I had to do a double take after entering the room at a recent Activision preview event. I looked at the screen from a couch I sat on, looked back at the player who seemed to be controlling the action, and then looked again at the screen and the console beside it. Wii? If so, that's a great looking Wii game, I thought. It actually took me walking up to the screen (about 6 ft away) to see that it was indeed a Wii game.
Running on the Call of Duty 4 engine, it's no surprise that World at War looks great, but we've really been wondering about how the whole thing works with the Wii Remote this time around. Would it be like Call of Duty 3 on the Wii? And what's with this Wii Zapper support? And "squadmates?"
Much like you'd expect, the Wii Remote aims and fires, and the Nunchuck moves your character in Call of Duty: World at War. I'll say right off that I never felt like I was turning from side to side fast enough, but it may have been a settings issue, and for the most part, I was facing the direction I needed to face. Other than that, the controls were more precise than I expected. We have the vertical line of sight auto-adjusting
"Combat-Look" technology to thank for that. There was also a Wii Zapper control scheme that I did not get to try as the primary player, but I did get to try as a squadmate. More on that later.
You're back in World War II again, but this time Kiefer Sutherland (or Gary Oldman, depending on what side you play as) is whispering commands into your ear as you get tangled up in the Pacific.
As we said before, World at War is a looker on the Wii. The first battlefield I played on seemed very vast, and there were several on-screen objects like huts, logs, and bunkers to keep your eyeballs entertained. There were a few instances of being crouched right up on a bush and seeing some pretty blocky looking images, but for the most part, the game is pleasing to the eye. In another level, I ran along a brook under a canopy of trees. Seeing light poke in through the branches was impressive. I was equally impressed seeing water ripple from a nearby explosion.
The new "squadmate" mode lets another player be your spotter. Armed with a Wii Zapper, your squadmate can pick off enemies while you do all the hard work. Some staff there likened it to a Super Mario Galaxy type situation, but I think it's closer to being Tails, trailing behind Sonic in Sonic The Hedgehog 2. While the squadmate can shoot and aim, they have no control over where they want to go. Even picking up ammo and weapons is out of reach; squadmates have to ask the main player to stand over weapons and let them pick it up. If nothing else, it makes for a fun add-on that anyone can jump in and play at any time. CoD:WaW also supports full-on WiFi multiplayer, but we did not get a chance to try that out.
Of course, I couldn't wrap this up without saying something about the flame thrower. It's badass, just as you'd expect. It's the perfect weapon for someone who sucks at shooters and fails to watch out. Just hose them down with fire as they come after you. It's also a thrill to finally make your way up to a shelter where some enemy has been picking at you for awhile. Simply run up and burn them out, laughing in a pyromanical craze. And it has to be said that the fire effects are visually stunning.
The Wii version of Call of Duty: World at War may not have the beauty and depth that the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions do [more on those next week!], but it definitely stands on its own as a great looking and playing title. Treyarch has stepped it up and made a serious Wii title that deserves the attention of Wii-owning shooter fans.
lol, that's about how far I sit from my screen anyway.
No, probably Monster Hunter Tri has to be the best looking Wii game.
Not trying to be negative, I'm just looking for a counterpoint on this.
This is the type of game I would buy (assuming it turns out decent) for my Wii and I don't own a 360 or PS3.
Please don't lock yourself into the "console only" mentality.
I bought my first Wii in November of 2006 and my second back in November of 2007. I found a MGS4 PS3 at my local Best Buy a few months ago. (F*ck you, you f*cking scalpers!!) But even at that, my PC still blows the PS3 away when it comes to the power that's under the hood. All of the hard core games are on my PC. My Wii was (and still is) great for lots of others games that just don't fit on the PC. (No XB360 here, if you're wondering.)
The only reason why my PS3 has gotten so much use lately is because of my recent addiction to Ratchet and Clank Future. Otherwise, my Wii and PC would still get more use.
So, no, the person who owns a Wii isn't necessarily the same consumer who will own another console. If I didn't find that MGS4 PS3 at Best Buy, I'd still be without a PS3, and still happy with the hardware I'd have.
Not being a hater, but I think they're ugly.
When it goes to graphics: if the game is great, you don't need to pause the game or take screenshots to check out how many pixels appear in the screen.
Great article, can't wait to buy this one.
Screenshots in Destructoid are scaled bigger than they really are.
http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/106037-best-looking-wii-game-hands-on-call-of-duty-world-at-war-wii-/Okinawa%20-%20Barrels%20of%20Fun-noscale.jpg
is better than
http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/photo-m.phtml?post_key=106037&photo_key=64711
BETTER GET THE KILL COUNT READY, IT'S GOING DOWN IN DA PACIFIC!
It must look better in motion or something because from those pics it looks like a PS2 shooter at best.
Still don't really care about it, but that could be cool.