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

007 in San Diego: Inside Blood Stone and GoldenEye


44 replies to this topic

#1 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:45 PM





#2 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:01 PM

Fantastic work guys! Some great new info there, like:

Because Activision is trying to capture the essence and tone of the Daniel Craig era, Q will be absent from both games as will the presence of his trademark gadgets.

Interesting! Might this mean no Q in Bond 23?

GoldenEye 007 for the Nintendo Wii and DS also features Rory Kinnear reprising his role as Chief of Staff Bill Tanner (we’re not sure if he also did voice work for Blood Stone).

...everyone was tight-lipped when asked if Tina Turner will return or whether there will be an entirely new song for the game.

Hmmm...wonder what that's all about.

Start of 5th paragraph seems to be missing info. I'm assuming you've confirmed that Quantum is NOT in the game?

Again, great work. I was dissapointed that there was nothing Bond at the Activsion booth on the Con floor, but I see Bond was indeed at Comic Con in a big way, you just had to be one of chosen. :)

#3 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:06 PM

Start of 5th paragraph seems to be missing info. I'm assuming you've confirmed that Quantum is NOT in the game?


Yes, my fault. Had a tag issue. :) It's fixed.

On the subject of Q, I took that to mean that they were just focusing on CR and QoS as Craig's Bond. I wouldn't read into that for Bond 23 especially when Craig and the others are signaling that he likely will.

#4 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:08 PM

Interesting also that the way they got around the legal issues is to say this is a remake of the movie and not the game. Explains why some key game levels are missing. Also interesting that they are well aware of the "stigma" of GoldenEye Rogue Agent.

#5 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:08 PM

"When asked how these issues were resolved, Senior Producer Brian Pass explained to us that the upcoming GoldenEye 007 is not a remake of the Nintendo game but an adaptation of the 1995 film, GoldenEye, for which Activision currently has the license."

That's such a clever way of getting around the legal issues concerning the game rights! :P

#6 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:10 PM


Start of 5th paragraph seems to be missing info. I'm assuming you've confirmed that Quantum is NOT in the game?


Yes, my fault. Had a tag issue. :) It's fixed.

On the subject of Q, I took that to mean that they were just focusing on CR and QoS as Craig's Bond. I wouldn't read into that for Bond 23 especially when Craig and the others are signaling that he likely will.

Your interpretation of the absence of Q is correct. They're basing these games on the Craig films released thus far because it would be impossible to use an actor for Q that has yet to be cast.

#7 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:10 PM

Be nice to have that sign.
Posted Image

#8 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:14 PM



Start of 5th paragraph seems to be missing info. I'm assuming you've confirmed that Quantum is NOT in the game?


Yes, my fault. Had a tag issue. :) It's fixed.

On the subject of Q, I took that to mean that they were just focusing on CR and QoS as Craig's Bond. I wouldn't read into that for Bond 23 especially when Craig and the others are signaling that he likely will.

Your interpretation of the absence of Q is correct. They're basing these games on the Craig films released thus far because it would be impossible to use an actor for Q that has yet to be cast.


One of the designers did mention in a recent interview for Blood Stone, that many gadgets would be making a return, but they would be realistic. :)

#9 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:34 PM

Sorry guys. It's good to get some hard facts - but I just can't get enthused about these games. No matter how much the makers profess to 'get Bond' during a PR event.

So there's no 'remake' about GoldenEye? Hmmm...what on earth could have persuaded them to adapt that particular film rather than one of the other 19 available? Anyone would think they wanted people to be confused by the title and spend nostalgia cash. Something which is only backed-up by the fact that the game's not actually properly adapting the GoldenEye movie, either. 'Reimagining' the characters? The bungee's dropped because it's no long 'hip'? Gimme a break.

Think they'd bother doing a Craig version of Moonraker? Not likely. It's all about the name.

'We're not really including the famous bits of the film. Nor are we remaking the game.' So it's GoldenEye in title only. Which is exactly the same crummy stunt EA tried with Rogue Agent. Which was A: nothing to do with the movie or original game, and B: formulaic, repetitive rubbish.

Still, not EA this time. Activision have a better rep, right? Oh, no, wait, they made the QoS game: Review of that flimsy tie-in.

Disappointed that Craig's taken the dough, to be honest. I was hoping he's draw a line in the sand and not put up for his likeness being slapped on the gaming equivalent of a cheap plastic lunchbox. Sure, Quantum of Solace might have been a decent game...but when it turned out not to be (nothing clever to add? Chuck in another dozen henchmen and throw in a helicopter!) it was probably time to tell Activision where to go.

Place your bets now for rocket launchers, helicopters, generic henchmen, mediocre AI, repetitive action, flimsy cut-scenes and a total lack of originality now.

I mean, I'll hope. We all hope. Maybe the last team will have been fired and the new guys are knockout talents with loads to prove. But so far it sounds like dreck to me.

#10 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:52 PM

'We're not really including the famous bits of the film. Nor are we remaking the game.' So it's GoldenEye in title only. Which is exactly the same crummy stunt EA tried with Rogue Agent. Which was A: nothing to do with the movie or original game, and B: formulaic, repetitive rubbish.


I think you've misunderstood what Chris and I said in the article. The game's story is essentially a reinterpretation of the classic "GoldenEye" film. All the classic characters (minus Boris, sadly) are back, though I have to believe that they play similar but not precise parts as in the film. The locations are pretty much the same (although apparently France has been replaced with Dubai) and the Cold War backdrop has been replaced with a more contemporary setting, something involving the global financial crisis.

#11 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:08 PM


'We're not really including the famous bits of the film. Nor are we remaking the game.' So it's GoldenEye in title only. Which is exactly the same crummy stunt EA tried with Rogue Agent. Which was A: nothing to do with the movie or original game, and B: formulaic, repetitive rubbish.


I think you've misunderstood what Chris and I said in the article. The game's story is essentially a reinterpretation of the classic "GoldenEye" film. All the classic characters (minus Boris, sadly) are back, though I have to believe that they play similar but not precise parts as in the film. The locations are pretty much the same (although apparently France has been replaced with Dubai) and the Cold War backdrop has been replaced with a more contemporary setting, something involving the global financial crisis.


No no, I understood. It's just that - for me - the cold war is entirely intrinsic to the GoldenEye story. 006's history, loads of the imagery and settings. St Petersberg's place in the movie has resonance because of it.

Plus, frankly, when it comes to characters in Bond movies, the casting *is* the character. Especially when you're trying to evoke the same feel in other audio-video media. Remove that and...well, is it really still Xenia without Janssen? Sean Bean is Trevelyan, isn't he? Removing the specifics leaves you with...well, Never Say Never Again. Sure, Bahamas, Largo, Domino. But it ain't Thunderball and you shouldn't call it such.

It won't feel like the movie. It won't feel like the old game. And yet, blatantly, it's a market-research-led choice trying to cash in on the latter while vaguely behaving like the former. The confusion is deliberate and mercenary. The removals intrinsic to what made the GoldenEye movie what it was. 'Reinterpretation' is another way of saying 'excuse to use the name'. Just enough of GoldenEye to get away with it.

Frankly, I think you guys kinda swallowed the company line. "just remember that James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan in the Nintendo 64 original!". Um, yes he did. After one mediocre game and a few professions to being fans, I'm not sure they deserved such an all-promotion piece that didn't at least balance with some of the critical aspects.

Edited by sorking, 27 July 2010 - 07:11 PM.


#12 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:12 PM



'We're not really including the famous bits of the film. Nor are we remaking the game.' So it's GoldenEye in title only. Which is exactly the same crummy stunt EA tried with Rogue Agent. Which was A: nothing to do with the movie or original game, and B: formulaic, repetitive rubbish.


I think you've misunderstood what Chris and I said in the article. The game's story is essentially a reinterpretation of the classic "GoldenEye" film. All the classic characters (minus Boris, sadly) are back, though I have to believe that they play similar but not precise parts as in the film. The locations are pretty much the same (although apparently France has been replaced with Dubai) and the Cold War backdrop has been replaced with a more contemporary setting, something involving the global financial crisis.


Frankly, I think you guys kinda swallowed the company line. "just remember that James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan in the Nintendo 64 original!". Um, yes he did. After one mediocre game and a few professions to being fans, I'm not sure they deserved such an all-promotion piece that didn't at least balance with some of the critical aspects.

That image is from promotional material, not the game itself. The actual in-game James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan although Pierce Brosnan's image was on all the promotional artwork.

#13 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:15 PM

That image is from promotional material, not the game itself. The actual in-game James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan although Pierce Brosnan's image was on all the promotional artwork.


Quite right. All I see is the typical 90s "shadow" Bond. (GoldenEye) For being based on Brosnan, this fella looks about as much like Brosnan as the Bond from Agent Under Fire who wasn't based on Brosnan.

#14 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:19 PM


That image is from promotional material, not the game itself. The actual in-game James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan although Pierce Brosnan's image was on all the promotional artwork.


Quite right. All I see is the typical 90s "shadow" Bond. (GoldenEye) For being based on Brosnan, this fella looks about as much like Brosnan as the Bond from Agent Under Fire who wasn't based on Brosnan.

I don't know about this. I was JUST watching some people playing the original N64 game and, hey, it was Brosnan. Maybe you never see his face up close, but his hair and build, it's clearly supposed to be PB. He's also wearing the GE tux. Love that the Bond avatar is wearing a tux, btw. I mean, that's James Bond. Someone get that nasty jacket off Daniel already.

#15 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:23 PM

Agreed. I think the GoldenEye '64 Bond is supposed to be Brosnan. The menu even has a picture of Brosnans Bond in his classic action pose.

#16 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:24 PM

The GoldenEye 64 James Bond is supposed to be Pierce Brosnan but they didn't have the technology back then to make it look like him à la Everything or Nothing. That's what I've been trying to say.

Next somebody is going to try to convince me that the James Bond stick figure in The Duel for Sega Genesis looks exactly like Timothy Dalton. :rolleyes: :P

#17 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:41 PM

The GoldenEye 64 James Bond is supposed to be Pierce Brosnan but they didn't have the technology back then to make it look like him à la Everything or Nothing. That's what I've been trying to say.



I understand what you're trying to say. It kinda looked like Brosnan, but It wasn't as good as Everything or Nothing, I'll give you that. It doesn't really matter if it looks like Brosnan or not, because at the end of the day, it's a first person shooter. You only see Bonds face for a few seconds, anyway.

#18 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:43 PM

I don't know about this. I was JUST watching some people playing the original N64 game and, hey, it was Brosnan. Maybe you never see his face up close, but his hair and build, it's clearly supposed to be PB. He's also wearing the GE tux. Love that the Bond avatar is wearing a tux, btw. I mean, that's James Bond. Someone get that nasty jacket off Daniel already.


We never said it wasn't supposed to be Brosnan. We would never attempt to make that case.

#19 Problem Eliminator

Problem Eliminator

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 09:10 PM

Removing the specifics leaves you with...well, Never Say Never Again. Sure, Bahamas, Largo, Domino. But it ain't Thunderball and you shouldn't call it such.

It won't feel like the movie. It won't feel like the old game. And yet, blatantly, it's a market-research-led choice trying to cash in on the latter while vaguely behaving like the former. The confusion is deliberate and mercenary. The removals intrinsic to what made the GoldenEye movie what it was. 'Reinterpretation' is another way of saying 'excuse to use the name'. Just enough of GoldenEye to get away with it.


:tup: BINGO!

Couldn't have said it better myself. Obviously it's unfair to totally trash a game none of us has played and I'll of course hold out hope that it turns out to be passable fun, but at this stage it seems exactly as you observe. Well put Sork!

#20 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 July 2010 - 09:17 PM

The GoldenEye 64 James Bond is supposed to be Pierce Brosnan but they didn't have the technology back then to make it look like him à la Everything or Nothing. That's what I've been trying to say.


The sprite had his face on: looked like Brosnan to me at the time.

#21 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 28 July 2010 - 03:57 AM

If you think both of these characters clearly look like Pierce Brosnan then you must give me the name of your oculist. They're both supposed to be Brosnan but only one is an accurate likeness.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#22 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:20 AM

Thing is, it's supposed to be Brosnan - and the game uses his picture not only in publicity, but also in the in-game menus. The limitation is strictly technical, and Brosnan will have been paid for use of his image.

Now, the CBn article says this:

For instance, 006 now looks more like Carter from the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale than Sean Bean. Some hardcore fans of the film may be put off by these slight differences in appearance and role, but just remember that James Bond looked nothing like Pierce Brosnan in the Nintendo 64 original!


Now, that's not a fair argument. "This game doesn't match actor likeness out of choice, which is fine because older consoles struggled with actor likenesses." Huh?

N64's GoldenEye tried to make the game match the movie likenesses. It was limited by the tech. This new game - 'FauxdenEye' if you will - isn't trying. No attempt is being made to match the characters' looks, none of the original actors have been paid for likeness use or voice work. If you genuinely think that doesn't matter, fair enough. If you think casting is irrelevant to a character's identity, okay. That argument can be made, even though I personally don't think it holds water for licensed current-gen gaming.

But suggesting that Activision's creative/financial choice is the same as Rare's struggles with the technology is nonsense.

Next somebody is going to try to convince me that the James Bond stick figure in The Duel for Sega Genesis looks exactly like Timothy Dalton.


And here's the thing - that example is, obviously, ridiculous, but it's exactly the same logic as the one used in the article. Because it's technically impossible for an old-gen figure to look like the actor, you're saying it doesn't matter what actors the new game emulates. It doesn't make any logical or critical sense...and makes the article seem like biased excuse-making.

Edited by sorking, 28 July 2010 - 09:25 AM.


#23 larrythefatcat

larrythefatcat

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Bark twice if you're in Milwaukee!

Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:04 PM

I must say that the Bond in Goldeneye 64 is definitely Brosnan... the texture map for the head was taken from a photo of PB just like the previous Bonds (accessed via the 'All Bonds' Gameshark code) that also look nothing like their actual human counterparts.


Personally I'm more intrigued by the fact that the theme song for GE is being kept under wraps. I'm just afraid that it's not what I'm hoping it will be: the theme song from the film being performed by the writers... Bono and The Edge A.K.A. U2! That would be pretty epic. Who knows, maybe David Arnold was able to talk them into it.

#24 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 28 July 2010 - 06:23 PM

Thing is, it's supposed to be Brosnan - and the game uses his picture not only in publicity, but also in the in-game menus. The limitation is strictly technical, and Brosnan will have been paid for use of his image.


You're absolutely missing his point. You even acknowledge it right here and then go off in a completely different direction. It is a technical limitation. That's the point. It kinda sorta looks like Brosnan. Yes, it's supposed to look like him, yes his likeness is used elsewhere, but due to the technical limitation it kinda sorta doesn't look like him too. That's just how it goes and that's all he was pointing out. So much in this article and you all gravitate to this one line. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Personally I'm more intrigued by the fact that the theme song for GE is being kept under wraps. I'm just afraid that it's not what I'm hoping it will be: the theme song from the film being performed by the writers... Bono and The Edge A.K.A. U2! That would be pretty epic. Who knows, maybe David Arnold was able to talk them into it.


I suspect if they had someone like U2 they would have announced it by now. That was the first thing we heard about concerning Blood Stone. Maybe it's still a work in progress or they're holding it back to announce later. Maybe there isn't a title sequence. The original GoldenEye didn't have one.

#25 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2010 - 10:48 PM


Thing is, it's supposed to be Brosnan - and the game uses his picture not only in publicity, but also in the in-game menus. The limitation is strictly technical, and Brosnan will have been paid for use of his image.


You're absolutely missing his point. You even acknowledge it right here and then go off in a completely different direction. It is a technical limitation. That's the point. It kinda sorta looks like Brosnan. Yes, it's supposed to look like him, yes his likeness is used elsewhere, but due to the technical limitation it kinda sorta doesn't look like him too. That's just how it goes and that's all he was pointing out. So much in this article and you all gravitate to this one line. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.


Sorry, but "it doesn't look like Brosnan" was the second half of a bigger statement, not the entire line. I'm not missing the point, I'm taking the writers' words in context. That's not "all he was pointing out", not if you read the entire line.

While I agree that it was only a quick example that's been kicked back and forth a little much - though it's not like that's been a one-sided discussion - the example not was just a statement about the old game. It's a comparison to the new one. And, in its unquestioning defence, is representative of a bias in the piece. Which is, of course, how it was used in the first place. As a simple example.

My discomfort centres around uneven comparison - a current creative issue justified by an old technical one. Try it this way:

"GoldenEye for Wii will be in black and white only, but for those who don't like the sound of that, remember TVs used to only be available in black and white."

Is the only point of that sentence that old TVs didn't used to show colour images?

Edited by sorking, 28 July 2010 - 10:50 PM.


#26 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 July 2010 - 11:06 PM

I forgot how outstanding the character model for EoN was. That really does look just like him. Shame that outfit didn't make the final cut for the game, it's much cooler looking than the stealth outfit in the final version.

Both Bloodstone and Goldeneye are going to rock socks. Does it really matter what actor is portrayed digitally? Aren't we just supposed to like the fact that it's a character named James Bond?

#27 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:17 AM



Thing is, it's supposed to be Brosnan - and the game uses his picture not only in publicity, but also in the in-game menus. The limitation is strictly technical, and Brosnan will have been paid for use of his image.


You're absolutely missing his point. You even acknowledge it right here and then go off in a completely different direction. It is a technical limitation. That's the point. It kinda sorta looks like Brosnan. Yes, it's supposed to look like him, yes his likeness is used elsewhere, but due to the technical limitation it kinda sorta doesn't look like him too. That's just how it goes and that's all he was pointing out. So much in this article and you all gravitate to this one line. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.


Sorry, but "it doesn't look like Brosnan" was the second half of a bigger statement, not the entire line. I'm not missing the point, I'm taking the writers' words in context. That's not "all he was pointing out", not if you read the entire line.

While I agree that it was only a quick example that's been kicked back and forth a little much - though it's not like that's been a one-sided discussion - the example not was just a statement about the old game. It's a comparison to the new one. And, in its unquestioning defence, is representative of a bias in the piece. Which is, of course, how it was used in the first place. As a simple example.

My discomfort centres around uneven comparison - a current creative issue justified by an old technical one. Try it this way:

"GoldenEye for Wii will be in black and white only, but for those who don't like the sound of that, remember TVs used to only be available in black and white."

Is the only point of that sentence that old TVs didn't used to show colour images?

I authored the line in question and it's not going to be changed so either you can continue beating a dead horse or we can move on. I'd prefer the latter because there are much more interesting parts of the article to discuss.

#28 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:36 PM

I authored the line in question and it's not going to be changed so either you can continue beating a dead horse or we can move on. I'd prefer the latter because there are much more interesting parts of the article to discuss.


How rude! I never asked for the line to be changed - don't think anyone came close to suggesting any such thing. I was, in the post you quoted, merely responding to the suggestion that I had 'missed the point'. That's about my text, not yours, and I don't think it's unreasonable to respond.

So I call bad form on the dead horse-flogging comment. I'd happily direct your attention to my original post which was about far more than the likeness line - that was the aspect which you yourself chose to focus on, rather than debate any of the other issues raised. It's a little unfair to ignore the actual 'unbalanced comparison' point being made, post twice to the discussion anyway, and then blame others for keeping the subject alive.

But yes, plenty more to discuss, I entirely agree. Let's do so. Good to have solid new facts, great that CBn got in there to get them, bad that so many are disappointing news for lovers of the prior GoldenEye game or movie, and indeed for those hoping that QoS was a gaming error not to be repeated.

the producer answered that GoldenEye 007 is by far the most recognizable first-person shooter of all time, evident by countless focus groups which all but unanimously concluded that the game was their favorite.


Which explains why they've put footage of those groups on the front of the trailer. It lets those who only catch the trails and box art - far more than read articles and reviews - be mislead. It seriously implies that what you're going to get here is related to the GoldenEye game, be some kind of updated remake. To have the fact that this is not a remake of the game uncovered is important, but it's sadly not great news. And it makes Activision look crass for implying things about the game that aren't true.

However, the game’s namesake isn’t a guaranteed goldmine. The 2004 Electronic Arts-produced GoldenEye: Rogue Agent, which bore little to no similarity to the Nintendo 64 original was largely rejected by fans


Does anyone have any facts on this? It's a fan reject for sure...but I thought it sold pretty well. Sadly I don't have reliable figures to hand, though, so if it didn't turn a profit then this is certainly accurate.

The game’s display menus all feature design cues based on MK12’s computer/cell phone graphics and M’s revolutionary “Smart Wall” introduced in Quantum of Solace.


I hope this doesn't mean that they're cutting corners of story and cost as it did with the QoS game. Character-based cut-scenes were, in all but rare cases, left out in favour of the GUI crassly zipping through story points - often in a way that would leave the plot senseless if you didn't know the films well. (Though the worst example was "they're falling from the plane!" The cheapest, least exciting way to render an action scene I've ever seen.)

We were told that the bungee sequence from the original film was eschewed because it was more or less a product of its time when bungee jumping was still a popular sport.


This strikes me as a ridiculous reason. That moment still gets gasps when you show it. (But then calling a gadget-laden wristwatch 'antiquated' makes little sense to me either.) Not sure anyone sees that stunt and thinks "Man, bungee stuff was, like, soooo 15 years ago." But then, it's only a cut-scene at that point anyway - are people more excited about not controlling Bond free fall than they are not controlling Bond bungee? Even though not bouncing back up made the whole thing pretty un-bungee in the first place?

I will say this: it's iconic to the GoldenEye movie. As such, it may well be part of the bigger cull of things that make the game feel like the film. The Cold War settings and themes, the total recasting, etc.

So, how about Blood Stone?

What ensues is a non-stop, wall-to-wall action sequence that follows Bond from air, to sea and finally, to land.


Watching this video I couldn't shake the feeling of how flat and generic the whole thing felt. Graphically it seemed dated - though maybe that's just the web video, and the lighting and textures will be better by time of release - and the action seems a long way from the kind of immediate-feeling, unique style one gets from the best FPS games these days. Zero tension, too. Not sure we won't be getting the same, predictable enemy AI, either.

an envoy from the G-20 Summit clad in sexy lingerie and writhing in delight after what was certainly an unforgettable roll in bed with 007.


I tend to be quite a defender of the Brosnan era and its underrated writers. But boy does this ever feel like it's pulling from the 'make it feel like Rog' playbook.

We were told that Daniel Craig enjoys doing these games


Income versus time spent? I'll bet he does...

all of them are truly passionate about giving fans quality James Bond video games.


Which makes you wonder what happened with the last game...

Edited by sorking, 29 July 2010 - 11:43 PM.


#29 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

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

Posted 30 July 2010 - 02:34 AM

However, the game’s namesake isn’t a guaranteed goldmine. The 2004 Electronic Arts-produced GoldenEye: Rogue Agent, which bore little to no similarity to the Nintendo 64 original was largely rejected by fans


Does anyone have any facts on this? It's a fan reject for sure...but I thought it sold pretty well. Sadly I don't have reliable figures to hand, though, so if it didn't turn a profit then this is certainly accurate.


Rogue Agent sold pretty poorly. It possibly didn't even sell a million. For whatever reason the entire Bond brand (gaming wise) tanked after Everything or Nothing. From Russia with Love also sold very poorly - worse than Rogue Agent supposedly. For comparison, both Agent Under Fire and NightFire sold something like 4 million (perhaps more), but well under GoldenEye's 8. Everything or Nothing sold something like 3-4 million.

I'm gonna bet on Quantum probably selling about 3 million or so.

#30 terminus

terminus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Location:Manchester, UK

Posted 30 July 2010 - 02:53 AM

I bought both Agent Under Fire and EON, but not Rogue Agent or FRWL - but fully intend to buy both Goldeneye 2010 and Bloodstone (should I aquire a PS3 for chrimbo)