The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Goldeneye: Rogue Agent'.
Check the latest story on er-no.com
Thats actually all from reliable sources.
Looks like we are in for a shock treat in 2004.
I think so!
Thats actually all from reliable sources.
Looks like we are in for a shock treat in 2004.
I think so!
Page:
TGMbloke wrote:
>
> I bloddy well hope not. They can make a new, better engine. Even
> compared to the likes of the Quake3 engine, the Goldeneye one is old
> and crubbly. The gameplay was fantasic, but since then things have
> moved on, and we want a PD engine capable to the likes of Halo. The
> beutey of PD one was its engine was so new. PD0 should have a new one
> too.
As long as it has the same balance of accuracy and gameplay as Goldeneye and PD then I'll be happy.
>
> I bloddy well hope not. They can make a new, better engine. Even
> compared to the likes of the Quake3 engine, the Goldeneye one is old
> and crubbly. The gameplay was fantasic, but since then things have
> moved on, and we want a PD engine capable to the likes of Halo. The
> beutey of PD one was its engine was so new. PD0 should have a new one
> too.
As long as it has the same balance of accuracy and gameplay as Goldeneye and PD then I'll be happy.
TGMbloke wrote:
>
> If it was a platformer thougher though...A bond platformer...Now,
> Nintendo would make that special!
That's true. And EA have made the next Bond third person........
>
> If it was a platformer thougher though...A bond platformer...Now,
> Nintendo would make that special!
That's true. And EA have made the next Bond third person........
TGMbloke wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Surely Rare own the engine?
>
> They must do. Perfect Dark.
Yes, but Nintendo still published it. That's why I think it could be complex. Better not be as the next PD had better use that engine. It's still lightyears ahead.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Surely Rare own the engine?
>
> They must do. Perfect Dark.
Yes, but Nintendo still published it. That's why I think it could be complex. Better not be as the next PD had better use that engine. It's still lightyears ahead.
TGMbloke wrote:
> Goldeneye 2 seems like an obvious one for EA. Even if they just title
> it 'Goldeneye EA' and publish it multiformat it would sell bucket
> loads no matter how good or bad it is. Its the Nintendo exclusive part
> that seems a little odd, but another Goleneye game seems blatently
> obvious.
yeah EA have gone weird the last 6/12 months or so. They seem to care all of a sudden. I used to hate EA, but they've bought/hired some good companys.
I used to see them as churning out 'cookie cutter' games. They still do but I ignore these.
I was surprised at how good Buffy was.
I was surprised at how enjoyable The Sims was.
I Liked the multi in Nightfire, far away from Perfect Dark but still the closest thing since.
Defjam Vendetta really kicked me in the head and said 'look EA suddenly know what they are doing'.
Even Need for Speed was a good racer.
EA's new influx of talent is encouraging.
> Goldeneye 2 seems like an obvious one for EA. Even if they just title
> it 'Goldeneye EA' and publish it multiformat it would sell bucket
> loads no matter how good or bad it is. Its the Nintendo exclusive part
> that seems a little odd, but another Goleneye game seems blatently
> obvious.
yeah EA have gone weird the last 6/12 months or so. They seem to care all of a sudden. I used to hate EA, but they've bought/hired some good companys.
I used to see them as churning out 'cookie cutter' games. They still do but I ignore these.
I was surprised at how good Buffy was.
I was surprised at how enjoyable The Sims was.
I Liked the multi in Nightfire, far away from Perfect Dark but still the closest thing since.
Defjam Vendetta really kicked me in the head and said 'look EA suddenly know what they are doing'.
Even Need for Speed was a good racer.
EA's new influx of talent is encouraging.
Surely Rare own the engine?
It'll damn good if EA can put in a few 'non-destructive' ideas and Ninty put in their gameplay expertiese (sp?)
er-no wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> As EA own the license they can do whatever they want. Nintendo don't
> own the rights to Goldeneye. They just have that game. It could be
> redone without Ninendos permission. Besides, Rare own the copyright
> to
> it anyway..
>
> Wrong. :P
How? The copyright logo and screen on the game would appear to suggest otherwise.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> As EA own the license they can do whatever they want. Nintendo don't
> own the rights to Goldeneye. They just have that game. It could be
> redone without Ninendos permission. Besides, Rare own the copyright
> to
> it anyway..
>
> Wrong. :P
How? The copyright logo and screen on the game would appear to suggest otherwise.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> The relationship with ninty wasn't on the ropes for the 4 years that
> Starfox was in development.
No, but it jumped consoles.
> The relationship with ninty wasn't on the ropes for the 4 years that
> Starfox was in development.
No, but it jumped consoles.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Care to tell us what these reliable sources are?
The all-knowing guy in GAME, surely...
> Care to tell us what these reliable sources are?
The all-knowing guy in GAME, surely...
Care to tell us what these reliable sources are?
Page: