Although I like water warfare, comparing it to the 360/ps3's battlefield bad company and battlefield 1943...you actually cant really compare the two. Howcome the DLC is usually so much less quality (other than graphically) on the wii for the amount you pay in comparison with the 360/ps3? I mean, if they cant make up for graphics, at least the gameplay should be there (battlefield gets 24 online multiplayer, we dont on any game) amongst soundtracks and stuff. My guess is because of the memory cap we have on wii....even though theres SD support so to me memory shouldnt still be a problem id think. The topic isnt isolated to just fps' and isnt made to diss the white console (since its all i own and i still like it) , but i just wanted to use that example.
Different demographics demand different games. Battlefield is pretty darn good. Haven't tried Water Warfare myself. The kid-friendly theme is actually a big plus, but I heard it just isn't that interesting as a game.
I bet if Wii had a build in, like 250GB HD and the size limit of online games could be over say a GB, then I bet we would actually see full games being downloaded, but Nintendo is a generation behind when it comes to online, so what do you expect?
@Adam: Try it. Then let me pulverize you with a water bazooka.
I'd love to be able to "try" it, but unfortunately Nintendo does not like demoing their console games.
It's tempting, but I doubt it could compete with Warhawk and Battlefield for my shooting needs, and if I'm going to start playing Hunters again soon, I definitely don't need another shooter, especially one I can't try before I buy.
Forums
Topic: We get water warfare, they get battlefield:1943...
Posts 1 to 6 of 6
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.