The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, now EA have the rights to all previous Bond films, all Bond films until 2010, and can also make games not based on any films, but utilising the Bond licence, who's betting we'll see a bunch of Bond games in quick succession, each less imaginative than the last...?
I'm also betting before the contract runs out EA try to redo Goldeneye. All they need to do for that one is recreate the game Rare made years ago for the N64 with nicer graphics. But I'll be betting EA get cocky, try being clever and pilferrring the 'best' bits of the old Goldeneye (probably the bits most easily emulated) and adding their own touch of 'genius' (read: horribly misguided attempt at innovation based on the illusion they have some grain of talent in designing games) and end up ruining the whole thing.
What's worse is that the contract runs out in 2010... may seem a long way off, but with 20 films (17 if you knock off the ones there are already games of...?) to turn into games if EA are to milk this cash cow as much as they can in only 7 years, that's more than 2 games a year. So inevitably they'll end up like the Fifa games. Far too many of them, and very few worth bringing out for all the additional gameplay elements they added.
EA are blatantly incapable of providing anything other than boringly average Bond titles, and this is simply another cash cow for them to milk...
Very optimistic today, I am...
I'm also betting before the contract runs out EA try to redo Goldeneye. All they need to do for that one is recreate the game Rare made years ago for the N64 with nicer graphics. But I'll be betting EA get cocky, try being clever and pilferrring the 'best' bits of the old Goldeneye (probably the bits most easily emulated) and adding their own touch of 'genius' (read: horribly misguided attempt at innovation based on the illusion they have some grain of talent in designing games) and end up ruining the whole thing.
What's worse is that the contract runs out in 2010... may seem a long way off, but with 20 films (17 if you knock off the ones there are already games of...?) to turn into games if EA are to milk this cash cow as much as they can in only 7 years, that's more than 2 games a year. So inevitably they'll end up like the Fifa games. Far too many of them, and very few worth bringing out for all the additional gameplay elements they added.
EA are blatantly incapable of providing anything other than boringly average Bond titles, and this is simply another cash cow for them to milk...
Very optimistic today, I am...
Page:
Cid Vilante wrote:
> Well I just found out that the new Bond game being previewed st E3 is
> in the Third-person perspective.
It will be Tomorrow Never Dies all over again.
A travesty.
> Well I just found out that the new Bond game being previewed st E3 is
> in the Third-person perspective.
It will be Tomorrow Never Dies all over again.
A travesty.
I have to say that I thought that TWINE was decent. Not as good as Goldeneye but still very good.
I dont own the most recent two, but have played them and so far so good. Eurocom are pretty good developers and as long as the storylines are different in each game that they release, then it should be OK. If they do the movies then that would not be a problem. If they do more original Bond games like Nightfire and Agent Under Fire then make sure they have new storylines.
But dont knock it because EA have the license and are turning it into a franchise. Franchises can be good. See Nintendo for proof.
What it does bring about is the prospect of a Bond film based on a Bond game. That would be pretty cool methinks.
I plan on getting Nightfire and Agent Under Fire and maybe the next few. Admittedly it could get dull and repetitive if they were all very similar but they could do it well if they put in the effort.
Besides, by 2010 we will be on the next set of consoles, and they may be getting old by then. Who knows what developments they could bring?
I dont own the most recent two, but have played them and so far so good. Eurocom are pretty good developers and as long as the storylines are different in each game that they release, then it should be OK. If they do the movies then that would not be a problem. If they do more original Bond games like Nightfire and Agent Under Fire then make sure they have new storylines.
But dont knock it because EA have the license and are turning it into a franchise. Franchises can be good. See Nintendo for proof.
What it does bring about is the prospect of a Bond film based on a Bond game. That would be pretty cool methinks.
I plan on getting Nightfire and Agent Under Fire and maybe the next few. Admittedly it could get dull and repetitive if they were all very similar but they could do it well if they put in the effort.
Besides, by 2010 we will be on the next set of consoles, and they may be getting old by then. Who knows what developments they could bring?
Well I just found out that the new Bond game being previewed st E3 is in the Third-person perspective. So anyway....
some (most?) people who make tv/movies haven't a clue about games. look how long it took to get a good star trek game. Universal studios game? Think of the amount of poor platformers have been released with a movies name adorning the box. If rare hadn't upped the stakes with goldeneye I wonder what things would be like now. Some people just see games as another form of cheap crappy merchandise to slap a movie name on and it'll sell loads. Luckily there are getting to be more exceptions. But those who aren't in the know are going to go with the company promising most profits on all formats (probably why rare lost the licence as they couldn't do all formats, but still different games on all formats is achievable (star wars).
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> If you don't like them, don't buy them. Corporate greed is nothing
> new, and nothing interesting.
I won't. I'm simply annoyed at the fact that a good licence such as this is going to EA for 7 years. In my opinion, it's a complete waste. The Bond games EA have created thus far have all been unimaginative and ultimately average games... I don't see why whoever owns the 'Bond' franchise didn't give the licence to some developer who might make some games that were better than simply average... It's most likely to do with EA forking out most, but surely the people in charge of the Bond franchise can't be that strapped for cash...? And I'd assume they'd be taking a percentage of the profits from the games, if that's the case, better to give it to a developer who may actively push the games in ways other than saying "ooh, we have the official bond licence, therefore our game is that much better than every other generic FPS"...
Anyway. Rant 2 over.
> If you don't like them, don't buy them. Corporate greed is nothing
> new, and nothing interesting.
I won't. I'm simply annoyed at the fact that a good licence such as this is going to EA for 7 years. In my opinion, it's a complete waste. The Bond games EA have created thus far have all been unimaginative and ultimately average games... I don't see why whoever owns the 'Bond' franchise didn't give the licence to some developer who might make some games that were better than simply average... It's most likely to do with EA forking out most, but surely the people in charge of the Bond franchise can't be that strapped for cash...? And I'd assume they'd be taking a percentage of the profits from the games, if that's the case, better to give it to a developer who may actively push the games in ways other than saying "ooh, we have the official bond licence, therefore our game is that much better than every other generic FPS"...
Anyway. Rant 2 over.
yeah having a debate about a companys impact on games (future gaming anyone) is REALLY for the inbred? we'd better all shut up and not have any opinions at all.
"mai"?
What?
Die another day was prolly one of the worst bond films ever
Dude, don't bother. You're wasting the skin on your fingers trying to reason with them...they're inbred, ya?
It's the same with Bill and his Microsoft "Me h8 him he haz moor monee than mee and mai mum wownt by me nu shoos"
It's the same with Bill and his Microsoft "Me h8 him he haz moor monee than mee and mai mum wownt by me nu shoos"
Page: