I was implying something but thanks for taking it to a new level.

That's my job, sir.

and I might have to pick up a Wii eventually...Metroid ...Goldeneye...Zelda.. meh.
I need to win the lotto.

Ummm is there a reason that we need a remake of goldeneye with Daniel Craig that doesn't look much better than the N64 original?

No.
Chances are, it will probably suck.

But I'll still play it.

Yea I really hope what we saw of Goldeneye is an early build or something, it looks like ****.

It doesn't look like crap, it looks like a Wii game. Specifically, it's a Wii FPS game. They all look bad.

I'd like to match up all the people who say gameplay is what really matters with the people who say anything less than cutting-edge graphics is crap.

No one was expecting cutting-edge graphics for Goldeneye game for the Wii ... but that doesn't mean it have to look like crap. Gameplay over graphics is nice argument and all but video games is still a interactive visual medium. When you are paying for a game, you should get both.

why is link wearing pants in the trailer

Agreed.

I don't mean to imply that I particular like the aesthetics for this Goldeneye reimagining, and I certainly know the importance of visual aesthetics in video games. But "crap" is certainly not what it is. My problem is when the bar for good visuals is set against current technological potential, not aesthetic quality.

Gameplay wise, isn't Goldeneye a bit outdated though compared to other current FPS games?

Lets see.

Gameplay on Goldeneye : Shoot things.

Gameplay in current FPS : Shoot things.

Seems good.

*yawn*

Had a Wii, had a DS. Sold one and pawned the other. Not for me.

Yeah, Microsoft seems to have taken it too far to still be fun for any period of time in my opinion. Probably still get a lot of sales though.



I really hope that's sarcasm

Miyamoto has confirmed that Skyward Sword will have fully orchestrated music, like the Galaxy games.

While not a lot of specific details Goldeneye is being highly rejuvenated. They're using Daniel Craig, and reworking the game to fall in line with Craig's "style." As IGN said it "GoldenEye still retains the basics of GoldenEye's story, but retells it in a way that makes sense with Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond" so it seems it could be quite a bit different, but I don't know. The style of game will be in line with the more "contemporary" FPS games. No health pick ups, regenerating health and whatnot.

I'm HIGHLY interested in Goldeneye, but we'll see how that continues as the game development proceeds and more information is made available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_%281983_film%29

According to this old movie something like that was developed.

I think the main difference in the new Goldeneye, based on my impression from the trailers, is the overall brutality and the physical combat.

I don't recall health pickups in the original Goldeneye...

There were ARMOR pickups, but you only had your health you start with.

But now you'll get it back if you hide in a corner long enough. I actually prefer that. When playing shooters, I want to shoot things, not hunt for health packs. But. It is kind of lame still.

I wasn't expecting much to get excited over as far as the wii was concerned, but since watching a bunch of videos I've found a lot of games to look forward to.

I don't like Daniel Craig. The fact that they are 'reworking' it, means its going to be terrible. As long as multiplayer is good, it can't fail. So they'd better bet the bank on MP.

I think this is the sentiment that is responsible for the recharging health in newer games. The problem is mostly the implementation. In the Call of Duty games, if I take cover, I'm back to full health in like 15 seconds. It's ridiculous! A better approach might be SLOW health regeneration, on the order of two or three minutes. And even then, maybe put a limit on regeneration that's proportional to the amount of damage taken. If you've just been shot in the neck, you can't really come back from that. But if someone punches you in the face every 10 minutes, it's never really going to kill you.

I always liked the locational health and damage in games like Deus Ex. Most people would probably say it's too involved for most shooters, but I don't buy that. Games like CoD (I think) and others tout their "realism" with fewer shot kills, bullet penetration etc. Of course all they went out the window when they introduced regenerating health.

CoD and other modern "realistic" games are about providing an illusion of realism, not a simulation.

Regenerating health keeps the action moving at a steady pace because you don't need to stop and search for a health pack when you need one. Such was the intention of systems where you collect health packs and use them when needed. Except that kind of system takes up a button, which can be pretty limited realestate on a gamepad.

SLOW health regeneration would be just as bad as health pack hunting. I'd rather search for a pack then sit in a corner somewhere for three minutes.

But I do like the idea of some wounds being regeneratable and others not. It's be like in (most) fighting games, when you take a hit your health bar goes down in a certain colour, but that slowly regenerates, but if you take a big hit (or enough little hits) then the colour disappears as well, permanently capping your health till you die.

I see potential.


Wait a second... I think Saints Row 2 had something like that >_> (it also had health kits for when your low on health and all the regen bar is gone)

That sounds like a great system for a multiplayer game. For example : Gears of War. Health is recovered; but a headshot with the sniper rifle is still a one-hit kill, as are explosives. For a single player game, however, I only like the what-you-got-is-all-you-get system in tactical shooters, like the GRAW series, or, well, Goldeneye. In fact I can't think of any other examples where it wasn't frustrating.

On the original topic: Nintendo represents everything that is wrong with the film industry, only in the videogame industry.

Let's see what we've got here... sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, remake, sequel, sequel, gimmick, 3d, sequel.

The sequel and remake bits apply to every platform (due to the lower risk of releasing a sequel to an established franchise, though all systems get their original, non-sequel games as well even if they seem few and far between), and Sony's coming out with a 3D thing as well. The gimmicks are obviously effective since Sony and MS are both copying them...I don't like the Wii, but let's be fair.

Yes, but my gripe is that the Nintendo sequels are for games which have had like 400 installments already.

Are sequels and continuations of narrative franchises inherently bad the more there are, regardless of quality?

Good point, I typically think sequels are bad because they suffer a (often very sharp) decline in quality.
This doesn't happen so much with the nintendo games.

Yet another thing where Saints Row roxors :v

I never actually played the first one so I wouldn't know >_>

That's a very good point, but it would just be nice if Nintendo came up with a few new characters... I'm not arguing the quality of the games, but in some cases we just arbitrarily have Nintendo characters playing sports and stuff like that. It's kind of silly, but at the same time, there's really nothing wrong with it I suppose...

I don't know... I'm pretty pissed at the entire videogame industry and I guess I'm just taking it out on Nintendo.

First of all, you're comparing apples to oranges here.

You're saying sequels are bad, but everyone likes to know the next part of the story, the next challenge, the new puzzles. It wouldn't be any different than calling it an 'expansion' and selling it as well. At least with Nintendo, MOST of the sequels come in on new engines.

I don't think most people would call technical innovation 'gimmicks'.

Thumbsticks were a gimmick, "ooo a small joystick, how cute!" but look, sony has TWO... that doesn't even allow you to use the main buttons.
Rumble was a gimmick. Would you play a game today without it?
Motion was a gimmick, now look who wants you to buy a $300 console, and then add $179 for motion controls. Sony AND Microturd.

Don't call innovation a gimmick. The only thing that I can think of that Nintendo did that hasn't been ripped off was the light gun from NES. RIP Light Gun, the LCD drove the final nail in the coffin.

I just don't see how you'd prefer to never get a sequel to anything. Especially when it's more often than not, spread apart by generation. Where as most of the games on other systems or multiplatformers, end up with two or even three sequels on a single console.

>Microturd.
Durrrr, stopped reading right there.

Well, since most of the time it's called Micro****, but you can't say ****, turd makes a nice censor free sub. You turd.

That actually makes you look even worse than if you had used "Micro$oft".

Yeah the whole thing of saying M$ or Microthisorthat always makes you look really stupid.

Wait, why are Microsoft being labelled and not Sony?