48 replies to this topic

[double0kevin]

the best bond game was goldeneye right? right, so you no that saying if it aint broke dont fix it? ye well EA dont like that saying. here's why!

[BONDFINESSE 007]

thats good news, thanks for the heads up on that

[Tanger]

Aw! You beat me to it Kev!
I saw this on MI6 earlier but didn't get round to posting about it here.

A very bad decision imo. Unless the add something so great that'd make me want to get it again.

[PaulZ108]

If they let Free Radical at it I'd be interested, but this just seems like a pathetic attempt to try and capture the GE success by copying it.

[Bond111]

Well I'm pretty excited about this. I think it has the potential of being a great game as long as they stay far away from the N64 game.

Although I would rather have it cover a Bond film that hasn't been transformed into video game format yet, I still like it better than having an original plot. Hopefully they will continue this trend of video games based on the movies.

[JackChase007]

Why don't they make a Die Another Day game? That would make a really awesome game...

[Qwerty]

Wow! I actually love the original game for all the little mistakes and lost things in it. (The island, beaker set in facility etc...) I'm very excited!

[SnakeEyes]

Nothing can top the origional.

This will fail, I can see it.

[brendan007]

I'm confused, are they remaking the N64 game for the playstation, or are they making a completely new game based on Goldeneye?

[double0kevin]

brendan007! there saying that there basing it on Goldenye so they could be remaking the n64 version. But they could also just be using the script and/or characters! either way I think it's a great move. [I hope]

[brendan007]

I think its silly, pick a movie that has no game

[Icephoenix]

I'm confused also. Why? I think Die Another Day would be a fantastic choice, and an original game. Why GoldeneEye? It's like playing the same plot all over again.

[JackChase007]

Of all the Bond games made in the 90s, I think the most in need of a remake would be Tomorrow Never Dies. I think that EA should fix their own mistakes before they go on and try to out-do Rare and Nintendo...

[Tanger]

Also Icephoenix, they've taken the hovercraft section out of EON so that makes me want a DAD game even more.

[IndyB007]

From http://www.cube-euro...ws.php?nid=6116

"Those of you hoping for an update of Rare's classic are going to be disappointed, however: this is NOT going to be a "GoldenEye: Directors cut" this will be an entirely new game developed by the in-house development studios in America."

I am looking forward too this game. Although I wouldn't mind a games on other movies, I hope this will be preatty shnazzy.

[Jimmy Blonde]

All I can say is...


[SIZE=14]NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO[SIZE=7]OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO[SIZE=1]OOOOOOOOOOOO[SIZE=14]!

[SIZE=1]Please, for the love of the world, say it ain't so.

EA Games.
Challenge gamer's opinion of graphical greatness and turgid gameplay.™

[Prav_007]

Why can't EA come up with something new, instead of remaking or reintroducing other characters from the past Bond films? Bringing Goldeneye back is a terrible idea, only shows their weakeness in not knowing what the fans want, so they bring back the old stuff...c'mon, stir up something new, I don't want to challenge Jaws anymore, cause he was in Goldeneye in N64, I believe in Agent Under, Nightfire, and soon Everything or Nothing, and probably in this remake. Same ol, no thrills. And Goldeneye which was a great game back in 97, won't certainly match up with this predicted remake. Its not like you can hire the original cast of GE. I say BOO....URNS!

[The Admiral]

My message to EA: Leave Goldeneye alone!

[Jimmy Blonde]

Let's change the subject, shall we?

Here's why I do not like EA games.

Note: Before I continue, I would like to express that I do buy EA games, however, I only do so when they have not developed the game. EA publish games too, for example, the upcoming TimeSplitters3 will be published by our 'friends' at EA. I will never ever EVER buy another EA-developed EA game. Period. DotCom. Ecetera. Ditto.

Electronic Arts is not a computer game company. Far from it. Sure, they manufacture games for sale in all our various countries, but do they develop games? Surely not.

Electronic Arts has an edge over most other smaller companies: since it is the biggest selling games company around (mainly due to cult followings of its FIFA and movie licence titles) it can afford the best computer systems utilising graphics.

So, EA have great graphics. I am free to admit, their digital Brosnan blows me away, in a similar way to all their official kits in FIFA and magnificent scope in their Lord Of The Rings games.

However, and this is the big HOWEVER, do EA have what it takes to master what it means to have good gameplay values?

Lets look at our recent James Bond titles. Take NightFire for instance. EA have come up with a few good concepts. Multiple ways around a level, the ability for Bond to take part in his famous driving sections, explosive helicopters in multiplayer.

But at the end of the day, these concepts are wasted.

Yeah, you can jump on the truck on the beginning of the snow level, and it will take you right up to the gate; or you could just go all-guns-blazing through several guards. You have the freedom of choice. But at the end of the day, aren't you just going the same way no matter what choice you make?

Now, lets just compare our good old friend GoldenEye (Rare, 1997) with our smelly new 'friend' Agent Under Fire (EA, 2002).

GOLDENEYE:

ENVIRONMENTS: Gritty, dark, realistic (for a 64-bit machine)
GUARD AI: Average. Not as good as Perfect Dark.
WEAPONS: Good looking, fired well, worked great with rumble pak.
MULTIPLAYER: One of the best multiplayer FPS's ever. The one that started it all.
OTHER: The way you were hit: the bullet that hit you was accompanied by a loud gasping noise, alongside the screen flashing white before your health bar came up. Also, the buttlets had stopping power - they temporarily slowed you down when you were hit. Realistic injuries at their best.

AGENT SHOULD RETIRE (and no, that is not a typo)

ENVIRONMENTS: Brightly lit, colourful, not so realistic (for machines that can cope with dynamic lighting, etc)
GUARD AI: Almost laughable, most noticably the 'bots' in Multiplayer that never run out of ammo, never get hit and know your exact position. When they come, you're as good as dead. Where's the fun in that?
WEAPONS: Average looking, average firing. Not too impressed.
MULTIPLAYER: Camel poo.
OTHER: Nothing good here. The driving sections were OK, but I was disappointed in the fact that EA think we're all idiots. Take the explosive barrel on the forklift in the first level. Not only does a cutscene kick in showing you it, but then 'Bond' (the guy who later lent his image to the XIII game, yes it is similar, isn't it?) thinks up a rubbish pun: "Mmmmm, fireworks"... Need I say more? The game later shows you 'flashing pad locks'. FLASHING BLOODY PADLOCKS??!!?? GO PLAY A BLOODY GAME FROM 19-BLOODY-97 AND FIND OUT HOW GAMES BLOODY SHOULD BE! Bloody!.

Sorry about that, got a bit carried away.

So, why does the biggest company make the rubbishest games? The answer is simple.

EA are not game designers. As a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with games at all. EA are merely a bunch of suited sneering men who gain a lot of money by buying licences that they know will sell. They employ game designers to make the games (surprisingly), but even they know that they don't need to make a brilliant game to make it sell.

A recent example of this is Medal Of Honor: Rising Sun. I have played it (last night in fact) and can say that it's even worse than Frontline. Yes, worse than it's predeccessor. How can this be? Well, simply consider that it was released at Christmas, and that's when a majority of little Johnnys wake up to find an EA game they've been waiting for in their stockings. However, it still needed a few glitches to be cleaned up, the AI to be refined, etc. But no. EA shipped the game on its promised release date. Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't ruch Everything or Nothing for Christmas.

Back to MOH:RS. The guns look terrible, the multiplayer's (wait for it...) camel poo, the entire game looks like its been soaked in brown dye. Now, although games are supposed to be dark and realistic (or is that my opinion?) this looks like cat turd on steroids. As I said before, even Frontline pleased me more.

Returning to my conversation about EA being businessmen, here is what they do.

1. Buy a licence. This could be sports (FIFA, NBA, etc.), film or TV (LOTR, Bond, Buffy, etc) or even music (Def Jam Vendetta). They know that there's a pre-existing market and fanbase available on these 'products'. They know that kids will want to buy their games to go with the films. This is a conversation I heard while in my local GAME store. Note, since I overheard it a few weeks ago, I may not remember it correctly, but it goes along these lines.

Boy1: Oh look, Lord of the Rings is out!

Boy2: Wicked! I heard you can play as Frodo and all the others!

Boy1: Whoa, the graphics look fantastic!

Boy2: I played a demo, it's great, there are hundreds of orcs.....

Boy1: Aw wow! 2 player Co-Op!

Boy2: I'm getting that game next week.

Boy1: So am I!

Then all I remember is them chatting about FIFA and how it wipes the floor with Pro Evolution Soccer. It does not. PES, as everyone may know, does not contain official team names (Manchester United - "Aragorn" from LOTR, anyone?) or kits, but it is still a far superior game. Where is it in the charts? About a hundred places below FIFA. What is wrong with this world?

2. After buying a licence, one must debate over what type of genre the game will be in. Will it be FPS (Bond games), beat-em-up (Buffy, LOTR)? EA decide. They then explain to their development team that they want (for example) a FPS Bond game to beat GoldenEye at its own game. Wise choice, sir...

3. After the development team finish the game (or if it gets too late) it is released in the shops for consumers to buy.

So, let me analyse my points again.

> EA buy licences because they know that without them, the game won't sell. (See Ty The Tasmanian Tiger)

> EA buy licences so that they have an excuse to poorly develop games with the best graphics because they have an existing fan base (See upcoming Catwoman).

> EA still believe (and so do several hundred people I know) that graphics are what sells the game.

> EA are nothing more than businessmen selling a product. They do not care of the final product, and probably don't even play them themselves.

> EA rush games before completion (most notable around Xmas).

To compare a good and bad company:

EA is a bad company. See points highlighted above.

Konami is a good company. Sure, not all their games have been corkers, but the Metal Gear series shows that Konami aren't just in it for the money. They enjoy playing games, adding humour, etc.

I hope I've made myself clear. Note that these are only my opinions. If you agree, you agree; if you don't, you don't.

Everyone's entitled to your own opinions at the end of the day. We're all only human, we all have different thoughts. Otherwise we'd just all be clones of the old man.

BTW, EA are camel poo who don't care about their markets. That's it.

EA Games™
Challenge Stupid Individuals Who Do Not Know What To Do With A Flashing Padlock Or A Bright Red Explosive Barrel So Give Them A Stupid Cutscene To Help Them.

[The Admiral]

Great post Jimmy Blonde.

I couldn't agree with you more.

The guys who used to work on Medal Of Honor have formed their own developing studios, Infinity Loop. I also believe their first game, Call of Duty (EXCELLENT GAME!) was published by Activision instead of EA. They must have got fed up with them as well.

It really would pay EA well to go out of their way to get all of the developers from Goldeneye and leave them totally to it (no interfering) to making a great game.

[The Admiral]

Or at least hire Jimmy Blonde or me to be a Consultant or something

[Qwerty]

I do hope it turns out well, by why mess witht something so grand?

Ah well, maybe , just maybe it will turn out okay.

[RevolveR]

This is something to be very excited about. Goldeneye for PS2 and XBox in 3rd person changes everything and it would not even be comparible to N64 Goldenye. Seeing a younger computer version of Brosnan would be very interesting. I think the game could be based more on teh movie and become another amazing adventure.

Tomorrow Never Dies should also be re-done but I don't think doing them both would work.

Die Another Die was just plain stupid and would be a terrible game.

N64 Goldeneye will always be the best ever, but hey lets give this a chance!

[Qwerty]

Tomorrow Never Dies should also be re-done but I don't think doing them both would work.

Yes, that could certainly need some work. A very minimal game in terms of enjoyment and interest, IMO.

[Tanger]

I've been thinking about all the cool new levels we'll get. You'll probably be able to do the cliff dive after the plane!

I hope this is in 3rd person. Then it will rock!
I'm looking forward to this the more I think about it!

[marktmurphy]

Are they just doing this because everyone knows GoldenEye is the best Bond game and they're hoping people will think it's EA's GoldenEye that everyone else is talking about? Sort of like if I rebadged a Renault as a Ferrari and hoped no-one would notice?

[CommanderBond]

i just wish they would make games on the movies from Dr.No - Die Another Day

[Qwerty]

I'd actualy be interested in seeing some updated games for certain Bond films as well, CB.

[RevolveR]

I like Commander Bond's idea! Imagine how great a "Thunderball" game could be with all of those under water levels!

[Qwerty]

That would be rather run RevolveR.

Personally, I think The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy would make excellent games.