Joystiq hands-on: Call of Duty: World at War (Wii)
by Randy Nelson 
{ Oct 6th 2008 at 10:00AM }
click to enlarge
In the case of Treyarch, its Wii team has obviously played plenty of Metroid Prime 3; Call of Duty: World at War is pratically a play-alike (without the Morph Ball, grapple beam, and ... er, all that other sci-fi stuff). We were pleasantly surprised to find that the game is also similar to another FPS ... Call of Duty: World at War – the "HD" version.
Gallery: Call of Duty: World at War (Wii)
Activision attributes this to the fact that, at least when it comes to size and overall design, the game's levels are identical to those found in versions of the game being developed for more technologically beefy consoles. Sure, it's not anywhere near as pretty as the PS3 and Xbox 360 games also due this fall, but it's keeping up in terms of gameplay.
The level we spent time with was in the Pacific theater and saw us squaring off against Imperial Japanese Army forces. We'd already fought them on Xbox 360, so we were familiar with their merciless tactics and propensity to charge at us full-tilt, bayonets at the ready. Sure enough, the Wii game's A.I. acted just like we'd remembered.
Most of our play time was spent battling inch-by-inch to cover in some truly brutal scenarios, while debris and shrapnel flew around us. Low-res or not, it was intense. We started off using the flame thrower to cook our enemies extra-crispy and fill their bunkers with billowing, scorching gas.
Perhaps it was the TVs we were playing on, or maybe we've just become accustomed to HD FPSs, but when we switched over to our machine gun, we found that it was much easier to nail enemies without using the iron sights – they just sort of muddied the screen when brought up. Using automatic weapons gave us a chance to try the reload mechanic, which consists of moving the Nunchuk towards the Wiimote then away. It actually worked quite well; there wasn't even a bit of shaking required.
All in all, we came away from our demo with a sense that Wii owners won't be getting the short end on the M1 Garand with this Call of Duty installment. So far, it looks, sounds, plays, and feels like a suitably epic FPS for Nintendo's console, without any glaringly cut corners.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ExMcCloud @ Oct 6th 2008 10:13AM
This is good news because I think the next genre defining FPS will come on Nintendo's console.....When Wii motion plus hits next year imagine the control you could have on a FPS almost like a keyboard and mouse.
Vidikron @ Oct 6th 2008 10:32AM
WiiMotion Plus likely won't make much of a difference for FPS unless they opt to not use the IR for aiming. The IR is already 1:1... though the position of on-screen reticle is approximated and I'm not sure the WiiMotion Plus can change that.
xFenixKnightx @ Oct 6th 2008 10:18AM
Teh Jaggiez! Theys hurtin mah eyez!
I wonder if GT will do a comparison with all 3 versions? :P
Killjebus @ Oct 6th 2008 10:49AM
to borrow a Fernandos staple
but but but...the Wii is PART of this generation, and it LEADS in sales.
That screenie right there SHOWS how FAR BEHIND the Wii is to the PS3 and 360 in terms of being part of THIS generation.
Pathetic, PS2 games look better than that.
Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 6th 2008 12:05PM
Games always look better in motion. ALWAYS.
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrected on a... thursday?!) @ Oct 6th 2008 12:16PM
I reckon that the problem is they appear to be using the same engine and trying to scale it back for older hardware. Hence it's full of assets and features that look awful when turned down to lower quality.
Foetoid @ Oct 6th 2008 5:52PM
Geez Killjeebus, it doesn't take long to forget how bad last-gen games look. This looks far better than anything on the Ps2 and will look even better again in 480p on a decent TV. I'm sick of everyone crying about the Wiis graphics. As long as it's better than last gen (which has already been easily proven that it's very doable, only the laziest of devs don't want to bother) then isn't that good enough?
Grey Acumen @ Oct 6th 2008 10:21AM
Tah-daaahhh!
This game will be worth following, and I have a quick prediction to make about the future:
Week 3 - Game sells significantly lower than its HD counterparts. Game sites declare Wii to be inhospitable for Mature games.
Week 10 - Game continues to sell well, HD sales have started to drop to the point that weekly sales are about the same for Wii vs HD. HD still ahead in total sales though.
Week 50 - Game continues to sell well and is now either close to overtaking or overtakes sales of the HD version. Game sites declare that this is because of the limited number of good FPS for the Wii compared to what are available on HD consoles, or ignores this completely.
Jack of No Trades 85 @ Oct 6th 2008 10:33AM
I just had to downgrade about three months ago to a 36" SD tv from a 60" Sony Bravia that broke and will cost an arm and a leg to fix.
Let me tell you that it took a long time to get use to it. I even slowed down on playing on my PS3 because I couldn't see anything. I played through Doom 3 finally then went back to the console to play Force Unleashed. I really miss my HD tv and if I ever get it fixed I will appreciate it even more.
Just saying. HD graphics might not define gameplay, but they sure do help out my eyes.
Shmil @ Oct 6th 2008 10:44AM
week 60, people discover they like online gaming better than fancy controls and decide to buy the HD versions that have good online play
samfish @ Oct 6th 2008 10:48AM
Actually, week 60 will be more like, "Repeat process with yearly COD game. Gamers also lament as they watch Activision pile drive yet another successful series into the ground".
Shmil @ Oct 6th 2008 10:57AM
@samfish, true I didn't catch that
Killjebus @ Oct 6th 2008 11:03AM
So true Jack. I can barely even watch Chumpvision TV. I have 2 27" TV's on either side of my 50" Panny during Football season for fantasy purposes and when you dart your eyes back and forth between the Chumpvision TV's and the HD one...it feels like you are looking with blured vision.
Mr Khan @ Oct 6th 2008 11:09AM
I don't see too much difference from when i watch on my HDTV back at home (ATSC Tuner gets all the local channels in HD for free, but still low-res analogue cable), and the only thing HD really has going for it, IMO, is the much better color quality
Killjebus @ Oct 6th 2008 11:17AM
"and the only thing HD really has going for it, IMO, is the much better color quality"
You either do not have your HDTV hooked up properly, have a poor HDTV...or you need to have your eyes checked.
My opinion, best LCD HDTV's Sony Bravia
best Plasma HDTV's Panasonic, or Pioneer
Seriously, every single person that comes over to watch football at my house is FLOORED by the difference, INCLUDING a few friends of mine that have older RP screen or older LCD, Plasma HDTV's that THOUGHT they were watching in HD until they saw mine.
Some of them do not even have the equipment nec. to properly receive an HD signal.
Vidikron @ Oct 6th 2008 11:32AM
"I don't see too much difference from when i watch on my HDTV back at home (ATSC Tuner gets all the local channels in HD for free, but still low-res analogue cable), and the only thing HD really has going for it, IMO, is the much better color quality"
You're kidding, right? If you lived near me I'd invite you over to watch some football one Saturday. The differences when switching from an HD broadcast to an SD broadcast is glaring and often painful. Now, some channels do get over compressed these days and you'll see macro-blocking during fast movement, but even then the overall quality is far and away better.
Seriously, watch some live sports. They tend to show off the differences the best due to the all the detail on the screen (all the players, people on the sidelines, the crowd, etc...).
Vcize @ Oct 6th 2008 11:56AM
Jebus, I have a similar setup and upgraded the satellite TVs to LCDs this year (for football also) and it was so worth it, I highly recommend it.
This weekend I had to head out to the in-laws and watch a game in SD again. Man, the difference between football in SD and HD is just ridiculous. Same goes for videogames.
Vidikron @ Oct 6th 2008 12:24PM
@Vcize
I watched your Gators live this weekend. It got painful in the 4th :)
buttscratch @ Oct 6th 2008 10:29AM
no shit? Really? Its good? hmm... I'm very surprised
Infidel @ Oct 6th 2008 10:34AM
Im fairly sure Goldeneye on the N64 had better graphics than that screenshot.
Morisato @ Oct 6th 2008 10:43AM
Here's a reference. We report, you decide.
http://www.nintendoplayers.com/images/games/1476_2.jpg
Vidikron @ Oct 6th 2008 10:45AM
Come on now, have you played GE recently? That screenshot may not be nearly as good as the 360/PS3 versions, but it's a lot better than an N64 game.
xFenixKnightx @ Oct 6th 2008 10:48AM
N64 game no...PS1 game yes, oh very yes.
Killjebus @ Oct 6th 2008 10:57AM
Graphics are not everything, but they sure help. I am sure this "version" suffers from equally bad AI, animation, physics...etc.
and then you have textures that look like this on the PS3...
http://ps3.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-amazing-ground-textures-News--a0004983-p0.php
Now, who wants to tell me that graphics DON'T matter?
Zeus.:God @ Oct 6th 2008 6:43PM
Textures like what, Killjebus?
Oh, you mean those textures that can be done on the 360, PS3, as well as the PC? Yeah... Just to be honest, those textures aren't anything special.
The lighting is good, which makes everything look better, but the textures aren't anything note-worthy.
Mr Khan @ Oct 6th 2008 11:06AM
Sacrificed a good bit on the details in order to get more on-screen action, and generally large-scale fields of play.
They sure as hell broke their claim that it would be the best-looking Wii game, but certainly in the running for best multiplatform port so far, though Treyarch's own Quantum of Solace Wii, as well as Sonic Unleashed Wii, have it in the running
Things are getting sweeter.
Well Fed Troll @ Oct 6th 2008 11:25AM
Treyarch scares me like how Palin scares Diddy...
IMO CoD3 was soo blewehh! Hopefully this is different( better).
Chin-Poh @ Oct 6th 2008 11:37AM
I recall many saying the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox 1, but I simply can't believe that after looking at these screenshots!
Loudfiero @ Oct 6th 2008 11:57AM
these screenshots are 500x299...safe to say it looks better than that...
Matt @ Oct 6th 2008 3:19PM
u put that screen shot on a 50inch HDTV and you now have an even worse image.
the screen shots dont get any better.
the ones they show us are usually the best they can show.
graphics arent everything, but when you have a ps3 and 360, they do mean something.
Foetoid @ Oct 6th 2008 7:08PM
Actually, i'll be putting it up in 480p on a 52" screen and just like with Metroid Prime 3, it'll look awesome.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 6th 2008 12:39PM
Sounds like the Wii version might actually be good(which is actually shocking). I may have to try both the 360 version and the Wii version.
Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 6th 2008 12:56PM
It's actually pretty disappointing that everyone is shocked that there is actually a good third-party game coming. I really pity Wii's hardcore audience, but hey the future is looking bright after this week!
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 6th 2008 4:39PM
I may enjoy my Wii, but that doesn't mean I ignore all the crap the console has been getting.
Matt @ Oct 6th 2008 3:11PM
the screen shot ( which is usually a better graphic then actual gameplay ) looks like cod2 graphics.
sorry there is nothing nex gen about cod5 on the wii.
Mr Khan @ Oct 6th 2008 3:32PM
On the Wii that processed is usually reversed, and play looks a lot better than stills. Early Metroid Prime 3 screens raised a lot of rage about how Wii was weaker than GC, but the game proved Wii's strengths
Skate It looks a lot better in motion when lighting and shadows come into play
Red Steel is the only instance where screens wound up looking better, and my guess is that is because Ubisoft carefully picked which areas to take captures of, and which ones to leave out
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 6th 2008 4:34PM
nex gen about cod5 on the wii.
You could say the same about games on the 360 and ps3.
Next gen does not equal prettier graphics.
TwEE @ Oct 6th 2008 4:22PM
WHAT?!? The wii isnt as powerful as the HD consoles? OMG LOL ha he ha.. That is such a cleaver observation.
You guys should try to mention it in EVERY Nintendo post.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 6th 2008 4:37PM
Yep. Leave it to the regulars to completely ignore anything positive about the preview and focus on an easy target. LOL WII HAS INFERIOR GRAPHICS TO THE PS3 AND 360 LOL LOL. I IS SMART!!!
nofriendo @ Oct 6th 2008 9:20PM
Umm, did you guys even read the article? That screen shot doesnt do the game any justice
"We were pleasantly surprised to find that the game is also similar to another FPS ... Call of Duty: World at War – the "HD" version."
I'm just gonna have to take the guy's word for it who actually played the game, and wrote an article about how surprised he was at the visuals... maybe.
Take a look for yourselves, wankers.
http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14222041/call-of-duty-5/videos/codwii_flamethrow_100308.html