Poll: A Wii Goldeneye- a terrible thing?
- Thread starter Squilookle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You are right in that there is no need to put these extra bits in, but it does help a great deal in getting it recognised above all the other games being released nowadays. All Eurocom are doing is applying the anount of polish to this game that other recent games get. Plus, "motion blur... techno[footnote]I've only heard techno music in old games, so I have no idea why you've included this[/footnote]... regenerative health... cover mechanics"? You have a warped view of modern games. Just because these elements are more common nowadays does not mean that these elements are necessary to be considered a modern game; it's just like saying that all modern games have to focus on surgery because doctor sims are a new idea.Squilookle said:
'Modernising' a game is hardly a bad thing, Resident Evil on the Gamecube was vastly superior to the original thanks to all the changes.
And n- wait... wut? I have no friggin' clue how you got to this conclusion, or even what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to suggest that when this game comes out, everyone will forget about the N64 version and be forced to love this one instead? I hope you can explain to me what you mean and what leaps you took to get to this statement, otherwise this sentence looks very idiotic.
Okay, I'll admit I was a bit hasty in saying the controls have become common and improved upon, but whenever someone complains about a change to one of their favourite games, it's true 90% of the time. A port of the original won't do anything to change how often modern games will use the control scheme though, so a port will be unnecessary when you can play the original. I still stand by my original claim that PC controls work much better with a wiimote & nunchuck that the original Goldeneye controls.
And here is an example of a straw-man argument with no grounding in reality, especially annoying when there is another game that would be a perfect analogy to this one: Metroid: other M:
This is the latest game in a series that is highly regarded[footnote]higher than Goldeneye I believe[/footnote] and stars a silent yet strong female protagonist and has been trusted to 'Team Ninja', a company famous for games that objectify women[footnote]drawing parallels with your complaint about how Eurocom's tradition of holding the player's hand is against what the original Goldeneye stood for[/footnote]. Not only that but they've also made the protagonist speak and given over 2 hours of cinematic to the game in a series which has been valued for it's minimalistic approach to story[footnote]mirroring your complaints with the new Goldeneye[/footnote]. In fact this whole combination of elements caused things to be so bad that the co-creator cried. Wait, sorry, I meant so good that the co-creator cried [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.225339-Other-M-Made-Metroid-Co-Creator-Cry]. It has also received universal praise amongst those who have played it, so none of your arguments have convinced me that the remake has suffered from any kind of reduction in quality.
I really don't understand why people go up in arms just because of some minor tweak. I wish I could just go 'shut up and grow a pair' to them. There's nothing stopping you from replaying the original if that's all you want to do, just stop acting like they've sent you a video of them raping both your grandmothers just because they felt like shaking up the formula to add freshness/appeal to a wider market. There is nothing bar your allergies to change to suggest anything wrong is going on.
And I've never said "I wish someone would create a game where the main character is a runaway from the circus who cures people's mental illnesses by leaping into their heads." yet I still loved Psychonauts when I got my hands on it.
To repeat (and simplify) what I said before: a) to keep things feeling fresh (and to reasonably charge full price for the game), and b) to remove the competition.
Why have you suddenly started claiming this game being the fixed version? As you said before, the original wasn't broken and no one's disagreed.
This.PureChaos said:
OT - I'm more than willing to buy the new version and give it a try, if it equals/betters the N64 version, money well spent, if not, well it had some pretty fucking big shoes to fill so hardly suprising.
Re-visiting a game as loved as Goldeneye is gonna piss of a bunch of people no matter what they do or WHO makes it, could have been and assume it's the most polished perfect mofugga ever and people WILL still cry about it anyway.
I'd rather someone tried and failed than see nothing at all, as good or bad as it may be it will not tarnish my memories of the N64 version so, why not give it a chance.
Hmm, it appears I'm a minority in the fact that I'm eagerly anticipating this game. I loved the crap out of Quantum of Solace, and since this appears to be more of the same I'm looking forward to it.
Yeah, some might whine and moan that it "isn't exactly like the original game", "too much like CoD", or "BROSNAN ISN'T IN IT!! BAAWWWWW!!!", but I don't give a damn. As long as it is as fun as the original (or just fun in general), I'll be happy.
Yeah, some might whine and moan that it "isn't exactly like the original game", "too much like CoD", or "BROSNAN ISN'T IN IT!! BAAWWWWW!!!", but I don't give a damn. As long as it is as fun as the original (or just fun in general), I'll be happy.
Although I would normally say let Rare develop it, after seeing Rare's latest games on the 360, I've lost faith in them. After all, it isn't the same Rare as that made Goldeneye.
Why would I pay money for an HD remake of a game I still own for the N64. Ocarina of time doesn't count, mine kept crashing. I am personally psyched for the wii remake. I love the wii, and I love Daniel Craig. Besides, this is nintendo, I doubt they'd let a remake of one of their most famous games suck.
how egotistical.zombie711 said:
ok, a point given that people will have a grudge that it's an Wii exclusive however because it's on a lower performing console there would so much that could have been improved, take for example GoldenEye: Source.....
.......what am I saying?!?!?? Golden Eye for the Wii is going to suck, period. once I can be bother to install steam, I'll be playing this!
MW on the wii? ha, dont make me laugh, it will be like Mercenaries 2 on the PS2, they would have to cut down on alot of things and wouldn't be worth it
im not going to get it because its on wii and i dont have a wii because i dont like the controls for games like this. the wii was made for party games and should stick to that. if this was for ps3 or xbox or pc i wold buy this game in a second. in fact if three years ago i knew they were going to remake goldeneye (on a real console not one with ps2 graphics) i would build a time machine go into the future and bring three back.
Sorry, gotta bite on this one, can't help myself here.Squilookle said:
Perfect Dark: Zero, Banjo and Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts and Conker: Live and Reloaded are some of WORST games Rare have made since the N64 was surpassed by the Gamecube, and that was quite some years ago now. (Okay, okay, Starfox Adventures wasn't exactly... Great? But I think it 'might' have gotten a pained 'pass')
To be hopeful, now that the new Microsoft-era Rare doesn't have there hand in it, we may see a good game finally.
And I know I am quite heavily Rare-bashing, I used to love their games on the N64, to see the Xbox 360 abominations was... Painful?
To summarize, I am kinda glad that this is kept to its home console, especially with Rares recent track record.
Edit:
To clarify a little more, Perfect Dark and the Banjo games on xbox live are nothing more then ports with a graphical upgrade. I know that Perfect Dark's controls are sub-optimal for a dual analog control scheme, not to mention it is far inferior to the original setup.
(Well, I do believe that Banjos 'stop and swap' was implemented, but that was old news, the only reason it wasn't in the 64 version was because the system was incompatible after its 1st release in which the onboard ram held the games image for about 2 seconds after the console was shut off, as opposed to the first gen holding it for about 20 seconds)
Oh really?zombie711 said:
I have no hate for Nintendo as never did once mention/hinted it however what you did say was rather fan boyish and not very constructive, any dedicating gaming console must have good hardware otherwise developers will have very strict limitations to uphold thus the Wii is a prime example and undoubtedly will reflect on the game, the question "if it's a good game" will be left to the critics if they so happen to mention "it could have been better"
Whoa- I shouldn't have left this thread for so long! Oh well, into it:
Pretty sure that in the case of Goldeneye, merely mentioning it's name is enough to get attention, as it did for Rogue Agent, abeilt for all the wrong reasons. Its even worse when you're putting in common features in a remake of a game made famous for it's simplicity and streamlined gameplay. Making it like all the other games actually seems far more of a hindrance to getting it recognised over all the others rather than helping it.10BIT said:
Dude they're just examples. I never said they were a necessary part of modern games- but they are a modern game feature- and ones that in no way can guarantee an improvement of an older game.
No, I'm saying that when there are other versions out that are more like the original, what Eurocom is making here is esentially equivalent to a Baz Luhrmann version of Romeo and Juliet by comparison. It might not be the best example, but it's the same sort of thing. Maybe some will forget the original for this one, though I doubt that's anyone's intention- save perhaps for Nintendo if they choose never to release it on the VC.
I totally agree about PC controls and the Wiimote being better than a gamepad, but that's irrelevant- we're talking about the setup of the gamepad controls here. Also saying a port is unnecessary when the original can be played instead is a moot point. If a fan of the original starts wishing for a remade port, it's usually because either they are unable to play the original anymore, or they just want to see it with better graphics -you know, pretty much exactly what Rare was doing on Goldeneye XBLA- and saying 'go play the original' addresses neither of those issues.
OK, Granted that that game makes a better wider analogy, but there's one key thing holding it back. I used Half Life as an example- an older game, the first in a series. M is the latest iteration of a long running series that is highly regarded [footnote]though not even close to as much as games like Goldeneye are. Even among the long running Nintendo franchises it's one of the lesser ones.[/footnote] and as such is expected to break new ground. That's what new games are supposed to do. Had Metroid: Other M been a direct remake of an earlier Metroid, it might have had something, anything to do with what we're talking about here. However it isn't, so it doesn't at all.
It depends on your definition is of a minor tweak. To me a minor tweak involves enhancing the graphics a bit, correcting frame-rates, removing an annoying bug or two, supporting higher resolutions etc. As seen in Perfect Dark XBLA for example. That's a remake done right. Having guards dangling off the side of trucks, cramming a dam wall chock full of helipads and searchlights, bogging down a run-and-gun game section with unnecessary cover mechanics and changing the person who actually went through the story in the film version are what we call not minor tweaks.
Again- a moot point. If people only wanted to do that, then there would be no hype for a remake whatsoever.
Actually I am in favour of change, when it's done right, as seen in my views of the XBLA versions of Goldeneye and Perfect Dark as I've already said quite a few times.
You're getting new games confused with remakes again.
Because if Eurocom thinks it needs to change the controls/Level Design/Characters/Everything to make the game work, then at least in their eyes the Wii Goldeneye is certainly "fixed". Note the inverted commas.
Whoever said anything about Perfect Dark Zero or Nuts and Bolts?Azure Sky said:
Then why do these people want a remake? If the only change from the original was improved graphics, I'd consider it a lazy job and would only consider buying it if it were budget priced and I could not get the original easily.Squilookle said:
Sorry, missed you mentioning about the gamepad and thought you were talking about the Wii-mote. It would seem like a bad decision if they changed the controls to the norm, but with Wii-mote play as well it might make things more balanced. The control scheme might not be like Halo upon release, so it seems to me to be too soon to condemn the game's controls now.
So, sequels must break new ground but not remakes?
I was comparing this to new games because I'm viewing this game as if it were a new game, and can't see how viewing it as a remake would make any difference. To me, the Resident Evil remake is an example of a (near) perfect remake since it changed a lot of elements, yet these changes only enhanced what made the original good. Shattered Memories is my personal favourite remake due to the multitude of original elements in that game, but I can understand why others would dislike it having a lot of core gameplay changed.
Also, how did you get your hands on an advanced copy? You seem to be so sure that this will have derogatory changes you must have played it already.
Edit: I understand what you are talking about, it's just it wouldn't have been something I'd personally look forward to, and feel you're being too harsh on the remake we are getting.
*cough [http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-reflex-edition?recent-sort=userscore]*mad825 said:
It's gotten quite a few favourable reviews.
Don't care, because I never played the original and have no interest in the remake. if I did, though, I'd be pretty pissed off. The other version looks a lot better.
You know what, I would have preferred the one released by Rare. Simply because Daniel Craig should never have been Bond in the first place and replacing the Goldeneye bond with him is an insult to Pierce Brosnan's portrayal, which was probably my second favorite portrayal of Bond after Sean Connery.
Also, the Daniel Craig Bond sucks, as do both of the movies he was in. Not as bad as Die Another Day, admittedly, but that's not exactly saying much.
Also, a faithful recreation of the original Goldeneye would have been awesome, even though shooters have and always will be better as PC games. Mouse for the win!
Also, the Daniel Craig Bond sucks, as do both of the movies he was in. Not as bad as Die Another Day, admittedly, but that's not exactly saying much.
Also, a faithful recreation of the original Goldeneye would have been awesome, even though shooters have and always will be better as PC games. Mouse for the win!
ugh, people.
1.it was a comparison on what it will be like, I was declaring it would be similar nothing more.
2.well done, give yourself a pat on a back because that was an exaggeration (just in case you have problems understanding what it means) even so, two years after release is a long time to wait for any game.
1.it was a comparison on what it will be like, I was declaring it would be similar nothing more.
2.well done, give yourself a pat on a back because that was an exaggeration (just in case you have problems understanding what it means) even so, two years after release is a long time to wait for any game.