Watch some more missions, mostly single player, on this guy's YouTube profile as he has good quality uploads. So, yeah, the game's officially out yet we still don't have any official media, though there was a little advert for it on IGN (just showing the cover, no in-game stuff). Meh, Activision.

Single player:

I don't quite get your point. It's actually a worse port than WaW, or what?

That's a lot of colons in the title.

That dudes got a cute pussy. 
 
It's hard to tell how good it actually looks on that video with that 14inch set up,  Anyway. I do know the game would look better if it used Wii Motion Plus, the lag on the gun rotation looks nasty. 
 
I'm shocked that Singer make TV's!, I thought they made sowing machines.   
 
EDIT: 
 
LOL @ Captain Price!

Alex:
What is your point then? That the game could have been better if it was better supported, funded, given more time?

playing wii, and especially a game like this, must totally fucking suck on that tiny shitty tv. 

Activision and IW seem to be doing some things to Treyarch. Treyarch was told NOT to put their logo on the opening screen! What's worse, the only screens for the game are those of "pre-alpha" which according to the developers and the videos, look very little of the actual game.
 
I can't understand why they would do such a thing, and if they really are doing, why Treyarch isn't suing them....

Is the game out on torrents? Is that how the guy got a hold of the game?
 
Anyways thanks for posting the video. Looks good.

 Is the game out on torrents?

It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me.

Why put out the sequel when they can milk their old material on top of that? Anyway, this game was done and free for the porting, IW probably wouldn't let Treyarch anywhere close their new baby, and they sure as hell wouldn't port it on their own given past comments. But yeah, how this port has been handled is bafflingly stupid in every way, from the funding and time frame to the pr and marketing, and even the pricing (a 2 year old port that cost pennies for full price?!). It's almost as if they want it to fail as much as possible. If Treyarch cared as much as IW and Activision this port would have been far worse, but they managed to offer something pretty damn solid by the looks of things so far... Kudos to them alone.

My god those graphics.

The decisions of companies try to reflect market realities.  Investing money, advertising, development studio choices...  They're not taking much of a risk, and their potential rewards will be smaller.  They don't want it to fail, they're just not willing to invest a lot of resources in a product that has very little chance of large success.  Often times that will cut a game off at the legs, but generally the whole potential wasn't a lot better.
 
Too many gamers take these decisions personally, but if you open your eyes you can see why these things are done.  Sometimes companies misjudge potential, but in those cases the market will correct itself.

Looks pretty good for a Wii game.

" The decisions of companies try to reflect market realities.  Investing money, advertising, development studio choices...  They're not taking much of a risk, and their potential rewards will be smaller.  They don't want it to fail, they're just not willing to invest a lot of resources in a product that has very little chance of large success.  Often times that will cut a game off at the legs, but generally the whole potential wasn't a lot better.  Too many gamers take these decisions personally, but if you open your eyes you can see why these things are done.  Sometimes companies misjudge potential, but in those cases the market will correct itself. "

" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "

" @RHCPfan24 said:

" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "

It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "

" @Godwind said:

" @RHCPfan24 said:

" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "

It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "

Whoa...I want to meet those people, seriously. "

" Video in the OP deleted once again... No other good videos up to replace it with yet... Here's a decent glimpse of a multiplayer map...

"

You really don't understand why Activision didn't put a lot of resources into developing this port? Anyone who cares about Modern Warfare owns a Xbox 360 or PS3. I doubt there are many Wii-only owners who care about Modern Warfare. 
 
Besides, it doesn't even look that bad. Stop complaining.

My god these videos are getting taken down faster than something that gets taken down fast. 

I wonder if you'd say it "looks fantastic" if this wasn't your argument first. It doesn't look fantastic. It looks solid given the harsh circumstances. And yes, it's common sense that decent funding and staffing will have better results than shitty of either. Being better, having more content, more features, being somewhat marketed, being acknowledged by its company even, and being offered at a REASONABLE price would somehow hurt its revenue potential? And what IS going to sell this game, if not freely available "fantastic" screenshots and videos? Nothing at all? How will people see it "looks fantastic"? Your #4 is completely baseless, misguided and imaginary to say the least, for reasons already stated, the most important of which is, there has been no "high end" yet, which you call a million seller. Those that achieved that have been far from "high end" efforts themselves. And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my post at all. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

That actually looks pretty good

" @Godwind said:

" @RHCPfan24 said:

" It definitely looks serviceable but, honestly, why are they shooting themselves in the foot by doing the port for a 2 year old game when, obviously, the sequel comes out now? It doesn't make sense to me. "

It is their belief that there are many Wii gamers whom never played this game at all.  Hence, why they are porting a two year old game. "

Whoa...I want to meet those people, seriously. "

" @Godwind: They're probably also hoping to piggy back on the marketing and hype for MW2. "

" All decent quality videos down now... I don't even know why they're being so agressive for this, they didn't stop the MW2 leaks so much... What's to hide? The port probably looks better than most expected, and it's not like they're keeping spoilers away since it's a 2 year old game. Wtf?! Unless they think some people will mix up the games and think Modern Warfare 2 looks like that and not buy it or something? "

I wonder if you'd say it "looks fantastic" if this wasn't your argument first. It doesn't look fantastic. It looks solid given the harsh circumstances.

being offered at a REASONABLE price would somehow hurt its revenue potential?

what IS going to sell this game, if not freely available "fantastic" screenshots and videos? Nothing at all? How will people see it "looks fantastic"?

Your #4 is completely baseless, misguided and imaginary to say the least, for reasons already stated, the most important of which is, there has been no "high end" yet, which you call a million seller. Those that achieved that have been far from "high end" efforts themselves. And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my post at all. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

I already explained how MW Wii could be better and if you don't think that's true, whatever. A current PC game run @ the lowest possible settings will yield the same performance as a few year old PC game run @ the highest settings, yet look worse. Why? Because near automatic downgrading of assets simply cannot give a result as solid as content created with those limitations in mind in the first place. It's not rocket science. A single texture artist cleaning up how the character skins look, not even creating them from scratch or anything, would have done wonders for the game's look. If that was extended to some of the environment, even better. It's an underfunded, understaffed, quick port of a game designed for far more powerful hardware with strict limitations on what could be changed and considering these harsh circumstances, it is solid. As I already said, it's common sense that decent funding and staffing will have better results than shitty of either. A few people doing surprisingly good job in the end doesn't mean it's as good as it can get without exorbitant funding. The actual visuals weren't the only thing I spoke of. Looking better, having more content (how about allowing them to include the DLC maps as there are no plans for DLC on Wii anyway), more features (if given time to optimise online performance further and add voice chat support), being somewhat marketed (maybe it could even be another game pushed with Nintendo's support, bundled with Wii Speak), being acknowledged by its company even, and being offered at a reasonable price (for a 2 year old port, not a brand-new title with a high budget as full price games can be) would only help its revenue potential. I can't give you an example of a better looking game because of the other point I keep repeating and you dispute. There are no such high end products available, not in this genre, not on Wii. I could only mention the rich and varied with relatively sharp textures worlds of Metroid Prime 3 but it's not a valid comparison because it's more of a Cube engine and it's of a completely different style of game.

What "hardcore games with large budgets" tanked? What "hardcore games with large budgets" even exist on Wii? Aside from Nintendo franchises that appeal to everyone, there's very little, if anything at all. Please don't embarass yourself further by mentioning clearly low budget, niche, and anything but "hardcore" efforts like Dead Space Extraction and MadWorld. You keep padding your nonexistent points with nonexistent imaginary facts. Even the COD games, despite the shitty effort from the publisher didn't just "tank" because if a million sales for a cheap port is "tanking" then what the hell is 2 million sales for a ground-up exclusive HD game with insane budget and marketing, like Killzone 2? How does that game warrant being considered a success that will likely get a sequel somewhere down the line that will be equally funded and praised, but Wii games that get half assed treatment do half as good and somehow aren't deserving of a chance for a better handled and better marketed sequel (if only as a proper test for the market considering there has been none despite the imaginary statistics you keep mentioning)?

And in all your points you really didn't respond to much of my posts at all and even despite quoting me you took out certain elements that directly contradicted your following statements as they wouldn't let you twist what I actually said as much. If you don't bother, I won't bother repeating. Well, I already did some of it but yeah. Whatever. I'll agree to disagree and move on then. Keep it up you. I'll maintain that if this does any decent numbers, it's despite the way it's handled, not because of it, just as it turned out to be solid despite Activision's lack of support, even for a port.

More bad quality off-screen footage of the singleplayer:
 

it actually doesn't look that bad for the wii. i'm scared to see how dummed down Crew Expendable will be, though. that mission was beautiful. 

It looks like ass, but so did WaW when it was first showed. I'm still looking forward to it. 

Most probably the best video yet, direct feed video with HD option, multiplayer match on bloc. Unfortunatly, the user disabled embedding.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nqEO3R__0k&annotation_id=annotation_321975&feature=iv 
 

it actually doesn't look that bad for the wii. i'm scared to see how dummed down Crew Expendable will be, though. that mission was beautiful.

Most probably the best video yet, direct feed video with HD option, multiplayer match on bloc. Unfortunatly, the user disabled embedding.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nqEO3R__0k

Another gameplay video

The game looks much too easy on that above video, I have never seen that guard that pops up from behind that cargo container wait around to be killed ever. On either the 360 or the PC versions, you get killed if you hesitate.

Even on easy that guy would kill you on the PC version if you hesitated for a second. He comes out shooting with a machine gun. It looks like he has a shot gun now...  
 
edit; 
 
He does, how shit.

Looks almost identical to me here, if you're talking about the guy @ 4:15. He manages to fire once in that I think, but doesn't hit him. Well, if that's your biggest complaint that makes it "shit" then, sweet, those who haven't played the game and get it for Wii are in for a treat.

It doesn't look identical to me. In the Wii version he walks towards the player with a shotgun, not a machine gun jumping out shooting on target. It looks to me like it's been made easier. 

Holy crap, that looks good for a Wii game.

You can tell that persons never played CoD4 before.

A ha ha, why didn't you imbed that last video, Al3x?
 

I'm pretty sure you can lean crouched, but not when prone. Here's another decent quality video, this guy's getting good at it too. The gangsta style side shooting should work just fine without M+, it's probably based on the cursor movement much like the Wii's main menu cursor which can tell how you tilt it just fine. It probably also has a limited range so that the model and animations don't fuck up or anything while you do it.

I know now why leaning isn't very popular. Firstly, the effect is mostly cosmetical: You find yourself leaning away from a wall yet still hitting it when you press the trigger. Secondly, you walk very slowly while leaning, and sometimes you enter leaning mode involuntarily, as it is mapped to Nunchuck tilt. Thirdly, enabling it limits the range in which the Nunchuck detects the "reload" flick. 

I edited the Crew Expendable video comment from earlier to a different version because the first was taken down. It shows that one soldier was indeed changed, he now has a pistol and fires at you a little slower, though in another video he still kills you in 2 quick shots if you don't fire. That doesn't really make the game easier, that was just a cheap death in the original, one or two shot kills where elsewhere you'd have survived, and it's only in the first mission. More frustrating if it happens to you returning you to the last checkpoint than making you play better really. Trial and error shouldn't be how this game works, and it doesn't for the most part. Anyway, I also edited out all my posts with videos that Activision has removed and added the Crew Expendable video to the OP, as well as a good quality online gameplay video, for those who are curious yet new to the thread.

I saw the game in store yesterday, priced at full price 39.99. I cannot see the Wii game selling very well when 360/PC/PS3 versions are considerably cheaper, at both second hand and brand new prices. And when MW2 has just hit. This is only going to be bought by those who only own a Wii, the motion controls are no incentive to multi-plat owners.

Yep, it's ridiculous to sell a 2 year old port they spent pennies for, as good as it may have turned out, for full price. Of course they'll blame the Wii market if it doesn't sell despite the fact they have yet to show the game exists to anyone, aside from that IGN ad I mentioned in the last comment. It seems it's sent to die, reading comments on GAF there are many retailers that also don't know it exists, while those who know receive 1-5 copies.

Edit: even IGN had to put up their own videos since there are no official stuff... They're good quality visually but they're pretty short, and he's not very good in mp (and in the preview claims small cursor movements don't register sometimes, does this even happen in games with pointer controls?).

 small cursor movements don't register sometimes

I think this looks pretty good and from what I saw from the video the aiming seems to be less jittery than most others. As a port I think IW did a fine job from what I've seen.

Some screens from GameSpot for those who can't bother with videos (eh?). A clear improvement over those beta screens.







Oh and IGN's review is up and it's even worse than their preview. On its own, the score is fine really (7), but when you consider the scores the same reviewer gave to other Wii FPS games including MoH: Heroes 2 (8.4) COD 3 (7.7) and COD: WaW (8) it's ridiculous. The text is even more ridiculous since he has complaints over aspects of the controls that are confirmed to be identical to WaW, yet he claims are worse. The same for the visuals as he's praising WaW's lighting which was nonexistent in the Wii version and is clearly improved this time. I think Bozon was on crack. It really doesn't make sense to rate a game that offers so much more than WaW (which only had 2 modes, DM and TDM, with 8 players, when MW offers all the modes with 10 players, is the most feature complete online Wii FPS, and also has no cut levels from the campaign, unlike WaW), so much less. Name the price as a factor, name that it's two years too late, name that it competes with MW2 (it doesn't, on this platform), but this review just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He also mentions crash bugs and that's the first time I hear of that issue outside badly dumped pirated copies.