Support NeoGAF

[hatchx]

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.

Wow. You are looking WAY too into the graphics.

I'll take a scaled-down look for 60FPS and a lot going on.

I was personally impressed. It looks like they took Goldeneye and re-skinned it with the Call of Duty wii engine (like you said). That's much more than I could expect. I actually found the graphics to be impressive for what they were (a remake of a 15 year old game).

Daniel Craig, online, re-done levels, new melee attacks....this is clearly a big budget game.

 

[Xeke]

Yeah really, it looks good enough.

 

[speedpop]

You know what's going to happen? People are going to buy this piece of shit and then complain that it isn't anything like the original, something along the lines of "there is no Rare input in this!" when the real reason is simple; GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

 

[freddy]

You know what's going to happen? People are going to buy this piece of shit and then complain that it isn't anything like the original, something along the lines of "there is no Rare input in this!" when the real reason is simple; GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

It's been 10 years, man. Let it go







PS: Goldeneye>MGS

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

when the real reason is simple; GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

wat wate

 

[EatChildren]

Wow. You are looking WAY too into the graphics.

I'll take a scaled-down look for 60FPS and a lot going on.

I was personally impressed. It looks like they took Goldeneye and re-skinned it with the Call of Duty wii engine (like you said). That's much more than I could expect. I actually found the graphics to be impressive for what they were (a remake of a 15 year old game).

Daniel Craig, online, re-done levels, new melee attacks....this is clearly a big budget game.

I'm not looking too much into it, it just looks like it does; shit. I loved and still do love Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark, but I'm not impressed with this, and I'm not interested in playing a half-arsed Call of Duty mod, especially when there are so many nicer looking Wii titles out there, some of which are first person.

I dont expect a lot of out of the Wii, but I do expect effort. Unless we see something new of this that really looks great, all I see here is Call of Duty Wii with a Goldeneye skin.

Nostalgia wont blind me to what looks to be a shitty franchise name cash-in, especially since it's coming from Activision.

I hope to hell this makes absolutely no appearance or mention at Nintendo's event.

 

[sfried]

I saw this an was expecting a lot... more :-\

I was expecting a lot less, actually. I thought they would make a straight up remake but it looks like they're redoing the levels (Facility, St. Petersburg Tank). Heck even I would say that despite the low quality video the presentation does stand out so thats saying something (it must be the animations).

Only the mission structure will prove if the remake does it justice.

Nostalgia wont blind me to what looks to be a shitty franchise name cash-in, especially since it's coming from Activision.

That depends if the staff who worked on the original game are actually working on this, and actually studied the single-player of the original level by level (and I mean right down to the enemy placement and spawn points) and found out what made Goldeneye tick. Everything or Nothing was almost the result of EA trying to study the aiming-aspect of Goldeneye and then applying it to a cover system. It worked surprisingly well but the game still felt too linear compared to Goldeneye...but hey, at least you wouldn't call that a cash-in of a movie.

I'm just as skeptical as you but that doesn't mean I wouldn't give them a benefit of a doubt. There could be a chance, and that is, if they get it right.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Graphics are laughable, but obviously that won't make/break the game. I didn't see anything in the trailer worth getting excited over

 

[saucyminx]

wow, the wii fps leaps into the 1990s

 

[pitt_norton]

... People are going to buy this piece of shit and then complain that it isn't anything like the original, something along the lines of "there is no Rare input in this!"...

Eurocom did hire ex-Rare and Free Radical personnel... just saying...

 

[EatChildren]

That depends if the staff who worked on the original game are actually working on this, and actually studied the single-player of the original level by level (and I mean right down to the enemy placement and spawn points) and found out what made Goldeneye tick. Everything or Nothing was almost the result of EA trying to study the aiming-aspect of Goldeneye and then applying it to a cover system. It worked surprisingly well but the game still felt too linear compared to Goldeneye...but hey, at least you wouldn't call that a cash-in of a movie.

I'm just as skeptical as you but that doesn't mean I wouldn't give them a benefit of a doubt. There could be a chance, and that is, if they get it right.

Yeah, but the thing with Goldeneye is part of what made it so great were the limitations of the controller and the system. Having to stop and manually aim worked fantastic, and was an integral part of the whole design. Taking cover, popping out with lined up shots while unable to move, etc. The AI placement and all that was based largely around this.

With the richer controls of today the design does not work half as well. Not because its badly designed, but because its different. The little touches of lining up shots without moving, quickly peeking around cover, etc; these no longer count because you can do it all on the fly, and thus exploit the level layout and design.

That is why I'm extremely skeptical about this. You can just copy Goldeneye's layout and style and attach modern controls to it. It wont work, and it will feel too differently. The only value there is nostalgia. Which for me isn't enough. So, the only way to really design this game properly is to rebuild the levels in a way that works with modern control schemes, while trying to keep the same feel of the original. That, itself, requires a new design, which in turn encourages skepticism as it will need much more than nostalgia to make for a good game.

And that's why I dont have any faith. I dont know why Activision have chosen to remake "Goldeneye", because the remake they need to make for a quality title requires a pretty big overhaul in design. If such an overhaul is to exist, why not make it a new Bond? Because the franchise name of "Goldeneye" will encourage purchase? Cue skeptism.

EDIT: And for the record, I feel Eurocom's take on Dead Space not only did the franchise fantastic justice, but is one of the best gaming efforts on the Wii. My skeptism is rooted in it being Activision, Goldeneye, and why the game exists at all.

 

[faridmon]

GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

I think this trailer is making people say bad things that is not true.

I call it non-Brosnan effect.

 

[Cosmic Dreams]

GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

*slaps*

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

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.

You didn't just get a single detail "wrong." You used this "single detail" as evidence of how "terrible" the game was, and then went out of your way to find a video that "proved" your "point." You claim to be familiar with the game, but your posts suggest otherwise. GoldenEye's multi-tiered difficulty setting was one of the most significant aspects about the game. I don't see how it's possible to play through the game without noticing that there are multiple difficulty settings. It seems to me that someone who complains about a game being "too easy" (as you have done multiple times in this thread) would be likely to try the game on the higher settings. It's safe to assume you've never beaten the game on 00 Agent, or you would have certainly noticed that the difficulty increased significantly. You are either unfamiliar with the game or your memories have been erased. In either case, your opinion on the game is completely irrelevant. If you didn't play the game, you shouldn't comment on it. If you can't remember the game, then your only critique should be, "I can't remember the game." This garbage about the game being "too easy" is nonsense.

 

[Dash Kappei]

^^^
Ouch! :lol

 

[freddy]

Yes, it would seem ZealousD has been talking shit

 

[ZealousD]

You didn't just get a single detail "wrong." You used this "single detail" as evidence of how "terrible" the game was, and then went out of your way to find a video that "proved" your "point." You claim to be familiar with the game, but your posts suggest otherwise. GoldenEye's multi-tiered difficulty setting was one of the most significant aspects about the game. I don't see how it's possible to play through the game without noticing that there are multiple difficulty settings. It seems to me that someone who complains about a game being "too easy" (as you have done multiple times in this thread) would be likely to try the game on the higher settings. It's safe to assume you've never beaten the game on 00 Agent, or you would have certainly noticed that the difficulty increased significantly. You are either unfamiliar with the game or your memories have been erased. In either case, your opinion on the game is completely irrelevant. If you didn't play the game, you shouldn't comment on it. If you can't remember the game, then your only critique should be, "I can't remember the game." This garbage about the game being "too easy" is nonsense.

Your use of quotation marks is terrible.

I never said the game was "too easy". I never even used the word "easy". I've used words like "terrible", "slow", "stupid", and "exploitable". "No substantial threat" is the closest I've come, but I haven't used that multiple times as you seem to claim. Certainly, you can throw enough of these enemies at the player and place them in certain ways that the game becomes difficult while still having these inherant problems.

Nor are my AI complaints the only significant point I'm making against the game. Graphics, aiming, and other gameplay elements are factored into this equation as well, many of which become rectified by this remake, and none of which require me playing on the highest difficulty. And even then the game still would have a ways to go to even begin touching an FPS like Half-Life 2 or Crysis.

 

[Wallach]

 

[Night_Trekker]

I admit I got goosebumps. If Activision has the go-ahead for this remake, I assume Nintendo has some say over how it is developed. Aside from Craig being inserted in the place of Brosan (lame as fuck design choice), I am fairly impressed with what I saw. Now let's hope it lives up to the original.

 

[The M.O.B]

Unlike some here, I am going to wait until we get a high quality walkthrough of the game, the trailer is a bunch of quick cuts, i could barely focus on anything without pausing it.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Your use of quotation marks is terrible.

Oh no, you just insulted my "usage of quotation marks" skills! Whatever shall I do? As I try to recover from this crippling blow, feel free to post more negative comments about a game that you have either: 1) never played, or; 2) can't remember. I have no qualms with people disliking a game, but I think it's pretty illogical for a person to go out of their way to insult a game when they are obviously unfamiliar with it.

 

[EatChildren]

No idea if its been posted.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Is this the remake of the N64 or is it just Goldeneye by name?

 

[Night_Trekker]

Is this the remake of the N64 or is it just Goldeneye by name?

Looks like a remake to me. I recognize most of the locations.

 

[ImNotLikeThem]

It's almost more like a... remake of the movie, only as a game... kinda thing.

 

[Mr Sandman]

Looks like a remake to me. I recognize most of the locations.

Yeah, if it was just another take on the movie, it wouldn't have the locations Rare made up such as the beginning of dam.

 

[ZealousD]

Oh no, you just insulted my "usage of quotation marks" skills! Whatever shall I do? As I try to recover from this crippling blow, feel free to post more negative comments about a game that you have either: 1) never played, or; 2) can't remember. I have no qualms with people disliking a game, but I think it's pretty illogical for a person to go out of their way to insult a game when they are obviously unfamiliar with it.

Nice. You singled out the one comment that was a mostly useless aside and addressed that, rather than the main point. You put words into my mouth and changed my arguments so you could knock down a straw man.

It's pretty clear you'd rather attack me for not having played the game in a long time rather than respond to my arguments on their own merits, so I'm done with you.

 

[jufonuk]

The gameplay will make or break this game, not the visuals.

It looks good enough now if it plays exceptionally which is definitely not a certainty.

QFT

 

[AzureNightmare]

I hate Activision and I am leery after the disaster that was Rogue Agent, but this is Eurocom, and they know bond FPSes....ARGH STOP MESSING WITH ME ACTIVISION!

 

[Kujo]

You know what's going to happen? People are going to buy this piece of shit and then complain that it isn't anything like the original, something along the lines of "there is no Rare input in this!" when the real reason is simple; GoldenEye was never that good to begin with.

No, I mean, I think it was good at the time. But there's been a lot of improvement on the genre in the past 13 years. I replayed it again last year and I really don't think it holds up in its current form. Will be interesting to see how they improve it.

*cough*besidesperfectdarkwasthebettergame*cough*

 

[NotWii]

If you don't like this, there's always Goldeneye Source for you to play on PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT9llr6P6oc

It's fucking great!

 

[iamaustrian]

game looks fine. gameplay will make or break it and not the graphics

also, this thread is full of Wii trolling. interesting to see what was bannable before, isn't anymore now. basicly a carte blanche for all the thousands of wii trolls.

 

[sfried]

Yeah, but the thing with Goldeneye is part of what made it so great were the limitations of the controller and the system. Having to stop and manually aim worked fantastic, and was an integral part of the whole design. Taking cover, popping out with lined up shots while unable to move, etc. The AI placement and all that was based largely around this.

With the richer controls of today the design does not work half as well. Not because its badly designed, but because its different. The little touches of lining up shots without moving, quickly peeking around cover, etc; these no longer count because you can do it all on the fly, and thus exploit the level layout and design.

That is why I'm extremely skeptical about this. You can just copy Goldeneye's layout and style and attach modern controls to it. It wont work, and it will feel too differently. The only value there is nostalgia. Which for me isn't enough. So, the only way to really design this game properly is to rebuild the levels in a way that works with modern control schemes, while trying to keep the same feel of the original. That, itself, requires a new design, which in turn encourages skepticism as it will need much more than nostalgia to make for a good game.

And that's why I dont have any faith. I dont know why Activision have chosen to remake "Goldeneye", because the remake they need to make for a quality title requires a pretty big overhaul in design. If such an overhaul is to exist, why not make it a new Bond? Because the franchise name of "Goldeneye" will encourage purchase? Cue skeptism.

Valid points indeed. In the end it still is Activision calling the shots, but I might be inclined to believe they are merely just handling the necessary licenses and rights and the rest was more of NOAs decisions done internally. But I completely agree that the limitations, not to mention its eccentric development progression from light-gun shooter to methodical FPS is what made it distinct from the usual twin analog stick twitch FPSs we see today.

In fact, I also realized what made Goldeneye great was that it encouraged, but never forced stealth into the gameplay, and they reinforced that by not supplying the player with any health packs but body armor vests that merely prevented, but never healed, damage to the player. That meant the player had to make sure every shot count (by not alarming others) and if possible avoid huge firefights where the likelihood of getting sprayed was greater. It's very similar to Space Invaders Extreme and its power up system: Not only does it make the player last longer but also encourages them to get a higher score, yet does not penalize the player should they not rely upon this tactic. Goldeneye's mechanic balance is the reason why I do feel skeptical as much as you, and I agree it does seem they are relying much of it on the nostalgia, but this hasn't been the first time.

Eurocom did hire ex-Rare and Free Radical personnel... just saying...

Ex-Rare staff, yes, but Free Radical? Didn't they all move to Crytek?

<One million dollars!>

The budget they spent on developing this game?

 

[Ushojax]

What a bunch of whiny little manchildren some of you are. :lol The graphics look fine to me and the game looks fun to play. That's all I really care about. A straight remake of GoldenEye would be very, very boring in 2010. It was great for it's time, it was the greatest, but I'm ready for a new take. TBH this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, the manchildren will complain when it's too similar to the N64 game and complain when it's too different. I don't trust Activison much but I'll give them a chance. Even if the game is shit it's not like they're going around destroying your old N64 carts. You can still play the old version.

 

[Kibbles]

If you don't like this, there's always Goldeneye Source for you to play on PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT9llr6P6oc

It's fucking great!

Absolutely, more people need to play this! Fill up those servers fools!

 

[Hellsing321]

So fucking pumped for this!

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

This trailer doesn't reveal a lot... the music better remain relatively unchanged (it's genius), and the new gameplay additions better not mess with the level layout too much... I remain pessimistic but hopeful.

 

[jufonuk]

What a bunch of whiny little manchildren some of you are. :lol The graphics look fine to me and the game looks fun to play. That's all I really care about. A straight remake of GoldenEye would be very, very boring in 2010. It was great for it's time, it was the greatest, but I'm ready for a new take. TBH this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, the manchildren will complain when it's too similar to the N64 game and complain when it's too different. I don't trust Activison much but I'll give them a chance. Even if the game is shit it's not like they're going around destroying your old N64 carts. You can still play the old version.

This man speaks too much sense and is too reasonable in his Arguments... GET HIM!!! mweeh Grunt.

Seriously I agree with you 100%

 

[rezuth]

So this is the Nintendo answer to Modern Warfare?

 

[Kibbles]

This trailer doesn't reveal a lot... the music better remain relatively unchanged (it's genius), and the new gameplay additions better not mess with the level layout too much... I remain pessimistic but hopeful.

Goldeneye Source has some amazing remixes. I'm betting this game will mostly have a new soundtrack because of some sort of legal issue or some BS.

 

[DaMan121]

So this is the Nintendo answer to Modern Warfare?

You mean Activision's..um..wait..

 

[CTLance]

Hah, the crying/trolling/bickering in this thread is amazing, as usual. Good job; keep it up, guys.

Anyway. I have no memories of Goldeneye as I more or less completely skipped the N64 generation, and as such the franchise/name does not hold any significance to me. All I see is a Bond game with... functional graphics. The old GE appears to have been a FPS with a dash of stealth and/or tactical gameplay. Sounds good to me.

I'm not exactly hyped, but I can say that I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing more about this game. Depending on how this plays it may end up in my collection.

 

[Nabs]

If you don't like this, there's always Goldeneye Source for you to play on PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT9llr6P6oc

It's fucking great!

it's really damn good.

 

[GeneralIroh]

Goldeneye source has an awesome OST as well.

 

[Freezie KO]

Hah, the crying/trolling/bickering in this thread is amazing, as usual. Good job; keep it up, guys.

It's funny because a Goldeneye remake is always one of those things that people request. That's the only reason this even exists in the first place. Sure, there's not one big collective group of people with a singular opinion, but the hate is unwarranted. I'm just surprised after years of begging for this game that Activision and Nintendo figured out a way to deliver it, Daniel Craig or not. Hopefully it's still good.

 

[frankie_baby]

well graphically it dont look too bad, could have been better but certainly is better than some of the crap that gets churned out on wii, the levels seem to look interesting and the art style certainly makes it feel like an update of the original so so far this looks good

 

[gamingeek]

You guys complaining about the visuals based on the shitty tinypic video or the higher quality yet still shitty youtube vid?

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

"How did one game become a classic?"

BECAUSE NOBODY WITH AN N64 KNEW ANY BETTER BACK THEN! That game has aged horribly, even OG Doom is better than Goldeneye.

 

[one_kill]

Nostalgia wins. :lol

 

[NotWii]

Absolutely, more people need to play this! Fill up those servers fools!

YES!

I need to reinstall it
Some of the servers are stuck on crappy modes that nobody wants to play.

Pretty much all the multiplayer maps are done, hopefully one day they get single player working