Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming Discussion' started by Lurker2, Jan 5, 2013.
Yeah i read about this on eurogamer, they think it may be related to the poor sales of the James Bond games.
If there not very good games it's to be expected that they won't sell.
I've never been a fan of these James Bond games myself, so i won't lose any sleep over this.
Good. Activision and EA has both screwed up the Bond name for games. On the N64, it felt like I was actually playing Bond. With these games, it felt like a generic title. Maybe that will teach Activision to not rush shit anymore.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Retro studios pick this up. I can see them doing a fantastic job.
Interesting- I wonder what their distribution contracts were like if they are bothering to pull things.
As for N64 being the last one I will defend nightfire long and hard on the "felt like bond front" and it even had a nice little multiplayer when it came down to it.
Oh shit I forgot about that game. Yeah that one was good, I only thought of Agent Under Fire.
Rumor has it that Activision is prematurely dropping their licensing rights to Bond and can no longer distribute them.
I enjoyed the new Goldeneye and I thought Blood Stone was alright. Quantum wasn't bad either. I don't think anything will live up to the Nightfire golden days but they're just games of an older era that wouldn't really age or appeal much to a newer age.
Still I'd hope the franchise lives on. There's a lot of potential in the IP. Personally I'd like an Alpha Protocol type game but for Bond instead of Generic Male Spy #1.
Goldeneye 007 was pretty damn good although I hear Legends was crap.
Honestly I would be down for a Bond game in the style of Rocksteady's Batman games. The right mix of action and stealth.
Seeing how 007 Legends turned out... yeah, it might be best if James Bonds with another publisher.
Honestly, 007 should never have gone to Activision in the first place. With the number of titles that have been released between the two, Activision and EA have only manage to pump out 2 good 007 games combined. That's just sad. I would love to see 007 games be prominent and have a big fanbase and be big releases instead of just "oh yeah, this is coming out too" titles.
Though I did not dislike the gameplay and thought some of the underlying design was inspired I would probably not have played it were it not for the branching story and decisions aspect. Saying that "you can pick from the styles of any of the classic bonds" could do well.
I don't see why people put the original Goldeneye up on such a pedestal other than "nostalgia". There's been much better FPS games since then and even if you wanted a contemporary, Perfect Dark came out a few years later on the same system and was thoroughly better. Nowadays you can play Perfect Dark's HD port with all the Goldeneye maps and weapons. How about that.
EA made some pretty decent games when they had the license. Nightfire was spectacular, Agent Under Fire was good (a lot of fans are usually torn between those two), Everything or Nothing was pretty good as well. From Russia With Love was kinda meh but certainly not terrible. Under Activision, Quantum of Solace wasn't bad, especially for a movie tie-in, the Goldeneye reboot was actually quite fun (I think people put a lot of hate on it for being Activision and because it, god forbid, has some CoD aspects in it). Blood Stone was alright, probably From Russia With Love level. But generally the franchise has fared decently, more so than most movie-to-video game franchises.
Because God forbid someone DARE to like a game because of the nostalgia factor, right? That's such an objectively terrible reason to like a game, right?
Well I just find too many people prop up an unexciting game because of "nostalgia". I just get sick of the "nostalgia-tinted spectacles" look on everything.
It could also be because of Reddit and how literally 1/2 of r/gaming posts are "LOL LOOK AT THIS NOSTALGIA".
But why does it matter? As long as someone genuinely likes a game, does it matter what the reason is?
I mean, I can understand your stance when it comes to hipsters who never ever played a game back in the day, and praise it because "it's older and nostalgic, therefore better." Id est, if I said that, since I've never played Goldeneye except for 5 minutes on an emulator, then yeah, that would be me just being a hipster. But if someone genuinely enjoyed it back in the day, and still enjoys it largely for all the great memories they have of it (whether they do this consciously or unconsciously), I don't see why it's a bad thing.
And just because you don't find a game exciting doesn't mean it objectively isn't so. That's your opinion, same as other people have an opinion that it's a great game. Good for you, good for them. Leave it at that. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to fathom when it comes to games you don't care about (as evidenced in many other threads).
Nightfire was the last good Bond game to be honest. The Goldeneye remake for the Wii was a bastardized homage towards the original and the 360 and PS3 versions were garbage too. All they did was changed the level designs, and horribly at that, just so that the game felt longer. What made Goldeneye great in the first place was it's fun factor and replayability, as well as the multiplayer because the levels were designed to fit both styles of play well. Part of the problem is that Bond games have pretty much become exactly like every other shooter on the market and there is nothing fun or interesting about them aside from a few Bond gadgets. Activision and EA treated them exactly like every other movie tie in game that has ever been developed, and that is badly. Ubisoft would probably be the next publisher to pick up the game license unless Nintendo thinks they can do a good job and make a Wii U exclusive and authentic remake of Goldeneye through one of their second party studios.
I'll admit I'm a bit biased towards the "nostalgia lovers" because of some of the people I have known and seeing a lot of obnoxious Reddit posts related to that, so just keep that in mind during this post.
Generally I just find nostalgia a kinda silly notion. Like it sometimes lets bad games live beyond what they deserve or a lot of people will block out newer advancements or just plain rage at newer advancements. Like some people will see a newer game in a franchise and just go "THIS IS KILLING MY CHILDHOOD" or some bullshit. Or they'll keep bugging people about an older game that wasn't quite good.
A good example for me personally is Glover. I played the game a lot as a kid but the game was shit. My friend played it as well and we both know it was shit. We don't really view it nostalgically, at least not in a good light. A lot of others though would say "I LOVED GLOVER" or "GLOVER WAS MY CHILDHOOD" and then wank on about how we need a Glover sequel or something.
In the case of Goldeneye, it means a lot of people are just plain ignorant to other Bond entries with the whole "NOTHING BEATS GOLDENEYE IT WAS MY CHILDHOOD" point of view. I'd say Nightfire was better, Agent Under Fire was better, even the Goldeneye reboot was better.
I'm just saying nostalgia is just as bad a bias as any other type and, like any other bias, it leads to a lot of ignorance.
I can respect, and to an extent, agree with that.
That's because Goldeneye on the N64 wasn't rushed, it was polished. A very good game with great graphics, solid linear gameplay, and a fantastic multiplayer mode. Alot of people (including myself) still hold all other Bond shooters up to this standard, and are constantly let-down in disappointment. :/ I was REALLY sad when the 360 version of Perfect Dark bombed. I had such high hopes for that game. The one and only time Rare has ever let me down.
Are you sure about that?
I never played Nuts and Bolts, so I wouldn't know first-hand. And I found Jet-Force Gemini a bit frustrating in difficulty.