    World at Wars graphics are pretty crap though. Reminds me abit of my PS2.
    Dont get me wrong im not a first party fanboy. In fact overall WaW is more than likely my most played game. I love both reflex and Waw. Reflexes graphics are better than those of world at war but they are far from the best on the wii yet.

  131. bazmeistergen Tuesday 17th Nov 2009 at 22:31

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

    I have to say I think the Metacritic average is pulled down by some awful reviews. It's better than World at War and should have a higher rating. The problem is that some sites don't seem to enjoy Wii controls for games that they are used to playing on a joypad.

    The graphics are decent and again clearly an improvement over WaW with improved shadows, reflective water and sights and better smoke and lighting effects. There are a few framerate issues in a couple of sections, but overall this is a minor setback. Controls are far better than the last game with full customability.

    The set pieces in the game are more varied and interesting than those in the earlier game too. I just don't understand some of the reviews it is getting. 80% is a good score, but it is way below the 90% you guys (well, you actually Chris) gave WaW.

    I doubt you'll say for obvious reasons, but I'll ask anyway, do you think the game is worse than WaW?

  132. LiamGodOfFood Wednesday 18th Nov 2009 at 18:15

    I think chris knows that they got the review wrong! EXCUSES EXCUSES

    Maybe so, it does seem like it, but I doubt they'll ever admit it.

    bazmeistergen wrote:
    I doubt you'll say for obvious reasons, but I'll ask anyway, do you think the game is worse than WaW?

    My personal answer is no, and I think most of ONM think the same, but once again I doubt you'll get a response.

  133. tquinnathome1 Wednesday 18th Nov 2009 at 20:00

    Actually, although in some areas the graphics for WaW lacked, it had far more going on than any PS2 game. The reason it actually wasnt released on the PS2 is due to the fact that even the Wii version couldn't be ported to it.

    I'm hard pressed to find a game on the Wii with better graphics overall than MWR. Mario Galaxy and Sonic Unleashed are joint top with it as far as I'm concerned. Metroid Prime 3 was a let down, and whilst Zelda has good graphics, they were too jaggedy.

  134. bazmeistergen Wednesday 18th Nov 2009 at 21:14

    Actually, although in some areas the graphics for WaW lacked, it had far more going on than any PS2 game. The reason it actually wasnt released on the PS2 is due to the fact that even the Wii version couldn't be ported to it.

    I'm hard pressed to find a game on the Wii with better graphics overall than MWR. Mario Galaxy and Sonic Unleashed are joint top with it as far as I'm concerned. Metroid Prime 3 was a let down, and whilst Zelda has good graphics, they were too jaggedy.

    For pure aestheticism the new Lost Winds game has better graphics.

  135. ShadowofPain Friday 20th Nov 2009 at 21:59

    General consensus: this is a bad review. Ignore and go to Metacritic. Basically, because the graphics ain't great, it loses 12%. Which is overkill.


    The Metacritic average is 77%, which is actually lower than what we gave it, so I'm not sure what your point is.

    Well I think the point is that the average should be higher. I mean it's kinda difficult to describe but you guys at ONM are usually to ones who give the highest reviews for games such as this. Considering that the highest scores for this game have been 9/10 (90% of whatever you want to say) people were expecting you guys to be around that area. Usually most can agree that you are the ones that drastically raise the average of games (take Mario and Sonic Olympics and Winter Olympics as examples).

    But I guess that even in the end it's still a good game in essence but c'mon, 80% is still kinda harsh (I apologize if my comment made little sense, sometimes I confuse myself :P )

  136. Eternal Darkness Tuesday 24th Nov 2009 at 17:46

    This looks like KH358/2 all over again :lol:

  137. SuperMilkyBros Tuesday 24th Nov 2009 at 21:23

    Any chance of the other ONM team members posting their opinions on the game?

    I feel the review was overly harsh and I'm not trying to mean but I always find Simon's reviews easy to spot due his seemmingly uncanny nack of always being somewhat dissappointed.

    BUT IT WAS HIS OPINION!!!!!

    Also, there was no answer earlier so ... how does squadmate mode work?

    I agree get chris to do a review I think I will start a petition quote this reply if you are with me

  138. mangacube Wednesday 25th Nov 2009 at 18:10

    ...jaw drops...ok emmm emmm ohh errr.WHAT! COD MW was some thing new because it wasent the repettive world war 2 USA VS hitler crap you get all the time it was brits VS morden stalen!... if find this well sad relly i think i should be some thing like 87 but like your the experts am just a bit takn a back..

  139. loguo001 Thursday 26th Nov 2009 at 09:48

    I was going to buy this until i realised it had no offline splitscreen multiplayer. It just shows how lazy activision are but i think it's bad that they claim it's the 'full game'

  140. LiamGodOfFood Thursday 26th Nov 2009 at 21:47

    I was going to buy this until i realised it had no offline splitscreen multiplayer. It just shows how lazy activision are but i think it's bad that they claim it's the 'full game'

    I know. I think that in issue 51 this review should be edited to include points like that, and possibly a revision of the score? (hopeful but not expectant)

  141. LiamGodOfFood Friday 27th Nov 2009 at 23:12

    I think this thread is now dead.

  142. Chr1s-cross Saturday 28th Nov 2009 at 11:46

    would've given it 90% myself, but then again, I haven't seen the Xbox version

    However, from playing it, I would say the graphics are better than the COD:WAW graphics, the online multiplayer's better, and the famous Modern Warfare storyline and level design are better in my opinion, so I really don't see why it isn't up there with COD 5 - surely it should be if it actually improves on the game?

    Just my opinion, but it really sounds like to me that Modern Warfare Reflex is being really judged harshly in this review on the fact that it wasn't released at the same time as the original, and that the graphics are worse than the originals, even though they improve on COD:WAW's graphics.

  143. Splinter435 Sunday 29th Nov 2009 at 09:46

    Hmmmmmmm... I suppose everyone does have their own opinion... but still, I do think that this game was underrated. Personally, I would give this game 93%. Just one more than C.O.D.5.

  144. LiamGodOfFood Tuesday 1st Dec 2009 at 17:41

    would've given it 90% myself, but then again, I haven't seen the Xbox version

    However, from playing it, I would say the graphics are better than the COD:WAW graphics, the online multiplayer's better, and the famous Modern Warfare storyline and level design are better in my opinion, so I really don't see why it isn't up there with COD 5 - surely it should be if it actually improves on the game?

    Just my opinion, but it really sounds like to me that Modern Warfare Reflex is being really judged harshly in this review on the fact that it wasn't released at the same time as the original, and that the graphics are worse than the originals, even though they improve on COD:WAW's graphics.

    Exactly. This review makes no sense.

  145. .Yoshi. Tuesday 8th Dec 2009 at 12:37

    To be honesty, the people who wanted CoD 4 bad enough just got an Xbox. Me and 3 of my friends did that and I'm glad we did.

  146. LiamGodOfFood Tuesday 8th Dec 2009 at 18:51

    To be honesty, the people who wanted CoD 4 bad enough just got an Xbox. Me and 3 of my friends did that and I'm glad we did.

    Fair enough, but this game looks good enough with out paying 150 quid for an Xbox + LIVE.
    I can see why you would a couple of years ago, but now it's just pointless, unless you want Modern Warfare 2.
    Which to be fair, is a good game, but I don't think is as good as it is hyped up to be.

  147. Wii_With_Mii Tuesday 8th Dec 2009 at 21:25

    Meh. Better than WaW by miles (WaW sucked very bad) but nowhere near as good as the original.

    Fair enough, but this game looks good enough with out paying 150 quid for an Xbox + LIVE.
    I can see why you would a couple of years ago, but now it's just pointless, unless you want Modern Warfare 2.
    Which to be fair, is a good game, but I don't think is as good as it is hyped up to be

    I would rather pay that than wait 2 years for a dumbed down version, and then have to wait god knows how long for a shoddy port of MW2, which is GOTY no contest.

  148. Eu-boat Sunday 20th Dec 2009 at 12:25

    Since I already own a much better version and the sequel to this game i think ill be missing this one. It been a pretty boring year for wii releases this year........

  149. Kolo67 Wednesday 23rd Dec 2009 at 20:39

    i know it wasnt that bad but i just have to say "cock of doody: modern warfail

    I seriously don't get this....
    So you're saying that you don't like this game?

    But I am seriously wanting this. I have asked for this or The Conduit for christmas (I have asked for both, but I don't mind what I get. That was if you were confused with the last bit).
    And I agree that the graphics don't look too bad. And I didn't get the bit in the mag about "good graphics for a wii game - the massive caveat.

    Help please.

  150. nafanwee Thursday 31st Dec 2009 at 07:07

    i cant believe modern warfare reflex didnt get a gold award, the game kicks the metriod prime series, the online play is amazing and to be fair the graphics are similar to that of metriod, plus the wii's graphics system is shocking! it's rubbish nintendo need to be producing HD graphics consoles rather that the wii, dont get me wrong its a good console its all i have and i love the controles but all you see on the wii is cheap cartoon graphics like mario, you cant put a top of range game down because of its lack of grphical beauty when it has been made for a next gen console that isnt even in HD! this is the main problem with the wii, the only games producer that get any leeway is nintendo, admitidly there is guitar hero and resident evil but apart from that noone gets given a chance, if you want to see great games from 3rd party producers give them more space to create some.

  151. LiamGodOfFood Friday 1st Jan 2010 at 23:04

    i know it wasnt that bad but i just have to say "cock of doody: modern warfail

    I seriously don't get this....
    So you're saying that you don't like this game?

    But I am seriously wanting this. I have asked for this or The Conduit for christmas (I have asked for both, but I don't mind what I get. That was if you were confused with the last bit).
    And I agree that the graphics don't look too bad. And I didn't get the bit in the mag about "good graphics for a wii game - the massive caveat.

    Help please.

    I think it means it's the old excuse, 'not bad for a wii game'.

    I have the game and would recommend it. Contrary to s
    Simon's review, I am extremely pleased with the graphics, and to me appear as one of the best available on wii, and not too bad at all, no matter what Simon thinks or says.

  152. ShadowofPain Sunday 17th Jan 2010 at 16:29

    Ok two main things to say:
    1) If your only complaint was visuals and presentation how come this game got 12% less than WaW? As you can see in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywVOVmpEcg the visuals for Reflex (right) are clearly superior than that of WaW (unless of course you guys all of a sudden became blind molerats which I doubt :? ) and the fact that this game is a direct, no nonsense port should really give it a higher score.

    2) In the podcast Simon said there were other problems in the game such as frame rate issues and lack of control precisions (I think). Whilst I do agree with the frame rate issues in the campaign mode (in particularly hectic missions yes the frame rate does occasionally falter) but imprecise controls? No way. However the main point of this was that although you did decide to mention these points in the podcast WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THEM IN THE REVIEW!! Surely if you are complaining about the faults of a game you should include them in a review?

    Anyways that's it. On a side note nice FFCC review Simon :D (hope that doesn't spoil oanything :shock: )

  153. ale96gamer Tuesday 19th Jan 2010 at 10:42

    I don't have any COD games but after playing it on xbox at my friends it got me hyped to check it out on wii so i read the review but now i'm in two minds, should i get WAW or MW (i dont care about graphics i only care about how good the gameplay is) :?:

  154. Gynjanynja Wednesday 27th Jan 2010 at 17:26

    I don't have any COD games but after playing it on xbox at my friends it got me hyped to check it out on wii so i read the review but now i'm in two minds, should i get WAW or MW (i dont care about graphics i only care about how good the gameplay is) :?:

    get MWR it beats it in every aspect hands down.

  155. LiamGodOfFood Thursday 11th Mar 2010 at 16:45

    Ok two main things to say:
    1) If your only complaint was visuals and presentation how come this game got 12% less than WaW? As you can see in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywVOVmpEcg the visuals for Reflex (right) are clearly superior than that of WaW (unless of course you guys all of a sudden became blind molerats which I doubt :? ) and the fact that this game is a direct, no nonsense port should really give it a higher score.

    2) In the podcast Simon said there were other problems in the game such as frame rate issues and lack of control precisions (I think). Whilst I do agree with the frame rate issues in the campaign mode (in particularly hectic missions yes the frame rate does occasionally falter) but imprecise controls? No way. However the main point of this was that although you did decide to mention these points in the podcast WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THEM IN THE REVIEW!! Surely if you are complaining about the faults of a game you should include them in a review?

    Hear hear!

    For someone in the review to praise the (customisable) controls to then moan about them being imprecise is weird! The review really doesn't make any sense.

    And ale96gamer, i would get Modern Warfare if I was you, more people play it, the graphics are superior to World at War, and the gameplay is amazing.

    If anyone wants my friendcode, PM me and I'll add you :D

  156. AMPster Saturday 8th May 2010 at 17:00

    This is tonnes better than WAW and im still playing on it!!!
    It should of deserved a 90% at the very least due to its fantastic graphics and great gameplay.
    And why did OMN do mention (much) the fantastic online! has to be a contender for one of the best wii online games, I have even played it more than mario kart!!!

Register or log in to commment
Add a comment
Nintendo Co., Ltd. is the owner of certain copyright which subsists and trade marks and other intellectual property rights in certain content, characters, artwork, logos, scripts and representations used in this publication. All rights are expressly recognised and they are used by Future Publishing Limited under licence © 2006 Nintendo Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. "Nintendo", "International Nintendo Licensed Product" "Nintendo DS", "Nintendo DS Lite", "Nintendo DSi", "Nintendo 3DS", "Nintendo DSi XL", "Nintendo 3DS XL", "Wii" and "Wii U" and the associated logos are the trademarks of Nintendo Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.