Post by: Mario on March 14, 2003, 01:24:42 PM
Quote
GOLDEN
A sequel to Rare's Bond?
Rumor has it that EA is keen to produce a true follow-up to the revered N64 Bond game, Goldeneye. Could Free Radical be involved?
Quote from magazine OPM... (i think its a European magazine) Hmmm, very interesting, if anyone could make a true sequal to Goldeneye its gotta be Free Radical. I hope that if this is true, that its exclusive to Gamecube, because multiplatform games arent as good as exclusive games. Its probably all BS though, but im bored and i had nothing else to say....
Post by: Mingesium on March 14, 2003, 01:36:23 PM
Post by: CijaroDSK on March 14, 2003, 01:39:36 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 14, 2003, 01:40:46 PM
Doesn't OPM stand for Official Playstation Magazine? There's no way in hell a Gamecube exclusive would be mentioned in that magazine. Considering EA's other James Bond games are for the most part multiplatform I'm sure this would be as well.
Post by: )Dark-LInk( on March 14, 2003, 02:02:56 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 14, 2003, 02:02:57 PM
Edit: sorry for the repetition, Dark-Link got it just before me.
Post by: Perfect Cell on March 14, 2003, 03:12:37 PM
Post by: Joey on March 14, 2003, 05:20:43 PM
Quote
Yeah, theoretically all Bond games since then have been "sequels." However, in the truest sense, a sequel to GoldenEye would not be possible, except on X-Box, because Rare created the first game.
I am not an expert but wouldn't the fact that EA now onws the Bond licence entitle them to make a Golden Eye sequal if they wanted to. I don't think Rare has any claims to Golden Eye becuase they no longer have the licence.
Post by: Mario on March 14, 2003, 05:47:23 PM
Quote
Doesn't OPM stand for Official Playstation Magazine? There's no way in hell a Gamecube exclusive would be mentioned in that magazine. Considering EA's other James Bond games are for the most part multiplatform I'm sure this would be as well.
Yes but all that the magazine knows is that there is a rumour that EA and Free Radical are gonna team up to produce a true sequal to Goldeneye, meaning a game as good as Goldeneye, and not the utter trash that EA have been producing. And it can be done, maybe some of you dont know this but Free Radical Design is made up of ex-rare employees, the ones that made Goldeneye. And im just saying that if "Goldeneye 2" (it obviously wont be called that though) is gonna be made, Nintendo would want to try and make it exclusive and also, just like Goldeneye was. And if its gonna turn out to be a really good game, then it would be alot easier if its just being made for one platform, and i was saying that i hope Gamecube is that platform. Am i making myself clear?
Post by: ThePerm on March 14, 2003, 06:32:49 PM
Post by: Hybrid Hunter on March 14, 2003, 07:10:16 PM
Well, it wouldn't need to be the sequel to Goldeneye, just that whatever the next movie is called, or whatever 007 game they are making next just has to capture the feel of Goldeneye.
Well, if it was exclusive to GCN only and the free radical are developing it that'd be cool! But i highly doubt it..
Post by: Mario on March 14, 2003, 07:17:54 PM
Quote
Wonder how long EA will have the 007 license?
Hmmm, good question. I wonder if the contract ever expires, if Nintendo will buy the Bond license, they could give it to Retro
Now THAT would make a game as good as Goldeneye extremely possible. But that wont happen will it? 
Post by: kennyb27 on March 14, 2003, 07:48:24 PM
QuoteYeah, the same way that Agent Under Fire and Nightfire were sequels to GoldenEye. You see, the thing about that game is that one cannot make a true sequel. I mean, what could they do? If they make a Bond game, sure they are making a sequel, but then again, its not really a sequel as most of us (or at least I) think of a sequel to be.
I am not an expert but wouldn't the fact that EA now onws the Bond licence entitle them to make a Golden Eye sequal if they wanted to.
QuoteI don't see how you are disagreeing with me here. That is what I am saying. A sequel to GoldenEye cannot be made because the same developers are not present--given that Free Radical does have ex-Rare employees, does not mean it is the same development staff--and because it is two different developers/publishers (Rare/Nintendo as opposed to Free Radical/EA).
I don't think Rare has any claims to Golden Eye becuase they no longer have the licence.
QuoteNo, to me you are not. First off, every FPS developer has sat down and told themselves, we are going to make this better than GoldenEye. No one wants to settle for second. But has a game touched that milestone yet? No, maybe Perfect Dark, but I didn't think so. So, they cannot just throw together a team and know that their game will be a sequel simply because they want it to be. And sadly, most developers think that putting an exclusive FPS on GCN would be suicide, remember developers do hear the ill-founded rumors that GCN is a "kiddie system" (for the record, I hated typing that). And I doubt Nintendo would be willing to fork out the money on this so called "sequel to GoldenEye" to make it exclusive. I understand your point on the single-platform idea, because that does make a game more solid from the ground up; however, the point still stands EA and Free Radical will both see a more profitable market for a tri-console release.
Yes but all that the magazine knows is that there is a rumour that EA and Free Radical are gonna team up to produce a true sequal to Goldeneye, meaning a game as good as Goldeneye, and not the utter trash that EA have been producing. And it can be done, maybe some of you dont know this but Free Radical Design is made up of ex-rare employees, the ones that made Goldeneye. And im just saying that if "Goldeneye 2" (it obviously wont be called that though) is gonna be made, Nintendo would want to try and make it exclusive and also, just like Goldeneye was. And if its gonna turn out to be a really good game, then it would be alot easier if its just being made for one platform, and i was saying that i hope Gamecube is that platform. Am i making myself clear?
Post by: nemo_83 on March 14, 2003, 08:14:44 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 14, 2003, 09:18:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: )Dark-LInk(
even if they made it, i HIGHLY DOUBT that it wil match the CLASSIC GOLDENEYE which is stil seen by me as the greatest FPS multiplayer. RARE made both perfect dark and GE which means onl RARE could make a TRUE good sequel to it..............
*Looks over at all the staff that left Rare for Free Radical and Zoonami, many who worked on both GoldenEye and Perfect Dark*
... I'm sorry, what were you saying Dark-LInk? =P
Post by: Mario on March 14, 2003, 09:50:36 PM
Quote
*Looks over at all the staff that left Rare for Free Radical and Zoonami, many who worked on both GoldenEye and Perfect Dark*
... I'm sorry, what were you saying Dark-LInk? =P
LOL!!! Dark Link = 0wn3d!
Quote
No, to me you are not. First off, every FPS developer has sat down and told themselves, we are going to make this better than GoldenEye. No one wants to settle for second. But has a game touched that milestone yet? No, maybe Perfect Dark, but I didn't think so. So, they cannot just throw together a team and know that their game will be a sequel simply because they want it to be. And sadly, most developers think that putting an exclusive FPS on GCN would be suicide, remember developers do hear the ill-founded rumors that GCN is a "kiddie system" (for the record, I hated typing that). And I doubt Nintendo would be willing to fork out the money on this so called "sequel to GoldenEye" to make it exclusive. I understand your point on the single-platform idea, because that does make a game more solid from the ground up; however, the point still stands EA and Free Radical will both see a more profitable market for a tri-console release.
You have some good points kennyb27. But IMO Free Radical came pretty damn close to that milestone with Timesplitters 2, Timesplitters 2 is nearly as fun as Goldeneye. And also, compare Timesplitters 2 to Timesplitters 1, there is a huge difference in the quality of those games. Free Radical are just learning, thier next game will be even better, they are a thriving new games developer who are getting more talented by the minute, and are more than capable of producing a game equal to or even better than Goldeneye. Now about the multiplatorm issue, sometimes making a game multiplatform isnt the most profitable way, they would still have to spend money to make the game for all three consoles, but mainly because a certain company could pay EA to make the game exclusive with a sum of money larger than what EA would make by putting the game on other systems, which also means profit even if the game doesnt sell, thus making a single platform release even more attractive to the companyso EA is guaranteed profit no matter what. You get what im trying to say? And they could make it a true sequel by making the next bond game of outstanding quality equal to Goldeneye and pimping it as "The Goldeneye of the new millenium" or something along those lines.
Post by: mrcivic on March 15, 2003, 12:24:28 AM
And it was Rare who made the game what it is, not the brand name. And just in case you don't know, Rare is gone....
Post by: Joey on March 15, 2003, 02:41:04 PM
Quote
I don't see how you are disagreeing with me here. That is what I am saying. A sequel to GoldenEye cannot be made because the same developers are not present--given that Free Radical does have ex-Rare employees, does not mean it is the same development staff--and because it is two different developers/publishers (Rare/Nintendo as opposed to Free Radical/EA).Quote
My mistake. I though you were trying to say that EA would not have been allowled to make one since the original Golden Eye was made by Rare. I do agree with you actual point.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 15, 2003, 06:11:01 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 15, 2003, 06:19:30 PM
QuoteLet's not be too harsh here. Agent under Fire was a poorly developed game. However, Nightfire was a much better game and definitely higher than your average FPS.
EA sucks at shooters. Period. Done. They suck.
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2003, 07:11:38 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on March 16, 2003, 02:26:45 AM
I think it's good enough that we have Bond, Madden and Potter in our stable of games, so....yeah.
Post by: rpglover on March 16, 2003, 04:01:55 AM
perfect dark was supposed to be the sequal to goldeneye with bond staring
but since ea aquired the bond liscence, rare would be sued if they made a game with bond's likeness
so they had to drop all of that and make perfect dark
now as for a true sequal- i am pretty sure that free radical is very capable of doing it
i thought timesplitters two was really great
although the single player lacker coherency, the multiplayer matches and challenges just kept me playing for weeks
if they worked with ea (which i think wont happen) they could make a bond game mixing both ea's ideas and free radical's
ea is very capable of doing the gadgets, weapons, and story for the game and free radical could make the game like goldeneye with objective based missions
hopefully it will come true
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 16, 2003, 04:33:31 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 16, 2003, 05:50:26 AM
QuoteI never even came close to saying or thinking that Nightfire was as good as GoldenEye or Perfect Dark. I was simply trying to prove my point that EA has published an above average shooter.
But even if Nightfire was better, it was still no GoldenEye or Perfect Dark. Or DOOM for that matter.
Post by: ThePerm on March 16, 2003, 01:09:59 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 17, 2003, 07:56:04 AM
)
Post by: GoldShadow1 on March 17, 2003, 12:22:50 PM
Post by: aycr on March 18, 2003, 09:09:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: kennyb27QuoteLet's not be too harsh here. Agent under Fire was a poorly developed game. However, Nightfire was a much better game and definitely higher than your average FPS.
EA sucks at shooters. Period. Done. They suck.
Incorrect. Eurocom created Nightfire, EA merely published.
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow1That doesn't make any sense. There's been plenty of Bond games - there can't be a true follow-up to GoldenEye unless Rare makes it. Otherwise, it's just another bond game that's similar to it.
Not true. A sequel would entail a continuation of the plotline. The Bond movies are all considered sequels to the last, yet the lead actor, writer, and director often change.
Post by: kennyb27 on March 18, 2003, 09:41:37 AM
QuoteOooh, right. My mistake. Silly me. Wait...could it be that he said EA makes poor shooters? Did I respond to his question. EA is a publishing house when it comes to FPSs. I am well aware that Eurocom programmed and developed Nightfire. But would a huge publishing house like EA really let a game created by a developing house (that they are paying, mind you) just pass by with the "EA seal of approval" without checking it and clearing it? I don't think so, no. EA may not develop a game, but a publisher does just what its name suggests, they pay for the publishing costs. So, theoretically, the developing house is "being paid for" by EA to do their work. In fact, I did not even mention EA developing or programming a game in that post.
Incorrect. Eurocom created Nightfire, EA merely published.
So, I guess I should apologize if I mislead anyone, EA did not develop Nightfire. I'm sorry for any misconceptions that I may have started.
Post by: VideoGamerJ on March 18, 2003, 10:06:15 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 18, 2003, 04:47:27 PM
Also, the plot never picks up where the last left off. Bond girls are always in only one film and they never make mention to old Bond villains. It's kinda of like the deal with FFX-2: each new Final Fantasy game is an entirely new story with new characters and does not carry on from the last game. However, Final Fantasy X-2 is an actual sequel to Final Fantasy X, picking up where the it left off and involving the same character and world. I'm guessing that's what they mean by a "true" sequel to Goldeneye, a continuation of the Goldeneye plot rather than a whole new Bond mission.
Hehe- I just realise, if you sound out the letters of OPM, it sounds like opium.
Post by: Samwise Gamgee on March 18, 2003, 06:06:37 PM
Post by: aycr on March 20, 2003, 07:11:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker"Not true. A sequel would entail a continuation of the plotline. The Bond movies are all considered sequels to the last, yet the lead actor, writer, and director often change."
Also, the plot never picks up where the last left off.
Bond would be 73.
