MODERN WARFARE 3 FOR Nintendo

It’s either good or bad. It’s pretty or ugly. Its fun or it’s boring. Aim not going to lie to you. Sometimes, this job is that easy. Constructing a critique of a video game or any form of media, for that matter is often a process somewhat akin to picking black from white. Things are either positive or negative, right? But once in awhile, they are not. Sometimes, the argument is a nuanced one. And no offense to the millions who play it, but Call of Duty doesn’t really do nuance.That ís what makes this so interesting.

I mean, with Call of Duty, you either pull the trigger or you don’t. In its defense, there is no room for nuance...and yet this analysis demands it. In fact, consider it’s also a Wiki game notorious for being dependent onnuanceó and you see this Modern Warfare 3 is anything but black and white. And constructing its critique? Anything but easy.

 Modern Warfare 3 made a ridiculous amount of money when it launched back in November of 2011. Or at least, the primary versions did...and during this generation, ìprimaryversionsî basically meant the HD versions. The Wiki version, as became the unfortunate trend, was a relative afterthought. The era of developers giving sincere efforts to doe unique product on Wiki ended long before this one was made.

 What that means is Modern Warfare 3 on Wiki essentially tries to be a watered down version of the HD game. It has the same campaign and a lot of same modes, and in a sense, that is an admirable approach to bringing an HD blockbuster to the Wiki. But it’s also a terribly unrealistic approach, let alone one of inherently limited potential.

You could do this perfectly, and it still would not be perfect on Wiki. That is basically what Trey arch has done. Part of the appeal of the Modern Warfare games is their spectacle, much of which depends on powerful hardware. The crazy set pieces, the impressive graphics, the intense action sequences...none of its going to be as powerful on Wiki, even rhinitis done really well on Wiki.

What all that means is this style just doesn’t translate to this system. As a result, Modern Warfare 3 is hampered by a dated look and lots of performance issues. Of course, the Wiki paradigm has always been game play over graphics, and even in 2011, that narrative prevailed. Modern Warfare 3 plays very well with the Wiki Remote. Playing shooters with the Wiki Remote has always been strength of the system. The problems that the amount of good shooters on the system has always been one of its weaknesses.

 So much for black and white, huh? In fact, arguing for the benefits of this control scheme for shooters has always been an argument for potential rather than results...sadly, that is also the case for Modern Warfare 3.When I jumped online with this game, I saw within just one match all of the Wikis strengths and shortcomings...thrown together almost poetically by Modern Warfare 3. Aiming Isa breeze with a pointer, a flick of the nunchuk makes something as simples reloading feel good...oh, and there is not a single moment of lag. Just ask the nine people Aim playing with. Good or bad? Pretty or ugly? How about both?