78 replies to this topic

[YouKnowTheName]

Since gamefaqs doesn't seem to be taking reviews for this game until it is out in the US, I'll have to vent my anger on this board in my big List of Disapointments.

- There is seriously, absolutely NOTHING to this game besides shooting and hiding, which gets really monotonous. Even the parts where they've really had to butcher the film (Casino Royale, Train, Science centre) to get some action in, where some kind of following or stealth level would have been much better.

- The game is Casino Royale, not Quantum of Solace. Fair enough, CR is the slightly better film. But having just seen QOS and wanting to play through all those great scenes... tough. The game also claims to "put you in control of Bond's greatest weapon - his mind" No. You just shoot stuff for about two hours. Then its the end.

- INCREDIBLY short. Only 15 levels, all of which are about 5-10 min long (more like 1 min for Casino Poison). The whole game is about two thirds the length of GoldenEye. What were they thinking?!

- Yes, its easy to die, but when you die you just go back a little way, so death means nothing.

- The Big One. The plots of both movies have been completely ruined. Why? Almost all the cut scenes are those stupid computer screen sections! Its just looking at data while people talk about the interesting things Bond is doing. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYING IT! THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF A GAME!! The great freefall sequence in QOS? In the game, you look at a big dot representing a plane. Two little dots jump out and Tanner says something like "They've jumped...The parachute has opened...They've landed". Halfway through the crane chase- cut to black. More randon cluuters the screen. Tanner "Bond has entered the emabassy. Shot Mollaka" ect. You never get to play the good bits of the films, just hear about them. You never get to BE BOND. Just join him when he goes for some shooting in between doing interesting things.

This has to be one of the most game-breakingly, offensively LAZY cop-outs I've ever seen in a videogame. Completely ruined the experience, and doesn't really let you live either film.

There are many things the game does well, but I'll come to those later.

[sorking]

I couldn't agree more. The few virtues are completely outweighed by the points you mention. Utterly disappointing.

[sharpshooter]

I'm sad you two feel this way. I've yet to play it, but I had high hopes for this one.

[YouKnowTheName]

I had high hopes. The highest. It just made it that harder a blow.

To lighten things up, here are the good points.

- The game is gorgeous. Not the best, but constantly beautiful.

- While the game does nothing but shooting, it does it very well. The aiming is as smooth and fluid as GoldenEye, the guns are varied and great, and the enemies all react realistically and very satisfyingly. It IS a fun game, just a waste of the license. Its not the Bond game we all wanted, but I have finished it twice and will probably play it again before the week is out. (although it is so short that you can't play it for more than an hour or so without finishing it).

- Also like GoldenEye, the guns are varied and useful, and a joy to use.

- Yes, QOS steals its every idea from another game, but it steals from good games, and uses the ideas well. The gameplay really is great, there's just not enough to cover a game. Its like the perfected the action elements of the game and couldn't be bothered to put in anything else, so they just released it. But the action is very good.

- Multiplayer is good fun.

So, its not all bad, and exceeds most of EAs Bond games, beaten only by EAs best, NightFire. But the only reason it doesn't blow GoldenEye away is lazy, stupid development decisions and a fear of doing anything new, and thats what makes it hurt.

I think I'll go and finish it a third time.

Edited by YouKnowTheName, 04 November 2008 - 12:03 AM.

[Sharpe]

I think the only real dissapointed with the game (for me) is that it is so damn short.

It's not worth the money for a game that only lasts a few hours. How much more effort would it have taken to make the levels bigger, or have more of them.

[sharpshooter]

I think the only real dissapointed with the game (for me) is that it is so damn short.

What difficulty setting do you have it on?

If it is on easy, I expect you would breeze through it a lot quicker. Surely the game would be longer, and obviously harder, if you increased the difficulty setting.

[stamper]

It's short because QOS is short. They aimed for the same feeling.

[bonds_walther]

There are lots of good opportunities missed with this game, such as certain parts of both films that would have made great levels.

[Sharpe]

It's short because QOS is short. They aimed for the same feeling.

That makes no difference. Also, half the game is CR!!! So where's the logic there?
Games need to be much longer than a movie..otherwise, why not charge the same money for a game than a DVD?

As for difficulty - I have it on 2nd hardest. If I was playing it on easy this game would take half as long to finish.

And yes, it boggles the mind why they left some parts out; e.g. the whole embassy bit in CR is cut out - maybe they didn't want you killing lots of innocents in the embassy...but i'm sure they could have worked it someway into the game design to make it have sense.

Also, the first two 'kills' from CR to make him a 00 agent would have worked wonderfully too.

Edited by Sharpe, 04 November 2008 - 09:41 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

"- There is seriously, absolutely NOTHING to this game besides shooting and hiding, which gets really monotonous. Even the parts where they've really had to butcher the film (Casino Royale, Train, Science centre) to get some action in, where some kind of following or stealth level would have been much better."


Actually, there are many different ways to go about completing a level. It might be just a shooting game for you, if you go in all guns blazing. BUT I've been told that they are many routes to choose from in any of the levels.

[sorking]

Actually, there are many different ways to go about completing a level. It might be just a shooting game for you, if you go in all guns blazing. BUT I've been told that they are many routes to choose from in any of the levels.

There aren't. Whoever told you that was exaggerating. (Nice word for 'lying'.)

The game is so linear you'll never actually need the map and security camera features available. Just follow the directions on your HUD - there's nowhere else to explore. I found a couple of un-used closets. That's it.

Also, for a game based on QoS, only four levels of the fifteen are based on that movie. One of the CR levels is literally running to your car for less than two minutes - no strategy, no gunning. The game's shot for the same reason there are almost no properly rendered cut scenes, an almost total avoidance of lip-synch (even in the game itself you hear Craig speaking but his mouth never moves), and entire chunks - such as the end of the free-running chase in the embassy - missing: it's a rushed and lazy product.

Everything Or Nothing was significantly better. I left this game expecting a caption to pop up explaining how to download the full game!

Edited by sorking, 04 November 2008 - 11:13 AM.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Yep, I've read a few reviews in other publications and they seem to agree with the sentiments in this topic. I will not be purchasing QoS.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 04 November 2008 - 12:30 PM.

[sharpshooter]

I'm not put off. I haven't bought a PS3 game in ages, and what better than a Bond game to break that drought. Sure, it may have some downsides, but so did some of EA's efforts, and I found redeeming features with those games.

[YouKnowTheName]

To be fair, like I said, what there is here is good fun. The shooting really IS well executed. Its just the lack material and butchery of the story. Cutting the whole Embassy section from the crane chase was inexcusable, especially since that level was actually good, but then going into multiplayer and finding the whole embassy recreated flawlessly as a map was just rubbing salt it the wound. They ACTUALLY made it, and just didn't put it in!

Its also the same with the Miami Airport scene. I had hoped to be following the bomber through the crowd (like the Mardi Gras level of Hitman 4) before a climatic showdown on the tarmac. What I got was a repetitive shootout through some grey rooms. And then I find the whole airport concourse as a multiplayer map! WTF!?!

But length aside, it is the filing to capture the story that hurts most. The plot zips back and fourth to the point where it's impossible to get any through line or feel any progression as Bond, and when after 3 levels and about half an hours play the plot suddenly skips ahead and cuts out almost the entirety of QOS I almost cried.

It looks like Activision were only given some concept art and script pages from QOS to work from.

[sorking]

To be fair, like I said, what there is here is good fun. The shooting really IS well executed. Its just the lack material and butchery of the story. Cutting the whole Embassy section from the crane chase was inexcusable, especially since that level was actually good, but then going into multiplayer and finding the whole embassy recreated flawlessly as a map was just rubbing salt it the wound. They ACTUALLY made it, and just didn't put it in!

Its also the same with the Miami Airport scene. I had hoped to be following the bomber through the crowd (like the Mardi Gras level of Hitman 4) before a climatic showdown on the tarmac. What I got was a repetitive shootout through some grey rooms. And then I find the whole airport concourse as a multiplayer map! WTF!?!

But length aside, it is the filing to capture the story that hurts most. The plot zips back and fourth to the point where it's impossible to get any through line or feel any progression as Bond, and when after 3 levels and about half an hours play the plot suddenly skips ahead and cuts out almost the entirety of QOS I almost cried.

It looks like Activision were only given some concept art and script pages from QOS to work from.

It's always tough for makers to put their game together at the same time as a film is in production - things change constantly on-set and you make levels or cut-scenes that end up dropped or massively altered.

But in this case they did, at least, have Casino Royale on DVD to work from. No wonder those levels make up the bulk of the game...and disappointing to find they're equally short levels with equally repetitive gameplay and an equal disregard for basic storytelling.

The multiplayer maps (which I've yet to mess with, not being an online gamer) suggest that levels were planned for those areas and then simply dropped. The Embassy, in particular, surely must have been intended - why chase a guy through two sections only to stop suddenly and add a voiceover saying he's been shot by Bond?

For all their talk of visiting the set of CR, it seems that was a courtesy visit for a bidding game label - they blatantly didn't start work on this game until very, very late. In three months' time we'll see an announcement of the next game, and then interviews will start coming out along the lines of "We didn't have time with the last game to do what we wanted, THIS time we're going to make sure it's all in there..."

It's not a wholly awful piece of work. There are many redeeming features - it's not glitchy (though I did get trapped on a piece of scenery and unable to move at one point), and the graphics are capable enough. But there's so little variety, all the guns are bog-standard, the AI's primitive and the storytelling is disastrous.

Wait six months, it'll be available cheap - there are going to be a lot of second-hand copies around. Pay less, have fun with it for the four hours of playtime, and feel better that you didn't pay 50 quid.

Edited by sorking, 04 November 2008 - 05:02 PM.

[FlemingBond]

It seems like so many games turn out disappointing.

[YouKnowTheName]

I do feel a bit silly for buying this on the same day Fallout 3 came out. And that game was £5 pound cheaper! Being a license whore isn't easy sometimes...

One thing i will say about the game is that it IS addictive. I keep going back and playing it again. I've finished it on every difficulty but 007, which is actually MORE fun, since it gives a genuine survival element. Overall, this is one of the best Bond games, but that is hardly praise. It is definitely one of the most fun, in short bursts, and way ahead of dross like EON and FRWL. But still... it could have been so much more, in every way...

[sorking]

One thing i will say about the game is that it IS addictive. I keep going back and playing it again. I've finished it on every difficulty but 007, which is actually MORE fun, since it gives a genuine survival element.

It's a bit simplistic - you take injury easier so die from fewer bullets, there's not a lot of nuance to that - but I agree, it does make you take the whole game a little slower. It encourages some more stealth, too, which doesn't hurt. I just went through the Opera section on 007 difficulty and played things a great deal more carefully.

Overall, this is one of the best Bond games, but that is hardly praise. It is definitely one of the most fun, in short bursts, and way ahead of dross like EON and FRWL. But still... it could have been so much more, in every way...

I'm surprised to read that about EoN - I thought that worked really hard to push for variety, for something cinematic. It's a 'TSWLM' Bond, but at least it's got scale and volume, as well as, in fact, a proper through-line story. (Which is played out by seeing the characters talk to each other properly, in cut-scenes with lip-synch and everything. Are you listening, Activision?!)

EoN's flawed, but it's my entry for best post-GoldenEye Bond game by a country mile.

[Chief of SIS]

I picked up the game today and I've only played multiplayer and i must say I enjoy it. It's very simple but there is something to it I like. Maybe because of the COD4 plus bond feel that's geared to a lighter gamer. It's fun to pick up and play however, im not touching one player until the 14th until I've seen the movie and I hear that the game is short but im happy to know there is something to go to after. Not perfect but good, very good.

Edited by Chief of SIS, 05 November 2008 - 03:00 AM.

[Bondian]

This is really going to urinate off my son. The bastards only nine, and has completed more games than I've 'done it' with his mother.

This is a very sad time for us father's who have to purchase these games knowing that they'll become obsolete before we've realised that we've been conned into buying the damn thing in the first place.

FRWL was a superb game IMHO. Tis one of the only games he will not play with me because I kick his backside, and he thinks it's an old farts game because Connery is in it.

If this is what we're going to get by having a game per year. I think I'll save my money and get him to sleep at night so I can spend more time gaming with Carol.

[sharpshooter]

To those that have this game, are there any classic Bond characters featured as bots in multi-player? How many can you add at one time?

[Sharpe]

To those that have this game, are there any classic Bond characters featured as bots in multi-player? How many can you add at one time?

As far as I know, there are no bots.

There are also no classic characters at all.

[YouKnowTheName]

There are no characters at all in MP. Everyone either plays as a balaclava-wearing terrorist or a black clad soldier. (except in Bond Vs and Bond evasion, where one player gets to play as Bond per turn). Also, as of writing, I can't get perks to work. Can anyone help?

Also, about why I think this game is better than EON: EON did do more, but didn't do anything WELL. The shooting mechanics are completely broken and are no fun, the driving is too slippery and that only leaves on-rails sections. It is a game that stumbles drunkenly back from one gameplay type to another in a desperate bid to be good at something, and ultimately fails all round. Yes, it has a linear story, but it is exceptionally bad, with little or no grasp of the Bond concept beyond Roger Moore movies.

QOS may only really do shoting action, but does it really well. As well as GoldenEye in my opinion. Now it fails for all the other reasons I've outlined here, but at the end of the day I'd rather play a short good game than a bloated bad one.

Also, I disagree with Bond in third person. The whole idea is that you get to BE Bond, not just watch him. NightFire (which I vastly prefer to EON) gave me that pleasure and EON took it away, which effectively killed the whole game for me. QOS nails it. I'm in first person enough to feel like Bond, and I see him enough to get a sense of him within the world. Its flawless in this regard, mainly because it steals from better games like a champ, but still....

I'll review it properly as soon as gamefaqs will let me.

In the meantime, heres my EON review for anyone who wants to read it:

http://www.gamefaqs....iew/R98364.html

WARNING: Typos.

Edited by YouKnowTheName, 05 November 2008 - 11:55 AM.

[sharpshooter]

No classic Bond bots at all in multiplayer? What a letdown.

[sorking]

Also, about why I think this game is better than EON: EON did do more, but didn't do anything WELL. The shooting mechanics are completely broken and are no fun, the driving is too slippery and that only leaves on-rails sections.

This is odd, because I found the shooting mechanics to be very smooth, and the driving only slippery when it was appropriate to be (i.e. zipping around at 120 miles an hour). But yeah, I liked the targetting system.

Which, I guess, is the whole ball game. Don't like that, you're pretty much scuppered!

As to first-person-ness: I don't have a fixed idea of what a Bond game has to be. After two mediocre FPSs (and Rogue Agent, ugh, still to come at that point), I was glad to see some attempt to go further. Frankly, I think we stand in such a shadow with GoldenEye that it's time for a change. As I said in my review, what we need, as per the new movies, is a whole new genre. To reinvent the Bond game just as Eon have reinvented the film series.

Grand Theft 007? No, maybe not. Third-person certainly seems to be wiser, though. Where's the spying? The recording of conversations, the tracking of suspects, the selection from one of three ways into a building? Interrogations, seductions, side-missions? What about optional poker playing, challenging face-offs with the bad guy? How about expanding the mythology in a meaningful way, something a little deeper than 'I was Max Zorin's son, you know'?

Still, we'll have to agree to disagree on the direction future games should take!

[MattofSteel]

Haven't played it yet. But from what I have (surprisingly) heard here, some thoughts.

A) A game that short, on this console generation (if the comparison to the original GE length-wise turns out to be correct) is absolutely unforgiveable.

B) You don't get to play the embassy? The one element of CR that most obviously lends itself to a shooter? That's unforgiveable, too.

C) No classic characters in MP isn't unforgiveable, but is certainly a bit of a letdown.

D) Something about that Garrett Young fellow always bugged me in the BTS videos. Like he had a good game on his hands but was hiding some monumental flaw. Like, shortness.

Seems as though they've really nailed the feel & style, though. I was surprised when they announced they're working on another game for 2009. Now that they've got the engine running, theoretically they could spend a year just building levels.

That could be good.

[SolidWaffle]

My only major gripe is the shortness. They could have put in a level in Haiti, the Africa levels were TINY, maybe even something in Bolivia. The CR alterations to the plot are fine. They just needed to fit in more action. Don't care about that.

Yes it's a bit repetitive. But i think gamers are too picky nowadays. Everyone expected a masterpiece that revolutionizes the genre of shooters. I enjoy a game with a good, solid grasp of the FPS formula. Plus, I think the environments are amazing.

[sharpshooter]

My only major gripe is the shortness.

They should have spliced in more QoS content, which is what the game is titled after all.

People who buy this game after seeing the film, witnessing a plethora of action sequences featuring cars, boats and helicopters, will be letdown I think these things are omitted. They have the on foot sequences from the film, but that just isn't enough.

[YouKnowTheName]

Why not just make a Casino Royale game? They clearly didn't have time or access to the material to make a full QOS game, so why pretend it's based on both films? Just make a CR game. I know they want to piggyback publicity for the new film and all, but GoldenEye came out two years after the film and TND and TWINE missed the films by a year, and GE actually took more money than the film. Then they could have properly dedicated time to making a FULL CR game, rather than just bits of it.

And actually Sorking, I DO agree that the whole series needs a rethink and to simply stop being a license painted on other game engines. I don't think it should be 3rdP, since I'm big on BEING Bond, and 3rdp brings in camera issues ect. But the divide between Bond fans just shows the need for both. Many games let you choose your perspective.

I will say that i think QOS is perfect in this regard. It has all the advantages of an FPS and all the character identification of a 3PS. I'd be happy if the next game used the exact same engine, just change the game design. It really is a game of two halves. The experience of BEING Bond in QOS is perfect, fluid, and great fun. This is the exact same reason why GoldenEye is still the best. QOS actually equals it in this department. Its the short, linear levels, scripting and lack of plot that pulls it down.

At least with EON it was clear (to me, with my gameplay preferences) that the game wouldn't work in the first level. The targeting took care of itself and was jerky and unreliable, the camera was a mess and the game gave me the feeling that Bond was having a much better time than I was. The fact that story sucked and the game was brain dead didn't really have much impact because the game still wouldn't be good if they hadn't.

With QOS it could have been a GoldenEye beater. It takes GoldenEyes biggest strength and actually exceeds it. It just screws up all the really obvious things that even EA could get a basic grasp on. EON and FRWL were just crappy games. QOS is a good game thats had its feet blown off.

[MattofSteel]

I don't get the EON hate. Loved that game. EA's best effort, in my opinion. Yeah, shooting was frustrating, but it afforded such a wide range of the Bond "experience" and made such good use of the brand, I'd rank it second behind GoldenEye in a heartbeat, in terms of all the Bond games.