Call of Duty 3 (Wii) impressions

a1 · Postby a1 » December 22nd, 2006, 4:49 pm

Okay you naysayers. Get this game before you say the Wii isn't capable of decent FPS controls. The shooting controls in this game are great. I originally thought that looking up and down took too long, but then I turned up the sensitivity. The controls are completely natural now, as good as dual analog setup at least, and I think with a little more customization options FPS controls on Wii could easily overtake a traditional console setup.

The weakest parts of the games are the driving areas, and the (I believe) Wii-only mini games. Planting bombs with the remote is pointless, I'd rather just tap A to plant it than have to twist the fuse in and pull the pin. Driving involves holding the 2 controllers to position them like a steering wheel. Wow! It's just like real driving...real drunk driving. I've steered cars on Wii in Excite Truck, so I know it is capable of it; this game just chose a bad control scheme.

I'm actually having a pretty good time with the single player, but I can see that this is the type of game that was made for online multiplayer. Mind you, I wouldn't play the online multiplayer, but it is shallow without it. It should at least include a co-op mode or split screen, but as it is, it is just the single player. This game does accomplish good controls and single player, which gives hope for a great FPS in the Wii's future.

bluemonkey1 · Postby **bluemonkey1** » December 22nd, 2006, 5:21 pm

FPS + auto-aim = nooblar.

Sorry but it will never appeal to people into their FPS. Besides that it's also Call of Duty 3 XS.

Shawn · Postby **Shawn** » December 22nd, 2006, 5:55 pm

I am glad you like the game but the bottom line is that it is better on the 360. There just wasn't enough of that chaotic feel of a typical COD game due to lack of firepower with the Wii's engine. In my opinion, this game is more like a Gamecube COD game which isn't saying much. This is certainly the best FPS on the Wii but considering Farcry and Red Steel are so pathetic it's not saying much. Plus, the multiplayer is completely lame. You really need to check out the awesome online multiplayer of COD 2 and 3. Like I said, I am glad you like it but the game just pales in comparison to the 360; it's not even close.

a1 · Postby a1 » December 22nd, 2006, 7:15 pm

[QUOTE=Shawn]

I am glad you like the game but the bottom line is that it is better on the 360. There just wasn't enough of that chaotic feel of a typical COD game due to lack of firepower with the Wii's engine. In my opinion, this game is more like a Gamecube COD game which isn't saying much. This is certainly the best FPS on the Wii but considering Farcry and Red Steel are so pathetic it's not saying much. Plus, the multiplayer is completely lame. You really need to check out the awesome online multiplayer of COD 2 and 3. Like I said, I am glad you like it but the game just pales in comparison to the 360; it's not even close.

[/QUOTE]

That's actually not quite my point Shawn. I agree it pales in comparison to the 360 version. In fact, I just finished it, and it is only 9 hours long, with no multiplayer. It has absolutely no replay value, and it isn't the prettiest game in the world. All I'm saying is it has good controls, and if a developer took some time to create an FPS for the Wii, it could be awesome. A little work to make the graphics at Xbox level, and perfecting the controls would be all it would take to make a great Wii shooter. That and some multiplayer, online or off (preferably both).

Bluemonkey, I'm guessing by auto-aim you mean sticky aim, which slows down the cursor when you're near an enemy. That's a control option which you can leave on or off; I took it off.

sega saturn x · Postby **sega saturn x** » December 23rd, 2006, 8:40 am

The online play in cod 3 sucked to be honest, It was way too damn frantic and enclosed. You died to easily, yes that is like real war but two shots and your dead just sucks. I did think the dealt with the waypoints well enough though.

Paul Campbell · Postby **Paul Campbell** » December 23rd, 2006, 4:46 pm

[QUOTE=a][QUOTE=Shawn]

I am glad you like the game but the bottom line is that it is better on the 360. There just wasn't enough of that chaotic feel of a typical COD game due to lack of firepower with the Wii's engine. In my opinion, this game is more like a Gamecube COD game which isn't saying much. This is certainly the best FPS on the Wii but considering Farcry and Red Steel are so pathetic it's not saying much. Plus, the multiplayer is completely lame. You really need to check out the awesome online multiplayer of COD 2 and 3. Like I said, I am glad you like it but the game just pales in comparison to the 360; it's not even close.

[/QUOTE]

That's actually not quite my point Shawn. I agree it pales in comparison to the 360 version. In fact, I just finished it, and it is only 9 hours long, with no multiplayer. It has absolutely no replay value, and it isn't the prettiest game in the world. All I'm saying is it has good controls, and if a developer took some time to create an FPS for the Wii, it could be awesome. A little work to make the graphics at Xbox level, and perfecting the controls would be all it would take to make a great Wii shooter. That and some multiplayer, online or off (preferably both).

Bluemonkey, I'm guessing by auto-aim you mean sticky aim, which slows down the cursor when you're near an enemy. That's a control option which you can leave on or off; I took it off.

[/QUOTE]

I just read a few things the other day that make me think people are WAY underestimating the potential of the Wii when it comes to graphics by comparing it to the original XBOX. I'm curious to see what lies in the future, because apparently, when used to its full potential, it is not in as distant a 3rd place as many people think.

Leo Ames · Postby **Leo Ames** » December 23rd, 2006, 5:05 pm

I doubt that, it's basically a overclocked Game Cube. I'm just hoping it can do graphics after a while that consistently match high end Xbox titles and GC titles like Resident Evil 4. if that happens, I'll be pleased.

Paul Campbell · Postby **Paul Campbell** » December 23rd, 2006, 6:44 pm

[QUOTE=Leo Ames]

I doubt that, it's basically a overclocked Game Cube. I'm just hoping it can do graphics after a while that consistently match high end Xbox titles and GC titles like Resident Evil 4. if that happens, I'll be pleased.

[/QUOTE]

Where have you read that it's an overclocked gamecube??? The specs I have seen don't show that at all.

a1 · Postby a1 » December 23rd, 2006, 9:48 pm

[QUOTE=Leo Ames]

I doubt that, it's basically a overclocked Game Cube. I'm just hoping it can do graphics after a while that consistently match high end Xbox titles and GC titles like Resident Evil 4. if that happens, I'll be pleased.

[/QUOTE]

Of course it can match high end Gamecube titles; even if it was just an overclocked Gamecube it would be able to do that. Personally, I could give less of a crap. I thought a lot of Gamecube and Xbox games were beautiful, and I really only care about gameplay. It wouldn't matter to me if it looked like Dreamcast (it doesn't).

m0zart1 · Postby **m0zart1** » December 23rd, 2006, 10:25 pm

[QUOTE=Paul Campbell]

Where have you read that it's an overclocked gamecube??? The specs I have seen don't show that at all.
[/QUOTE]

Pay it no mind. The use of that term is a good indication that the individual using it is just trying to be derisive about a system he already has a bias against.

It reminds me of when I started my first job at a graphics processing software company. We developed seismic processing software on almost every platform you could think of, including a host of VMS and Unix systems, and of course, including traditional Windows and Macintosh machines. One of the developers was a real Macintosh freak, and when the second line of Pentium chips came out, he referred to them as "overpowered 486-clones". Of course it wasn't true, but it was a good indication of where his predetermined loyalties were.