Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

I miss EA


25 replies to this topic

#1 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 24 February 2009 - 01:10 PM

If ea games until know own the bond license (from 2006 ----->2009) :

1- we got CR game in 2006 .
2- maybe another game in 2007 (classic bond film).
3- we got QOS game in 2008 .
4- maybe another game in 2009 (classic bond film). or EON style game .

Activision ? :

1- 2006 -----------------------
2- 2007 (they owned the license )
3- 2008 bad game (QOS)
4- 2009 nothing
5- 2010 racing bond game .

********************************007****************************


* ok when i talk about ea , i don't mean the old bond games they do ( TND -TWINE - 007 racing - GE:RA) now in the new generation(Ps3-Xbox360) they own good developers (BioWare-Pandemic Studios) and they make a very good games .
* look at godfather2 :a perfect 3rd person game ,Mercenaries 2: World in Flames ,mass effect , Dead Space (DS producer is the same producer who work in FRWl), and more .. .

* and Activision : just call of duty ??
-they use COD4 engine for QOS !!!!!!!!
-Treyarch develop COD and QOS in the same time !!!!!!!
-they delayed the new bond game because COD !!!!!!!!
-every year COD , COD , COD .

I feel sad of saying that bond games now are swimming in the dead space ...

Edited by bond_azoozbond, 24 February 2009 - 01:14 PM.


#2 BlackFire

BlackFire

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1300 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 24 February 2009 - 03:53 PM

Agree 100% :(

#3 Daddy Bond

Daddy Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Location:Back in California

Posted 24 February 2009 - 04:42 PM

Agree 100% :(


Yeah, I'm very unimpressed with what Activision has done with the Bond name so far. Have you seen the quality of the back cover design for the QOS game? Simply horrid. Talk about minimal effort!

Does anyone else agree that the back cover is one of the worst ever and shows very little care?

#4 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 24 February 2009 - 06:09 PM

Agree 100% :(


Yeah, I'm very unimpressed with what Activision has done with the Bond name so far. Have you seen the quality of the back cover design for the QOS game? Simply horrid. Talk about minimal effort!

Does anyone else agree that the back cover is one of the worst ever and shows very little care?


Have you played the game yet?

#5 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 24 February 2009 - 10:04 PM

I love how you guys all dismiss the bad crap EA did to the James Bond license just because you didn't like the first Activision game. QoS was mediocre, but it was no where near as bad as Tomorrow Never Dies and 007 Racing. And hey, look, you dismiss the 2nd Activision game too even though you don't know anything about it. You think it's about "racing", but you don't actually know that. Kind of baffled you seem to be advocating quantity over quality too. Select and choose what you guys want to remember though.

On the subject of The Godfather, it's great that EA was able to essentially copy other games that did it far better (e.g., Mafia) and you know 30 years or so after the movie was originally released. (even GoldenEye, which is easily the most revered Bond game and movie tie-in came out 2 years after the film) Show me an EA game they've released where it was meant to tie in to a current movie that didn't suck. Nature of movie tie-ins. EA has cleaned up their act a lot lately, I'll give you that, but that's with original IPs and they bought 2 of the 3 games series you mentioned after they were already established.

Not defending Activision here, just calling out the ridiculousness of this thread.

#6 Daddy Bond

Daddy Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Location:Back in California

Posted 24 February 2009 - 10:28 PM

Just as a note, for me personally, all I said was that I was unimpressed thus far, especially regarding the quality of the packaging for QOS. I, personally, did not say QOS was a bad game and neither did I say that EA had always done a great or a poor job.

#7 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 24 February 2009 - 10:56 PM

Just as a note, for me personally, all I said was that I was unimpressed thus far, especially regarding the quality of the packaging for QOS. I, personally, did not say QOS was a bad game and neither did I say that EA had always done a great or a poor job.


I agree they could've put a little more into the packaging, especially into the summary on the back of the box.

#8 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 24 February 2009 - 11:46 PM

people who say that QOS game is not bad they are wrong with my high respect , why???
Treyarch was working in the project from 2006 until 2008 (2 years) these two years noughty dog made uncharted 1 . and if Activision was hoping for perfect bond game they just can canceled COD (no cod in 2008) and treyarch focus more in bond project .

#9 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:32 AM

people who say that QOS game is not bad they are wrong with my high respect , why???
Treyarch was working in the project from 2006 until 2008 (2 years) these two years noughty dog made uncharted 1 . and if Activision was hoping for perfect bond game they just can canceled COD (no cod in 2008) and treyarch focus more in bond project .


Uncharted was in development for at least 3 years and they probably worked with a much larger budget. These others titles you mentioned had longer development times too. Mercenaries 2 was 3 years, Mass Effect was 4 years.

Call of Duty is worth way too much to put on hold. The last two sold something like 18 million copies. Bond is no where in that league anymore. Even it's critically acclaimed games. Call of Duty 4 outsold GoldenEye and the latest World at War is looking to be heading that way too. That's a pretty significant milestone when you figure that Bond games hardly do a fraction of that anymore - mostly due to the ineptitude of EA who severely devalued the Bond franchise through exploitation. Not to say Activision has done a good job of turning that around.

#10 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 25 February 2009 - 12:55 PM

people who say that QOS game is not bad they are wrong with my high respect , why???
Treyarch was working in the project from 2006 until 2008 (2 years) these two years noughty dog made uncharted 1 . and if Activision was hoping for perfect bond game they just can canceled COD (no cod in 2008) and treyarch focus more in bond project .


Uncharted was in development for at least 3 years and they probably worked with a much larger budget. These others titles you mentioned had longer development times too. Mercenaries 2 was 3 years, Mass Effect was 4 years.

Call of Duty is worth way too much to put on hold. The last two sold something like 18 million copies. Bond is no where in that league anymore. Even it's critically acclaimed games. Call of Duty 4 outsold GoldenEye and the latest World at War is looking to be heading that way too. That's a pretty significant milestone when you figure that Bond games hardly do a fraction of that anymore - mostly due to the ineptitude of EA who severely devalued the Bond franchise through exploitation. Not to say Activision has done a good job of turning that around.


when you say that they was working on these games for 3 or 4 years it's definitely to build the engine but Treyarch already had COD4 engine !!!

there was alot of talk from activision and treyarch that they know what ea mistakes but i can say that Agent under fire is less mistakes than Quantum of solace .

call of duty franchise before COD4 was nothing. but james bond franchise have GE007(97),EON(2004) why they don't complete these successful titles to have player respect .

#11 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 25 February 2009 - 07:00 PM

people who say that QOS game is not bad they are wrong with my high respect , why???
Treyarch was working in the project from 2006 until 2008 (2 years) these two years noughty dog made uncharted 1 . and if Activision was hoping for perfect bond game they just can canceled COD (no cod in 2008) and treyarch focus more in bond project .


Uncharted was in development for at least 3 years and they probably worked with a much larger budget. These others titles you mentioned had longer development times too. Mercenaries 2 was 3 years, Mass Effect was 4 years.

Call of Duty is worth way too much to put on hold. The last two sold something like 18 million copies. Bond is no where in that league anymore. Even it's critically acclaimed games. Call of Duty 4 outsold GoldenEye and the latest World at War is looking to be heading that way too. That's a pretty significant milestone when you figure that Bond games hardly do a fraction of that anymore - mostly due to the ineptitude of EA who severely devalued the Bond franchise through exploitation. Not to say Activision has done a good job of turning that around.


when you say that they was working on these games for 3 or 4 years it's definitely to build the engine but Treyarch already had COD4 engine !!!

there was alot of talk from activision and treyarch that they know what ea mistakes but i can say that Agent under fire is less mistakes than Quantum of solace .

call of duty franchise before COD4 was nothing. but james bond franchise have GE007(97),EON(2004) why they don't complete these successful titles to have player respect .


To be very frank, I don't think you understand what is involved in making a video game. Mass Effect took 4 years and guess what.. it was using the Unreal 3 engine. So like I said, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Call of Duty was a huge franchise before CoD4. Call of Duty was a game of the year winner from several publications and sold better than all the Bond games except for GoldenEye. Likewise Call of Duty 2 which was for quite awhile the best-selling game on the 360. Everything or Nothing was a good game and got some good critical praise, but it didn't sell very well and From Russia with Love (which was in the same vein) did even worse.

Agent Under Fire didn't do any better that QoS. It was just as mediocre. Whatever though, pick and choose what you want to remember about EA.

#12 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 25 February 2009 - 08:05 PM

What I miss about EA is that the PS2 games start with the gunbarrel and the first level when you put the disc for the first time. Activision's Quantum of Solace doesn't do so :(

#13 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 25 February 2009 - 10:34 PM

people who say that QOS game is not bad they are wrong with my high respect , why???
Treyarch was working in the project from 2006 until 2008 (2 years) these two years noughty dog made uncharted 1 . and if Activision was hoping for perfect bond game they just can canceled COD (no cod in 2008) and treyarch focus more in bond project .


Uncharted was in development for at least 3 years and they probably worked with a much larger budget. These others titles you mentioned had longer development times too. Mercenaries 2 was 3 years, Mass Effect was 4 years.

Call of Duty is worth way too much to put on hold. The last two sold something like 18 million copies. Bond is no where in that league anymore. Even it's critically acclaimed games. Call of Duty 4 outsold GoldenEye and the latest World at War is looking to be heading that way too. That's a pretty significant milestone when you figure that Bond games hardly do a fraction of that anymore - mostly due to the ineptitude of EA who severely devalued the Bond franchise through exploitation. Not to say Activision has done a good job of turning that around.


when you say that they was working on these games for 3 or 4 years it's definitely to build the engine but Treyarch already had COD4 engine !!!

there was alot of talk from activision and treyarch that they know what ea mistakes but i can say that Agent under fire is less mistakes than Quantum of solace .

call of duty franchise before COD4 was nothing. but james bond franchise have GE007(97),EON(2004) why they don't complete these successful titles to have player respect .


To be very frank, I don't think you understand what is involved in making a video game. Mass Effect took 4 years and guess what.. it was using the Unreal 3 engine. So like I said, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Call of Duty was a huge franchise before CoD4. Call of Duty was a game of the year winner from several publications and sold better than all the Bond games except for GoldenEye. Likewise Call of Duty 2 which was for quite awhile the best-selling game on the 360. Everything or Nothing was a good game and got some good critical praise, but it didn't sell very well and From Russia with Love (which was in the same vein) did even worse.

Agent Under Fire didn't do any better that QoS. It was just as mediocre. Whatever though, pick and choose what you want to remember about EA.


my talk was about uncharted 1 i didn't bring Mass effect in my talk , and even if you thought , there is different between RPG game and action game !!
at the end treyarch have no excuse of the bad game they give as !!

#14 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 25 February 2009 - 10:48 PM

my talk was about uncharted 1 i didn't bring Mass effect in my talk , and even if you thought , there is different between RPG game and action game !!
at the end treyarch have no excuse of the bad game they give as !!


I already addressed Uncharted. You brought up Mass Effect and the genre really makes no difference. Again, I think you really don't know what you're talking about here. Treyarch should have done a better job, I agree, but the premise of this thread is ridiculous.

What I miss about EA is that the PS2 games start with the gunbarrel and the first level when you put the disc for the first time. Activision's Quantum of Solace doesn't do so :(


To be fair, they were working from the material of the movies. Neither had an opening gun barrel. What the game did seemed inspired from Casino Royale (though it made zero sense to me). It'll be interesting to see what Bizarre does with that. Likely at the beginning, though I can also see another Royale inspired gun barrel.

#15 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 25 February 2009 - 11:35 PM

my talk was about uncharted 1 i didn't bring Mass effect in my talk , and even if you thought , there is different between RPG game and action game !!
at the end treyarch have no excuse of the bad game they give as !!


I already addressed Uncharted. You brought up Mass Effect and the genre really makes no difference. Again, I think you really don't know what you're talking about here. Treyarch should have done a better job, I agree, but the premise of this thread is ridiculous.

What I miss about EA is that the PS2 games start with the gunbarrel and the first level when you put the disc for the first time. Activision's Quantum of Solace doesn't do so :(


To be fair, they were working from the material of the movies. Neither had an opening gun barrel. What the game did seemed inspired from Casino Royale (though it made zero sense to me). It'll be interesting to see what Bizarre does with that. Likely at the beginning, though I can also see another Royale inspired gun barrel.


ok you think i don't know what i'm talking about and i think you Defend Treyarch and ACT.. ? i want to ask you a Q , why they didn't work more on the core game and release it in 2009 ?? which better release it when the movie release and the game not complete or release it after they complete it ,??

second, in e32008 they show a demo of two levels in the game ,they didn't change any thing of these levels until we play the game, from july -->Nov !! add or remove !! with 15 level of two movie , there some on in mi6 fourm count the unuse levels and its about 46 level for the both movies !!

#16 Blonde Bond

Blonde Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2006 posts
  • Location:Station T , Finland

Posted 26 February 2009 - 12:45 AM

I kind of miss EA.

As much as most people wanted to get rid of them, I did like their effort.
My favorite Bond games are those made by EA. Not by Rare or Activision (so far)

If you ask me, EA already made a better game than Rare did. Activison kind of took a step backwards with their first effort. Don't care how much they tried to convince us that we were getting into a better territory with their first game. It didn't happen. Overall, QoS was a good FPS with maybe two or three elements that I loved.

But overall, even though EA pushed out their Bond games in yearly basis, most of the games I've played, were enjoyable experiences if not great games.

Didn't get that experience from Activision's first game. But I'll give them a chance they deserve. Maybe the next few games will be better.

I'm kind of excited to see where they take the Bond franchise. Excited, since we don't really know what they're going to do with their next few games. We kind of get teeny weeny idea in what category their next games will fall into. But other than that, we don't really know.

For instances, I've been thinking who'll be the face of Bond in the next Activision games. Will they possibly have original stories like Agent Under Fire or the better EA games like Nightfire and EON.

Will they cast and model a former Bond for their game, or will they show Craig the money, so they get his likeness, voice or both? Or will they go through the route of AUF and recreate a Bond composite, that has features from few or every actor who's portrayed Bond. So, imo, even if we're getting these games at a slower rate, we're still living an exciting times.

Let's just hope Activision's next few efforts wont be stinkers.

#17 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 26 February 2009 - 01:02 PM

I kind of miss EA.

As much as most people wanted to get rid of them, I did like their effort.
My favorite Bond games are those made by EA. Not by Rare or Activision (so far)

If you ask me, EA already made a better game than Rare did. Activison kind of took a step backwards with their first effort. Don't care how much they tried to convince us that we were getting into a better territory with their first game. It didn't happen. Overall, QoS was a good FPS with maybe two or three elements that I loved.

But overall, even though EA pushed out their Bond games in yearly basis, most of the games I've played, were enjoyable experiences if not great games.

Didn't get that experience from Activision's first game. But I'll give them a chance they deserve. Maybe the next few games will be better.

I'm kind of excited to see where they take the Bond franchise. Excited, since we don't really know what they're going to do with their next few games. We kind of get teeny weeny idea in what category their next games will fall into. But other than that, we don't really know.

For instances, I've been thinking who'll be the face of Bond in the next Activision games. Will they possibly have original stories like Agent Under Fire or the better EA games like Nightfire and EON.

Will they cast and model a former Bond for their game, or will they show Craig the money, so they get his likeness, voice or both? Or will they go through the route of AUF and recreate a Bond composite, that has features from few or every actor who's portrayed Bond. So, imo, even if we're getting these games at a slower rate, we're still living an exciting times.

Let's just hope Activision's next few efforts wont be stinkers.


next bond will release 2010 ,some sources say it's third person game with drviving elements , but who is bond ??? i hope .........

we need more informations soon !!!

#18 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 26 February 2009 - 02:26 PM

ok you think i don't know what i'm talking about and i think you Defend Treyarch and ACT.. ? i want to ask you a Q , why they didn't work more on the core game and release it in 2009 ?? which better release it when the movie release and the game not complete or release it after they complete it ,??

second, in e32008 they show a demo of two levels in the game ,they didn't change any thing of these levels until we play the game, from july -->Nov !! add or remove !! with 15 level of two movie , there some on in mi6 fourm count the unuse levels and its about 46 level for the both movies !!


1. I would have preferred a delay, but it's a film tie-in. That's kind of how these things work. You release with the film (for typically max sales), not later, though you would think games like GoldenEye would have taught them it doesn't matter when you release so long as the game is good.

2. You don't know what they changed or didn't change. Besides between E3 and it going gold they didn't have time to make any huge sweeping changes if they were to meet their deadline.

I'm not really defending Treyarch and Activision. I think they did a lot of stuff wrong and we got a mediocre game as an end result, but I sure as hell don't miss EA. Not yet, anyway.

#19 darthbond

darthbond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Location:Pocatello ID

Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:29 AM

Was I the only one who was half satisfied with QoS? It's a movie tie-in. Most of those games sucked, anyways. Sure, QoS could have been better (how about spilt-screen mutiplayer?) but I for one was happy to play Casino Royale as a game, which was the better of the two films anyway, and we got to play a few levels from QoS. Ultimately, it is a fine addition to the Bond Games, espically when you guys make it sound as bad as (dare I say it?) James Bond, Jr.

darthbond

#20 TonicBH

TonicBH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 03 March 2009 - 01:41 PM

If the last two EA Bond games told me something, it's that they would've all sucked. A new publisher brought in some new blood. I would have to agree that it would've been better polished had it been coincided with the DVD/BD-ROM release of Quantum in March, instead of being released about a week before Call of Duty: World at War and other major games that year, but we can't change that now.

bond_azoozbond... why do you have such disdain for Activision's handling of the franchise when we've had ONLY ONE GAME published by them thus far? Hold your hate comments until we get to Bond game #3, at least.

#21 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 03 March 2009 - 03:39 PM

If the last two EA Bond games told me something, it's that they would've all sucked. A new publisher brought in some new blood. I would have to agree that it would've been better polished had it been coincided with the DVD/BD-ROM release of Quantum in March, instead of being released about a week before Call of Duty: World at War and other major games that year, but we can't change that now.

bond_azoozbond... why do you have such disdain for Activision's handling of the franchise when we've had ONLY ONE GAME published by them thus far? Hold your hate comments until we get to Bond game #3, at least.


well to be clear i just miss ea bond games , second i hate QOS game although i have PS3-PS2 versions .
I don't hate Activision at all !!

and say hi to oregon.

#22 Quantumofsolace007

Quantumofsolace007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3488 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 08:37 PM

I really enjoyed QOS. Am i particularly happy with Bond racing no would i of liked 2 games with Craig over one Yes but i'm not complainging.

#23 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 15 January 2011 - 09:04 PM

EA was never very good w/ the Bond license and they knew it. That's why they got out their contract early and allowed Activision to acquire the license. There was little consistancy within their games (they were often hit or miss) and none of them could match or surpass the greatness of GoldenEye even w/ superior hardware allowing for more features, better graphics, and online play. Their last 2 Bond games, GoldenEye: Rogue Agent (a clear cash in) and From Russia with Love were both critical and commercial failures.

I wish Crytek UK (former Free Radical Design and Rare personel who were key in the making of the TimeSplitters FPS series, Perfect Dark for N64, and GoldenEye 007) would be contracted somehow. A deal between Activision and Crytek.

Activision has done a decent job, better than EA, but so far their games haven't been very unique. Too similar to Call of Duty.

#24 Chief of SIS

Chief of SIS

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 921 posts

Posted 16 January 2011 - 02:47 AM

It's good to analyse this topic a little more since we have a few more titles in our hands, however I think it's more like I miss (or wish there were at all) really good video games based off franchises. I think QoS and Blood Stone are equal caliber to the stuff EA shoveled at us.

#25 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 05 April 2011 - 11:40 AM

GoldenEye Wii is better than anything EA ever released.

#26 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:28 PM

You know guys, I went yesterday thru the old 007ea.com site with archive.org and I remembered how good their games were. I mean, they weren't perfect, but I felt Bond when playing... The Bond moments, using the jetpack and the DB5, driving a car with gadgets... that was wonderful. So far I can say all I've enjoyed from Activision was the fact they released the Bond games for PC.