-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Goldeneye Wii Discussion
- Thread starter Penguin
- Start date
avatar299 said:
I stopped following this thread way back on the last page I posted since it was turning into another "N64 fans still believe Goldeneye is some ideal in FPSers, nostalgia party continues with more insanity", but I do not approve of trolling the Wii.
Only constructive criticism that you can flesh out when pressed!
Obviously this game doesn't look like an EARLY gen PS2 title, although Bouncer is a bad example. That looked halfway decent at times (for the time period) and about equal to this. But the scale will be different.
Discotheque
Banned
Daniel Craig in Goldeneye? What a crock of shit.
Well that's great for you, but most people moved beyond its form of single layer level design. Halo's multiplayer layouts are so many billions of times superior and have so many more layers of potential strategy compared to Goldeneye that merely suggesting otherwise outs the person as someone lost to nostalgia.
And that's just one FPS. Nearly all major multiplayer FPS of today have superior level design to Goldeneye.
And that's just one FPS. Nearly all major multiplayer FPS of today have superior level design to Goldeneye.
I will cop to the fact that the video's quality isn't exactly great and the game might be early. But I still feel that it doesn't look great at all especially when compared to other Wii games. It leaves a lot to be desired but maybe it's only 50% complete? Maybe it might not be so bad when it hits store shelves. Who knows.Amir0x said:
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm sure that you're right that they didn't literally dump the Goldeneye ROM and start adding in more polygons. But most people wouldn't interpret "they've added geometry" so pedantically. And there's a significant difference between a group of modders making something that they'll give away for free and an actual developer making something that they plan to sell and hope will be profitable. (Theoretically, at least. I'd take some modders over some third-party Wii developers any day.)Olivier said:
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Blueblur1 said:
What? Bullshit, you can't just say shit like that. :lol
Goldeneye Wii looks clearly better than those PS2 games, as well as most other ones.
Blueblur1 said:
It's a moot point. It's a remix of a N64 game and Wii isn't about graphics. At this point everyone's gotta accept third parties aren't going to make engines that push the limites for Wii, however minor those limits are.
Lower your standards as required or game elsewhere like most people here do.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
The Facility level is better than any level in any game in any genre ever.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Amir0x said:
Your hatred for Rare's shooters is always entertaining.
Amir0x said:
And I prefer claustrophobic level design as in Goldeneye or SWAT 4. Fighting in hallways, blocking doors, small rooms, staircases, hidden passageways is just more fun to me than levels where you can get snipped from across the map without even seeing the person.
I can't imagine they are using the same code, rather, they created new levels that mimic the original ones.
I kind of agree with Amirox, playing Perfect Dark, and some of the level design is just baffling at times, and I'm sure it was similar with Goldeneye.
I'm curious if they will include all the classic maps, but also add some modern ones. Maybe some based off of... I don't know movies Craig is actually in.
Also, looking at the rumored leak, they would need to change some of the maps for 8 players online, no?
I'm curious if they will include all the classic maps, but also add some modern ones. Maybe some based off of... I don't know movies Craig is actually in.
Also, looking at the rumored leak, they would need to change some of the maps for 8 players online, no?
Okay, I watched it again. So yes, it is better than early PS2 games. There are some lighting effects, better geometry (environments) and obviously better animation. There are also bland textures and jagged edges. I just don't think it looks good. *shrug*DeathbyVolcano said:
With that said, I'm done with this thread. There's no point in arguing.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
alrighty
GoldenEye design was all about the scenario if I remember right. Facility/Bunker put you in very memorable scenarios, which is why everyone has the warm and fuzzy memories. I wonder if the moment to moment game design holds up though
Anyway, I'm confused. This is GoldenEye...but with the new Bond and shit I dont remember from the OG goldeneye. Is it just a tweaked remake?
Anyway, I'm confused. This is GoldenEye...but with the new Bond and shit I dont remember from the OG goldeneye. Is it just a tweaked remake?
Yeah, I wasn't impressed by the graphics either, since the Wii is capable of more - everything looked a bit too light, making surfaces seem a bit flat, without enough shadows. It almost reminded me of the Quantum of Solace game for the Wii / PS2 (which resulted in a ton of Photoshops) - maybe working off the same engine for that?
Despite that, I did get a little rush watching the trailer - probably had a lot to do with the music and the editing, but hey, that's the power of the Bond franchise.
This doesn't strike me as them pulling out all the stops, and I don't think they seriously expect this to match the original's level of success at all - I think this is supposed to be a fun trip down memory lane for fans and Wii owners who are attracted by the Bond license. And I'm cool with that. Good graphics or not, if the final product is fun to play with friends then I'm for it.
Despite that, I did get a little rush watching the trailer - probably had a lot to do with the music and the editing, but hey, that's the power of the Bond franchise.
This doesn't strike me as them pulling out all the stops, and I don't think they seriously expect this to match the original's level of success at all - I think this is supposed to be a fun trip down memory lane for fans and Wii owners who are attracted by the Bond license. And I'm cool with that. Good graphics or not, if the final product is fun to play with friends then I'm for it.
It's not the greatest looking Wii game but it's certainly at least of Gamecube quality. Comparing it even remotely to N64 graphics is straight up trolling, no point shitting up the thread with it. Also that video is of horrible quality itself, even the cheesy conference room clips.
Using Daniel Craig is an odd choice but I guess it just means they couldn't get Pierce Brosnan, or maybe it's a licensing thing. Anyway I don't understand why people are acting like this is a port, where do you remember half the stuff in that trailer from the game? It has some definite throwback scenes but it is clearly a remake.
Using Daniel Craig is an odd choice but I guess it just means they couldn't get Pierce Brosnan, or maybe it's a licensing thing. Anyway I don't understand why people are acting like this is a port, where do you remember half the stuff in that trailer from the game? It has some definite throwback scenes but it is clearly a remake.
Coolio McAwesome said:
You might have had a point if Goombas were the only enemies in SMB.
Killing enemies in Goldeneye is about as fun as shooting crates. Predictability isn't the problem. It's stupidity. Enemies from Duke Nukem 3D were pretty damn predictable. If you're in their line of fire, they shoot you. Goldeneye enemies milly about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9MfGADWXQs
Looks at this. The reaction speed of a goat in molasses.
Enemies will be RIGHT ON TOP OF YOU and offer no substantial threat.
A single shot will make them spasm, effectively making them no longer able to shoot.
And what the hell was that stop-drop-and-roll maneuver?
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Penguin said:
No, Goldeneye's design is much more interesting.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
ZealousD said:
Because the player in that video is on the easiest difficulty setting. Enemies have higher reaction speed on higher difficulties. Also, it's been a while, but I remember that stronger enemies (who would be more prevalent on harder modes) have body armor, and you can't make them flinch as easily with body shots.
You're right, it's not all that hard, but it's not as bad as you're making it sound.
Coolio McAwesome
Member
ZealousD said:
You do realize that the reaction speed of enemies increases signficantly on higher difficulty settings, don't you? The fact that you were apparently not aware of this fact suggests you never bothered playing the game. As such, your opinion on it really doesn't matter. And, just for the record, all of the enemies in SMB were stupid.
ZealousD said:
This is actually how it should be, there are way too many games now that have the enemies give very little reaction to a bullet(aka bullet sponges). A single bullet will make anybody stagger and or drop their weapon. Even with a bulletproff vest, you will feel that impact and it will through you off. In goldeneye it is a bit exagerrated but it gets the point.
nincompoop
Banned
Posting pictures of three bad looking PS2 games doesn't prove that every first gen PS2 game looks worse than Goldeneye. That's the point I'm trying to make. Metal Gear Solid 2 and Gran Turismo 3 look way better, for example.DeathbyVolcano said:
Coolio McAwesome
Member
ZealousD said:
There is no "default" setting. The player actively chooses their difficulty at the start the first level. You can finish the game from start to finish without EVER selecting "Agent" or "Special Agent" difficulty settings. You can't, however, finish the game from start to finish without playing on "00 Agent." Again, the fact that you are not aware of this further suggests that you have never played the game. Please stop commenting on a game that you've never bothered playing.
Little Green Yoda
Member
entremet
Member
I just hope it has a classic controller option. Pointing can get tiring.
As for the arguments about Goldeneye 64's legitimacy. I do think in regards to console FPS games it was revolutionary. The single player campaign mission structure and tiered difficulty levels added immense replay value and local multiplayer was a blast, but I don't think it's demeaning to game's original acclaim at all that by saying that it has been surpassed by modern FPSes.
But, truth be told, I haven't gotten into any other FPS since. Not without trying as I played all the Halo games, Call of Duty 2,4, Killzone 2. Doom and Quake are still my favorites of the genre.
As for the arguments about Goldeneye 64's legitimacy. I do think in regards to console FPS games it was revolutionary. The single player campaign mission structure and tiered difficulty levels added immense replay value and local multiplayer was a blast, but I don't think it's demeaning to game's original acclaim at all that by saying that it has been surpassed by modern FPSes.
But, truth be told, I haven't gotten into any other FPS since. Not without trying as I played all the Halo games, Call of Duty 2,4, Killzone 2. Doom and Quake are still my favorites of the genre.
MisterHero
Super Member
My favorite part was running over guys with the tankGDGF said:
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I dont know why the 'early PS2 game' comparison came up, or any comparison exists at all. End of the day, the game looks like ass.
It's got the terrible flat lit look from shitty lighting and shadow, the water looks like ass, texture look muddy, there's a framerate drop, and the whole thing just looks like a crappy Call of Duty engine port. I'd guarenty that the engine is the same engine powering the World at War and Modern Warfare release; a scaled down Call of Duty engine.
And it doesnt matter how it compares to PS2 titles, or the hardware limitations they're working with. Nobody with their head on straight needs it to look like Crysis, or expects the Wii to push Call of Duty 4 level visuals.
But it still looks like shit and all of the above mentioned issues are a trademark of either rushed development, or the developer/publisher simply not giving a shit about the kind of work put into the visual presentation.
And that, in itself, is a reason to be completely uninterested and disappointed in what this is. Just because nearly every third party doesn't give a shit about spending the time and money to build a solid engine for the Wii, and just because the Wii's sales market doesn't encourage them to, doesn't mean we shouldn't expect it to be done.
I expect it to feel exactly like the last two Call of Duty games on the Wii, and ultimately feel like a shitty mod than a proper game.
It's got the terrible flat lit look from shitty lighting and shadow, the water looks like ass, texture look muddy, there's a framerate drop, and the whole thing just looks like a crappy Call of Duty engine port. I'd guarenty that the engine is the same engine powering the World at War and Modern Warfare release; a scaled down Call of Duty engine.
And it doesnt matter how it compares to PS2 titles, or the hardware limitations they're working with. Nobody with their head on straight needs it to look like Crysis, or expects the Wii to push Call of Duty 4 level visuals.
But it still looks like shit and all of the above mentioned issues are a trademark of either rushed development, or the developer/publisher simply not giving a shit about the kind of work put into the visual presentation.
And that, in itself, is a reason to be completely uninterested and disappointed in what this is. Just because nearly every third party doesn't give a shit about spending the time and money to build a solid engine for the Wii, and just because the Wii's sales market doesn't encourage them to, doesn't mean we shouldn't expect it to be done.
I expect it to feel exactly like the last two Call of Duty games on the Wii, and ultimately feel like a shitty mod than a proper game.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I agree, but legitimately complaining about the graphics and claiming it looks like an N64 game are worlds apart.Calcaneus said:
Coolio McAwesome said:
I played it when it was new. Did a lot of multiplayer at a friend's house and I also did a complete playthrough. Granted, this was a long time ago, and I didn't actually own the game, so the behavior of enemies on different difficulty levels is not exactly something I have lucid memories of. Don't make assumptions just because I get a single detail wrong.
Regardless, enemies in modern shooters are almost never as slow or exploitable as the enemies in that video, no matter what difficulty level you're on. And if enemies have faster reaction speeds and body armor on higher difficulties levels, doesn't this just put it at a level of less ridiculousness?
Halo came out a mere 4 years after Goldeneye and a year after Perfect Dark, and totally turned the genre on consoles on its head. The AI is still intelligent by today's standards and had significantly improved controls. It made the game more fun.
Now this isn't something I hold against Goldeneye. For the time period, it was great. I'm not saying that Rare could have made a game of Halo's quality back in 1997. But the genre has made huge leaps and bounds since. Expectations have increased dramatically. If a game like Goldeneye was released today, people would justifiably pan it.
The idea that Goldeneye is 4x better than any shooter released this generation is laughable. I'm mean, come on, really? 4x better than Crysis? 4x better than Half-Life 2? 4x better than BioShock? 4x better than Call of Duty 4?