Author Topic: GOLDENEYE 2 WE NEED IT! (Read 5444 times)

Matt911 · « **on:** November 26, 2003, 05:14:08 PM »

OK I think they should make another goldeneye becouse it was a really good game i still dont see games now that dont even use the engine wtf?? i dont understand...... i think its could be a perfect game if it had a graphics boost....or even better Goldeneye 2 that would be really kewl i would pay alot to play well anyone agree with me nintendo should stop messing around with pikmin 2 and mario 128 when they could be makeing a masterpeice i know everything about the first goldneyewhoever agree post something i want alot of people soo we are heard!!!!!

Molobert · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2003, 05:23:36 PM »

Well Rare made Goldeneye, and now they make games for Microsoft, so I don't see a Rare-made Bond game happening on the gamecube. Either way EA has the license, and their next 007 game will be in 3rd person...and I'd much rather have Mario 128 than a new 007 game.

Shadow Link · « **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2003, 05:41:00 PM »

I wish EA never aquired the Bond Licence. All their bond games are crappy

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2003, 05:41:40 PM »

Yes, Goldeneye was a great game, but it was far from a masterpiece...And it would be difficult to make a sequel to a game that is based on a movie...

Shift Key · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2003, 06:05:39 PM »

*takes deep breath to read insanely long sentence*

OK. Lets look at some facts before we jump on the fanboy bandwagon.
1. Rare is no longer making games for the GC.
2. Most of the Goldeneye team has moved on (a few were behind Timesplitters 1 & 2, but I can't be definite on TS3).
3. Nintendo would need permission from EA to re-release Goldeneye.

Goldeneye isn't the perfect game. Ultimately, there will be a game that is better than it in the future, and it has been surpassed. But it is a classic, and right up there in my top ten FPS. For its time, it couldn't be beat, and it certainly is one of the few good movie to game conversions around.

PIAC · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2003, 06:07:25 PM »

it's a shame they don't use the goldeneye engine more, i loved those ultra combo breaker death corn frame rates, mmmmmm 2fps

ib2kool4u912 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2003, 06:18:12 PM »

All I want is Perfect Dark Zero. For my Gamecube. Right now. Perfect Dark is my favorite video game, and i think its better then Goldeneye. I also think its better than Timesplitters 2 and Halo but i don't think many people agree with me. I think that what Shadow Link said was funny because after i bought Agent Under Fire it made me go and play Perfect Dark more (I finally beat it on agent after that. I suck at the game but i still love it.) But since Rares at Microsoft i might have to buy an Xbox (or a Xbox 3 at the pace Rare makes games) to play Perfect Dark Zero.

As for Goldeneye 2 like everyone else said EA has the Bond license and, their games haven't been close to either Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, in my opinion.

Oldskool · « **Reply #7 on:** November 27, 2003, 08:00:29 AM »

I WILL FORCE EA TO GET FREE-RADICAL TO DEVELOP THE NEXT BOND GAME!!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! All in the most polite manner, of course.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2003, 09:04:40 AM »

One thing I really like about Goldeneye is that not only is it a classic but it's unique and will likely never be recreated again. Sure there's other Bond games but those aren't made by Rare and thus aren't really direct sequels. Sure there's Perfect Dark but that's that technically not a sequel. Goldeneye is a one-time game that provides a one-time experience and I like the fact that there's no Goldeneye 2. I never want to see a Goldeneye 2 because it would likely be a cheap cash-in to make money off of the other game's name. Like many movies are better without sequels (Matrix, Jurassic Park) Goldeneye is better as a one time game.

The only time I would approve of the existence of a Goldeneye 2 is if the original team that worked on the original worked on the sequel and Nintendo was publishing it instead of EA. With any other publisher besides Nintendo the game would be rushed out the door.

ThePerm · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2003, 09:30:01 AM »

logic dictates that if EA and free radicals got together it would be a hit

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2003, 09:31:36 AM »

Logic states that it would be an even bigger hit if EA didn't get involved with the game at all, and let FR do everything...

Ian Sane · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2003, 09:53:42 AM »

Logic dictates that it would be a hit regardless of who made it because every idiot who bought all of EA's Bond games because they thought it would be as good as Goldeneye would buy it.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2003, 09:57:42 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Logic states that it would be a better game if EA didn't get involved with the game at all, and let FR do everything...

Fixed... ^_^

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2003, 03:07:28 PM »

Quote
nintendo should stop messing around with pikmin 2 and mario 128 when they could be makeing a masterpeice

Why should Nintendo stop messing around with Mario 128 and Pikmin 2 to go buy the Bond license off EA, and make a remake of a game we've all played to death? Besides, EA are killing the Bond name with their average games (NightFire, Agent Under Fire, That God Awful 007 Racing Game on PSone, That Other Crap and so on). Just let them kill it off and go back to the classic on Nintendo 64. =)

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2003, 01:29:03 PM »

Im only hopeing that Ubi Soft publishes free radical games, cause Ubi Soft > Electronic Arts

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2003, 07:16:59 PM »

I was kinda of hoping for an exclusive arrangement for GC Bond game. Kind of like the MGS: TT deal with Konami. Nintendo could hire Free Radical or Zoonami to develop it with EA publishing it. EA would make boat loads of money because it would be a Bond title that actually played like Goldeneye. Nintendo would reap the benefits of the buzz and hardware selling power of a true successor to Goldeneye. No matter what system my friends own, its agreed that we all loved Goldeneye. I know it won't happen but hey who knows Iwata is full of suprises.

Darc Requiem

Maddog_89 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 30, 2003, 08:27:33 PM »

I reckon Golden Eye is the only decent bond game around, all the others either take it too far with ridiculous weapons or are really just the same as the last game but with better graphics and more ridiculous guns...if they were going to release an fps game like 007 it should be a new Perfect Dark game

Bartman3010 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 01, 2003, 12:58:52 AM »

Everything to Nothing seemed a bit interesting...

Luciferschild · « **Reply #18 on:** December 01, 2003, 10:34:18 AM »

I agree with ib2kool4u912 that pd is the best fps ever, golden eye did have better levels and level design but overall I like pd because of more blood, bodies stay and floor, way more weapons, and better multi-player with bots plus the ultimate Co-op mode. Most of all I liked the simple and effective control scheme of pd/ge and find myself not really getting the control scheme of modern fps's I've tried. Besides it's not realistic to be able to aim while running all around, you should only be able to aim while standing still or walking backwards. Just my opinion.

Berny · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2003, 10:41:42 AM »

Why is it unrealistic for one to be able to aim and run at the same time? I'm pretty sure it's possible. I mean, just look at the Matrix.

I'm all for a Goldeneye remake. Like you said, and like I said in some other thread yesterday, more guns, no gadgets, new levels, and improved graphics would sell well. I know the Cube's been getting a lot of remakes, but that's one I'd really want. Granted, if i had to chose between GE remake and MGS, I'd choose the latter, but GE might be nice. Doubt we'll ever see it though. If we do, EA will make it and screw it up.

Luciferschild · « **Reply #20 on:** December 01, 2003, 11:00:45 AM »

Try holding an m-16 running at full speed and aiming, it's not going to work. Just jogging it's going to be extremely hard to hit anything that's not right in front of you let alone moving sideways (strafing) and aiming. People who make fps's need to get a clue. Ge/pd had it about right.

Luciferschild · « **Reply #21 on:** December 01, 2003, 11:02:23 AM »

whoops double post

Berny · « **Reply #22 on:** December 01, 2003, 02:22:07 PM »

lol. Yeah I guess you're right. I had pistols in mind when I commented. I love using pistols and one handed weapons in shooters. They take great skill to use. But yeah. Firing a missle launcher and aiming at 15 different places is nearly impossible. But when you're using anything incindiary, it really doesn't matter how far off you are.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #23 on:** December 01, 2003, 02:34:21 PM »

If I want realistic accuracy I'll go play CS or head out to the shooting range...

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 01, 2003, 03:34:22 PM »

You can't hit much with an m-16 full auto because the m-16 hasn't been full auto for about 20 years

, but you can hit practically anything firing in bursts.

News:

Author Topic: GOLDENEYE 2 WE NEED IT! (Read 5444 times)