While I understand Eon's point about Bond's character in GoldenEye 64...I do think it's telling that had they known what was in the game they would have never allowed it, and thus the greatest first person shooter would have gone to some other title (or film franchise) and ol' 007 would be stuck in tepid video game adaptations of the most recent tepid film. And I really think the game GoldenEye brought in as many young fans to 007 as the film GoldenEye. But this HUGELY profitable (and one growth area) part of the Bond franchise, not to mention the thing that captured a whole generation of young gamers and made 007 "cool" in the video world, would never have happened had Eon had any input. Scary. Makes you wonder what else Eon is saying "no" to.
Actually, this was one part of the article that grabbed me because I never knew it.
Is it really true that Eon weren't content with "GoldenEye 007" in that it wasn't Bondian enough? Sure, Bond slays - literally - endless amounts of soldiers, but I'd argue that a certain amount of stealth is required throughout the game, particularly levels like Facility and Bunker, where you're infiltrating a building. I do admire that Eon has accepted the gaming franchise is a big thing now, and is assisting in guiding the series. If they didn't want "GoldenEye 2" with Bond, then making it with a Bond villain
is a bright idea.
I'm here because of "GoldenEye 007", and I freely admit it. Of course, my fandom now extends far beyond the gaming incarnation of 007. But to me, "GoldenEye 007" is the Goldfinger
of the gaming series. It'll probably always be the best, no matter how many imitations and variations on the theme follow.