FPS Convention war

I'm having an argument with topherfilms on Goldeneye 007 hands on over health regeneration, cover system, linear levels and QTE on FPS and I don't have any answers to it. Can you help me solve this? Thanks. Johnny Nguyen.

Could you be a bit clearer on what the argument is? Is it about the implementation of these things? The truth of whether or not Wii Goldeneye has these things?

Health regen, cover and QTE are all fail in a game like this, I don't mind regeneraing health providing there is a reason for it like in Halo but I was hoping GoldenEye would stick to the fixed health and body armour formula. Shaping up to be a CoD clone me worries :?.

It's more like old vs new. He's basically saying we should not have these features in the FPS. I'm saying now it's acceptable in videogames and not in a negative sense. He went further saying that new games should stick to the old conventions. Example, Legend of Zelda should always have Epona in the DS games. FPS should have no place to hide, no quick time events, no health regeneration and no covers from his view. He wants multiple paths and so forth of things that evolved from that game. It's good but in a merry go round. All I'm saying that is games like Need For Speed and Call of Duty is much like Bruce Lee's philosophy: Keep what's useful, get rid of what's useless and add specifically your own. I'm getting carried away here.

I don't know a comfortable middle ground but I'm trying very hard to keep it under control and not let it get out of hand. I don't mind people disagreeing my views but that's how I feel anyway. Hopefully it would make sense. Johnny Nguyen.

Ah ok. Interesting..

Well, I mean they're remaking the game to today's standards, and to do that, they should implement things that modern FPSers have, otherwise it's pointless to remake the game. If you like the original go play the original, but this is a remake here, and it'd be pointless if you're gonna remake it to the 90's standards.

But this argument only applies to this specific game, rather than the "convention war" you speak of.

In the general sense, I guess the only argument I could think of is that gaming is getting bigger and better, and gamers are getting better. Older games had simplier ways of playing, simplier systems (in terms of how health and weapons etc is distributed). Thus, we evolve the game as technology and gamers are ready to embrace more technical ways of playing. It's not simply bang bang you're dead, it's bang bang, cover, recover, select particular weapons for your circumstance (in further detail), make a run to certain terrain (in further detail), take cover, bang bang, and continue.

Good luck with your argument anyway I guess lol.

That makes a lot of sense. I thank you for it. Maybe I'll try a different name besides convention war but thanks anyway. Hopefully topher will get the idea. I don't know who to turn for help so this is the only thing I can think of.

Thanks. Johnny.

I think the argument shouldn't be old vs. new, but about if certain modern innovations are really pushing the shooter genre forward. Health regeneration works in arcade shooters that are all about quick, fast-paced action. But if you have shooters that require a little more thought, health packs can really become tactical objects in the game. Especially in shooters that focus on survival rather than getting killing sprees, it can be really interesting to see how many health packs you can collect to get you through the rough areas. This was one of the most interesting aspects of F.E.A.R., one of the first current-gen shooters. But I could imagine this not working in games like Call of Duty and Halo, which offer a near-constant stream of action and thus provide little room for tactical decisions.

What I think is already outdated, though, is the extremely linear gameplay offered by a series such as Call of Duty. The CoD games tend to hold your hand a lot, and the gameplay is so scripted and linear that it plays like an on-rail shooter. There's often simple barbed wire or rubbish conveniently blocking off alternative paths, and invisible walls all too often serve as cheap death traps for players who got the crazy idea of doing something else than what the game told them.

Going back to the 90s corridor crawlers isn't much of an option, however. Occasionally, developers still make shooters modeled after Doom's heavily outdated gameplay (find key, open door, repeat ad infinitum), resulting in an ancient, unsatisfying gaming experience that just seems to defy logic as we know it. Not being able to take cover from enemies would also prevent any form of creativity in shoot-outs, and condemn the shooter genre back to its random arcade roots. That would look very out of place today.

I think the future is more open-ended gameplay. There's not only open world sandbox shooters such as the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (which are, imo, the best first person shooters released to date), but also freedom of movement within a level that does have a beginning and an end. How you get there is up to you. The best and most wellknown example of this is Crysis. All of this allows for a vast variety in possible playing styles, ranging from stealth (which should be an integral part of every modern shooter imo) to Rambo-esque carnage.

So in the end, I'd say this guy is right about some innovations not being good at all, but this shouldn't lead to an overall fear of progress. Always sticking to conventions has never helped anyone or anything, and it would be terrible to be shooters to be solely about shooting bad guys in an arcade-like fashion again. I'd go as far as saying that games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor are actually outdated for still sticking to this concept, often offering pathetic AI, and killing creativity to benefit the cheap popcorn violence that has always been the centre of these games.

That's just my vision on it, hope it helped in one way or another.

Health regeneration give games a faster pace, i hate bad implemented QTEs though

theres only a few games i like health bars better then health regeneration,like in socom ( ps3,ps2),or metal gear solid,finaly fantasy and yea,but in a FFs,health regeneration is better,ive never played golden eye though so idk

I don't think topherfilms is ever going to get the message. He's sticking to his guns. I don't know if anyone can help but he's way overblown. He keep saying that the past is better than the future and I could get fed up very easily. Check Goldeneye 007 Hands on and see how far our arguments have gone through. His analogy is still described as sarcastic and over the top. I know linear gameplay is old but taking out health regeneration, QTE and cover system could be the line between a good FPS game and a bad one and whether it works on other genres. Getting carried away again.

Topherfilms seriously needs a reality check. He's going to be on ice until someone can break through to him. Don't know how but he's going to end up alienating himself. Sorry topher. Anyway, that's how I feel at the moment. Johnny.

My thoughts exactly!

Ok, first off Johnny, I apologize for my sarcasm. I think we may arguing 2 different things here. First we have been arguing whether modern games benefit from have current conventions such as regenerating health, QTEs, cover systems, ect. Second is whether GoldenEye Wii should have them.

I think most of points I was trying to make were more clearly stated in DraugenCP's post. I really don't feel that these so called innovations are pushing the genre foward. I also agree that CoD and other wartime shootersare too scripted, linear,they definitely hold your hand and feel like on rails shooters. "Popcorn violence" is the perfect description.

"I think the future is more open-ended gameplay. There's not only open world sandbox shooters such as the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (which are, imo, the best first person shooters released to date), but also freedom of movement within a level that does have a beginning and an end. How you get there is up to you. The best and most wellknown example of this is Crysis. All of this allows for a vast variety in possible playing styles, ranging from stealth (which should be an integral part of every modern shooter imo) to Rambo-esque carnage." This is exactly what GoldenEye did on the N64. Some of the levels were linear (the missle silo, train), some were open ended (the 4 Severnya levels, the frigate, St. Petersburg Archives), others were a mix (semi-linear, semi-open.) Yeah, the stealth elements can be improved, along with AI and such.

Again, I have nothing against progress if it's progress. I like Super Mario Galaxy a whole lot better than New Super Mario Bros. Wii. I think it a whole hell of alot more fun. Too me a lot these new innovations like Regen. Health, QTEs, and cover systems kill the fun of the games. They make the games more simple and take out any depth.

@Raiko101:

I agree with you there. But Regenerating health is also a shortcut for game developers, so they don't have to figure the best places to put health packs in order to properly balance the difficulty of games. Many of these games are wildly imbalanced. You may have one increadibly difficult spot in a level, but you can sit there and regenerate untill you get it right. And if you die there is always a nearby checkpoint. It makes said games easy and frustrating in the same token.

And yeah, we have different tastes in games apparently. I like my FPS run and gun, not stop and pop.

Now as far as GoldenEye Wii, I realize this is being made to modern "standards." I would much rather it be made to 90's "standards."

@trugs26: I do still have a working N64 and a copy of the original game. As great as GoldenEye is, the gameplay may still hold up but the audio/visual aspects are god awful, the controls even worse. The same is true for most games of that era on any system. Rereleases through VC, XBLA, and PSN always have tweeks to them. Even VC N64 games look significantly better than the originals. We obviously won't see a rerelease in the original form because of legal reasons, which is why I don't want this game "modernized." Besides, lot of games have been remade over the years and tweeked without completely changing the game style. My example for Johnny was Final Fantasy. The 2D games have been remade a thousand times over, (PS1, PSP, GBA, DS) but they still have "dated" elements like random turn based battles. As far as GoldenEye, it deffinatly didn't have a "simpler" system. The level designs and mission objectives are more complex than any CoD game. Even the bullet damage and character animations were more complex than anything today.

I'm not completely against adding some stuff. Adding a cover system would be useful in some of the old levels of the game, like the beginning of the train level or when you you have to shoot those damn turret guns. I just don't want it to be the focus of the game. Adding online and more players for the multiplayer is also a given.

@johnnyauau:

As far as the Zelda 64 game, I was speaking of the upcoming 3DS remake. My point of bringing up this game was to see if you wanted any changes made to the game. Zelda's "standards" have changed. Adding a train through hyrule would make the game more "modern", but that is really not gonna enhance the game, or make it better. I don't think adding "3D" is gonna add anything special to that game but at the same time I don't feel it will hurt it.

Health regen, cover and QTE are all fail in a game like this, I don't mind regeneraing health providing there is a reason for it like in Halo but I was hoping GoldenEye would stick to the fixed health and body armour formula. Shaping up to be a CoD clone me worries :?.

SapSacPrime

Health regeneration give games a faster pace, i hate bad implemented QTEs though

JuarN18

what game today uses health packs?I mean released in the last 3 years?intro94

Lots of PC shooters do. Metro 2033 uses health packs alongside slowly regenerating health, All STALKER games use them, as well as FEAR 2. Far Cry 2 uses health injections, even though health regeneration elements can be found. And then there are non-shooting games such as GTA IV which use them.

I dont get what is so bad about Health Regeneration it is not any worse than healthpacks, both are fairly unrealistic imo. I would actually argue that health regen has brought games farther along.gamefan67

In games such as FEAR, health packs were kind of a tactical element as you always had to make sure you never ran out of them. You thus had to be real picky about when to use them, and you actually had to make an effort to totally outsmart your enemies and take down entire squads without getting hit yourself.

This added depth to the game, and you could say health regeneration tends to dumb things down, even though I personally think there are games where health regeneration just fits the gameplay.

In the general sense, I guess the only argument I could think of is that gaming is getting bigger and better, and gamers are getting better. Older games had simplier ways of playing, simplier systems (in terms of how health and weapons etc is distributed). Thus, we evolve the game as technology and gamers are ready to embrace more technical ways of playing. It's not simply bang bang you're dead, it's bang bang, cover, recover, select particular weapons for your circumstance (in further detail), make a run to certain terrain (in further detail), take cover, bang bang, and continue.

trugs26

He makes a good point anyway. I can clearly say there's no rules in making and distributing games in that fashion. If the future of what topher wants is the 90's standard then how do gamers react? I don't know. "This game is fun but I keep dying, there's nothing different with the game, there's no place to think, I must be a hero." or compare to what he's saying that you need like the environment with props, health regeneration and maybe a QTE to help break up the pace. That what makes games fun, intense and engaging since this generation started out. Goldeneye 007 for the Wii will seriously have the 2010 standards have that the 90's standards don't have at that time.

@johnnyauau:

I think you are missing my point. I don't think these "innovations" add to games. I think they take away from the games. How can anyone argue that linear level designs are better or more fun than open level designs? I'm not saying that all games need to be open world, sandbox style games. FPS have gotten so linear and simple they aern't much fun to play. Even Doom had more creative designs than alot of games out there today.

Do you really think QTEs help make a game more fun? Do you think God of War's boss battles are more fun because of QTEs? QTEs take control away from the player, force them to play a simon sez mini game and stop the doing normal actions within the game. QTEs were started in Resident Evil 4. They were a way of keeping you on your toes during the normal cutscenes, or presenting boss fights from a different more interesting angle. They were optional during the boss fights, but required during the cutscenes. They were interesting and well done in thatgame, a way of giving the player a little control over the action during a cutscene.Now they are just annoying placeholders for real action in a game.

As for a cover system... I don't mind the character having the option of taking cover if desired, but this shouldn't be the focus of the whole game. As I stated earlier some areas of GodenEye 64 would have benifited greatly from a cover system.Most modern wartime shooters make you spend the whole damn game hiding under cover and it gets old fast. Sure it makes sense, watch Saving Private Ryan or some other war film.But is it more fun? I doesn't make sense in a Bond game. Watch GoldenEye or any other Bond movie and show me the scence where he hunkers down and shoots from behind cover. You won't find one.

I'm not arguing against the evoltution of games. I'm just saying that said "innovations" are not benifiting games. I'm certainly not gonna say we need to give up 3D gaming and head back to 2D. GoldenEye 64 was a 90s game and to be faithfull to the original, GoldenEye Wii should be designed to many (not all) of the standards from the original game. Online gaming (clearly a standar of today) deffinatly won't hurt the mutiplayer any. That is evolution benifiting the game.

[QUOTE="gamefan67"]I dont get what is so bad about Health Regeneration it is not any worse than healthpacks, both are fairly unrealistic imo. I would actually argue that health regen has brought games farther along.DraugenCP

In games such as FEAR, health packs were kind of a tactical element as you always had to make sure you never ran out of them. You thus had to be real picky about when to use them, and you actually had to make an effort to totally outsmart your enemies and take down entire squads without getting hit yourself.

This added depth to the game, and you could say health regeneration tends to dumb things down, even though I personally think there are games where health regeneration just fits the gameplay.

I dont think health regen has dumbed down gaming.....think of it this way. With healthpacks you can usually withstand a barrage of bullets, with health regen it is usually around 2-3 bullets left before you die, so you cant just run up on a whole bunch of enemies and bash them in the face (unless you're playing CoD). In a game like Killzone II or even Redsteel you would be probably find it hard to not die at least a couple of times before finishing the game. The bulletfights are usually intense and healthpacks would break up the action and even screw you over a lot if you're not the greatest of player. Basically health regen allows for most games nowadays to make enemies a little tougher/smarter, fights bigger, and longer while keeping the intensity and challenege and not breaking up any of the action. Well, that is how I see it at least.gamefan67

As I said, for some games it works. But as you mention CoD, that series is an example of how health regeneration is used to provide faster, simpler action. But I don't agree that bulletfights are necessarily more intense without health packs. Lots of games that use them also have you die in a couple of shots, so smart combat is advised. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is the best example of a game that features both extremely tough gunfights and a health pack system. It's even more complicated in that you use medikits to gradually regain health, and bandages to stop bleeding. It's a bit of a hassle and hard to get the hang of, but it makes for some of the most intense gameplay in FPS, as well as requiring a lot of thought and concentration.

Although I acknowledge that such a system would probably function badly in a lot of other games.

Topherfilms, if that is true, we'll be playing N64, PS and Dreamcast for the rest of out lives. If we just stick to Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark on N64, and other early games while the world is going high tech, then we might as well stick to playing those early games and not accepting what the future brings. The only point you are making is we should not play these future games.

"We're not patient to handle those challenges. We prefer to just go out and shoot. We want Bond to just be a killing machine, not hide behind cover and shouldn't be allowed to be in linear levels". It's just more of an example of going out and telling everyone not to play this game because health regeneration, QTE and cover system ruins the game. It should play like Doom and games that requires you to go out and shoot without a second thought.

Even if you're right, if we clone Goldeneye 007 N64 innovations over and over again, I'm sure the gamers would praise the old innovations and would ban the new innovations, just to get your point across. Same with Super Mario Galaxy that New Super Mario Bros Wii should be banned for going 2D if there is a revolt (if that ever happens over games).

The only game I'm saying should be made to 90s "Standards" is GoldenEye Wii. Deciding to remake the game was a brilliant move on Nintendo's part. It was the only way they could work around the legal hurdles that have prevented the Virtual Console release. However I don't ever recall gamers asking for Nintendo to remake the game to today's "Standards". After all what would be the point? Given that Craig is now in the game why not just make an original game? BTW we do clone GoldenEye's innovations over and over. We still have headshots right? Mission objectives? Your controlers still rumble when you shoot? Hell even the Ak-47 had aiming down sights. topherfilms

Just a few things about Goldeneye Wii: it wasn't Nintendo's idea to do this, even though they presented it at E3. It's a game based on the Call of Duty engine developed by Eurocom and published by Activision. It's not a remake either in the strict sense, seeing as Activision is apparently not allowed to use any of the original levels. They do have a few 'enhanced' levels from the original, but they will need to be considerably different to prevent getting sued by Rare. So the best way to look at this is a new shooter based on the same movie that tries to cash in on the success of the 1997 original.

That being said I think there would be little point in rereleasing this game with just updated graphics and new controls. The original Goldeneye is one of the most important first person shooters ever to be released (pretty much on par with Doom), but seeing as nearly all of its innovations have become standard in present-day shooters (sniper rifle, stealth, hit detection, mission structure), it would probably feel very outdated by now. People that still want to try this out should first and foremost be ashamed that they haven't already, and they're probably better off trying out the original and try to put themselves in that timeframe to appreciate its genius.

People is still arguing about health packs and health regeneration? 2 different systems, different results, different experiences

/thread

Good games are good games, if you really feal they are "outdated" then they were never good to begin with. And by "outdated" I strictly mean from a gameplay sense. If all of these innovations have become standard, how would the game feel outdated? Technicaly it should feel "on par" with todays games. topherfilms

Well, see it from the perspective of someone who has never played Goldeneye. He has probably seen all of the elements that made Goldeneye so great at the time in tons of other games already, so there's no chance he will be as amazed as we were when we first played it in the nineties. And it isn't like the genre hasn't moved forward since then. Because the innovations of Goldeneye haven't only become standardised: they've been expanded upon, improved, perfectionised, and maybe even dumped altogether in favour of new innovations. For example: while the AI in Goldeneye was impressive at the time, it would classify as absolutely retarded these days. Modern players probably wouldn't even be aware of how innovative it was back in the days. I mean, honestly, who still feels surprised when they can fire a sniper rifle in a shooter (because Goldeneye was the first to do that)? The level design doesn't look that impressive either when you look at the sandbox-type gameplay in, say, Crysis. It's a bit stupid to compare these games, and it can still be enjoyable to go back and play Goldeneye, but much of the satisfaction comes from reliving memories of the past. But I think it's a bit senseless to say that gameplay cannot be outdated, or at least less impressive than it initially was. That'd mean Doom would still feel as fresh as it did in the early nineties, and it clearly doesn't.

First off I don't really care about the person who never played GoldenEye. Do you think those are the people that keep demanding Nintendo release it on VC? Maybe some. Of course this game wouldn't have the same impact that the original did, but do really think GoldenEye Wii will make any kind of impact? Probably not. Yes the AI is retarded in GoldenEye 64, that is one of the things you change in a remake. Just like the dialogue and the voice acting were changed in the Resident Evil remake to something a whole lot less cringe inducing. Level designs may not be as good as anything in Crysis, but it's still a whole hell of alot better than Call of Duty. And I'm not saying this game would feel as fresh, but it will probably be better than what they are gonna make. As I stated earlier what is the point to "reimagining" the game? Why not just make something original? Or just remake the original.topherfilms

Because Activision nor Nintendo possesses the rights to remake the original, and the 'Goldeneye' will get this game more attention than it deserves, proven by the fact that we're talking about it right now.

I'm not saying that a complete Goldeneye remake wouldn't be good, but it'd probably be little more than just good. There are tons of shooters out there which do more or less the same thing, so in the present-day gaming landscape it wouldn't stick out, so I'd rather have whatever developers would do this spending time on a new, fresh shooter rather than bringing back what has been.

[QUOTE="intro94"]what game today uses health packs?I mean released in the last 3 years?DraugenCP

Lots of PC shooters do. Metro 2033 uses health packs alongside slowly regenerating health, All STALKER games use them, as well as FEAR 2. Far Cry 2 uses health injections, even though health regeneration elements can be found. And then there are non-shooting games such as GTA IV which use them.

In all honesty, I never seen one user like you Topherfilms who have all the answers to our problems. You want the health regeneration, QTE and cover system to end and stick to the 90's in the future games. I mean would you prefer Resident Evil 4 not to have QTE? You accuse of Call of Duty for being a clone to Medal of Honor and should be condemn it for doing so? I wouldn't be so quick for example not to play The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as a Gamecube special, with just the cosmetic change to reflect the Gamecube design and Master Quest for upping the difficulty. However, you're not a completely bad person in a positive sense that you have a heart in certain places that worked for us.

Videogames is getting bigger and better with the way the consoles evolved. Goldeneye 007 for the N64 quite rightly got the gameplay right in its comfort level in like shooting people and exploring the area. The downside for the N64 is a lack of online play, limited graphics design and a limited storage space on the cartridge. But the care and attention to detail and does take liberties in making it long and exciting, especially if the story works well in a cohesive way then just follow the movie from start to finish. Halo 2 starts with health regeneration and Resident Evil 4 introduced the QTE. I don't know what game intruduced the cover system. The most recently ironically is Quantum of Solace. The only sense I got with cover system is so players don't just go out and shoot, you feel kind of stealthy and maybe in all Bond games find a unique way of killing bad guys.

Most importantly, if I cared about gameplay innovations, then I lost it anyway because that shouldn't be my focus. In my opinion, I just want to go through the story from start to finish in a satisfying way. I don't want to be skeptical of what the game is offering and expect it to be a game that should be a turn off. The saving grace like Call of Duty is the way you go through the game. I mean through trial and error and the fact I keep dying, I don't go to the store owner and demand a refund because of the innovations, I keep trying until I beat the game. Anyway, my point is just have fun with the game like Goldeneye 007 on the Wii. Not matter how wrong you think I am, you don't need to be a hot head or a mad gamer just to show who's right.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="intro94"]what game today uses health packs?I mean released in the last 3 years?intro94

Lots of PC shooters do. Metro 2033 uses health packs alongside slowly regenerating health, All STALKER games use them, as well as FEAR 2. Far Cry 2 uses health injections, even though health regeneration elements can be found. And then there are non-shooting games such as GTA IV which use them.

If my memory serves me correctly, Goldeneye didn't have health packs at all. Instead, it had body armor that served as second healthbar.

And no, FEAR didn't have health regen either. The first FEAR allowed you to carry up to 10 health packs, while the second limited it to 3, but with a lot more armor and health pickups along the way. The third FEAR will have health regeneration, which is one of the many reasons why it will suck.

I wasn't talking about multiplayer by the way, but now that we are on the subject, I remember STALKER having an economic system that allowed you to buy weapons/health upgrades with money you got from killing people. Too bad the mp was a bit confusing, but it's still a nice idea.

In the old GE multiplayer it usually depended on who got the body armour first. There are a lot of other solutions. In old military shooters such as Battlefield you could either try finding a medic, or go all the way back to base to get healed. The latter didn't leave you completely helpless when you were near dead, but it didn't reward people who hid near health packs (or closets in Battlefield's case), as they were usually located far from where the action was. Then you had certain classes in Conker: Live & Reloaded that could heal themselves wth an injection that could only be used every 30 seconds or so. To me, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to have no health pickups or regeneration at all. If you are hit, tough luck, cope with it. I've always been a fan of one-hit kill matches anyway, as it rewards the more tactical players.

@DraugenCP: If Nintendo doesn't own the level designs what do they own exactly? If Rare owns them then there is nothing preventing MS from releasing the game on XBLA except Activision. A complete remake would stand out by not having a cover system alone... but even if it didn't this game only stands out because of the name. Everything else has been done before right? If it ain't broke don't fix it. I say you might as well go with what works. But who knows... this may turn out to be the next big thing. Or even a great shooter, that would be enough to make me happy.topherfilms

It's an overly complicated story, but I think it came down to one company owning the level design and the other owning the engine and some other assets. I don't know exactly who owned what, but whatever the case it has prevented numerous attempts at remaking or rereleasing this game in the past.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I think that manyFPS these days suck. And by suck I'm nean "are not fun to play." I've given my reason's why. To say that games are getting bigger and better is rediculous. Remember last generation when a 10-12 hour game was considered short? Many people complained that they were not gonna pay $50 for such a short game. Now people pay $60 for a game half that long. Do you really think replacing GoldeEye's tank levels with QTEs will make it bigger and better? (Don't be surprised if this happenes either.)

As far as RE4 and QTEs, I'm saying RE4 got it right. Everyone else hacked it and got it wrong.

I'm not worried about innovations and the like, and what to call innovative and what not to call innovative. I simply want my games to be fun. I've complained that modern "innovations" are not fun. These innovations are gameplay mechanics I simply don't like. I also don't like random turn based battles in RPGs (or JRPGs if you perfer) which is why I don't play them. I'm not concerned with whether they are "innovative" or "outdated" they are simply not fun. Lots of poeple don't agree with me. Lots of poeple call this gameplay style "outdated." Yet they still make games like this. They also make games not like this.

Super Mario Galaxy is the new bechmark for platformers. Yet they still made New Super Mario Bros. Wii, with none of the "innovations" set forth by Galaxy. It sold better than both Galaxy games combined andstill continues to sell like crazy. You assertion that these modern gameplay elements have to be in GoldeEye Wii because they are the standards of today is simply not true.

GoldenEye is a classic game, and I beleive it should stay a classic throw back design. If they can't or won't stick with the original level designs, then they should at least stick with the original gameplay.

Do you really think replacing GoldeEye's tank levels with QTEs will make it bigger and better? (Don't be surprised if this happenes either.)

As far as RE4 and QTEs, I'm saying RE4 got it right. Everyone else hacked it and got it wrong.

I'm not worried about innovations and the like, and what to call innovative and what not to call innovative. I simply want my games to be fun. I've complained that modern "innovations" are not fun. These innovations are gameplay mechanics I simply don't like. I also don't like random turn based battles in RPGs (or JRPGs if you perfer) which is why I don't play them. I'm not concerned with whether they are "innovative" or "outdated" they are simply not fun. Lots of poeple don't agree with me. Lots of poeple call this gameplay style "outdated." Yet they still make games like this. They also make games not like this.

Super Mario Galaxy is the new bechmark for platformers. Yet they still made New Super Mario Bros. Wii, with none of the "innovations" set forth by Galaxy. It sold better than both Galaxy games combined andstill continues to sell like crazy. You assertion that these modern gameplay elements have to be in GoldeEye Wii because they are the standards of today is simply not true.

GoldenEye is a classic game, and I beleive it should stay a classic throw back design. If they can't or won't stick with the original level designs, then they should at least stick with the original gameplay.

topherfilms

The bad news is if they just update the graphics and port it on to Wii and slap it with the Activision and Eurocom label on it, Rare might sue them. I don't think they ever going to just allow the original to go on Virtual Console. Also in Bruce Lee philosophy, "Keep what's useful, reject what's useless and add specifically your own." In other words, you can't just port it or copy it and expect to make big bucks. You have to start from the beginning and add in what works today rather than what you said about keeping what's already there and expect the game to be the same ten years before.

For the 90's well, what's fresh in our minds is just going in and having fun like Goldeneye 007 for the N64. Despite the limitations of the N64, it's been handled pretty well and also might explain why health packs isn't available because that would clog up the cartridge. Now, if you play it again, your just reliving the past. What works with those innovations might have been overdone up to the point when the Xbox360, PS3 and Wii comes out (exception to PC). You can just have a health bar and armour scattered around for the first few Bond games and a few third Bond games made by EA but in the end, you just can't hang on to it forever and if Activision brought it over with the same concept as EA and Rare, then it's just a bunch of copycats and would not work in this era.

You say everyone hacks it and got it wrong with QTE. Ok what if I want to see Bond fight instead of shooting all the time? Do you just go to the main bad guy and just slap him to dealth? Even without it, what would be the point of just killing bad guys? Is that the aim for every shooting game? My only theory is to get you more involved with the story than the gameplay. It's never there to ruin the gameplay and it's a misnoma to think that after Resident Evil 4, the QTE goes downhill. Also it wouldn't be Bond if he can't find a unique way of killing bad guys and the main bad guy at the end of each level.

For your information, your assertion that Goldeneye 007 on the Wii has to keep the N64 levels and gameplay innovations is wrong. It will be a laughing stock if Activision copies Rare and expect to make big bucks. Also I don't want to go back, complaining to the game seller that it's a generic shooter, it didn't wow me and doesn't contain anything fresh to make me want to keep playing the game. In other words, not another Goldeneye clone or a Doom clone. Regardless of those innovations that is wrong, it's going to stay period.

Again dude you need to formulate your arguments with some logic. Has Square Enix become a laughing stock for re-releasing every 2D RPG in their back cataloge again and again? Was Capcom a laughing stock for remaking Resident Evil for Gamecube? NO! Some people complain, lotsa others line up and purchase those games. Your argument is that it needs to feature all the run-of the-mill generic elements that make a modern first person shooter otherwise it won't stand out. This is wrong, it will just be like every other FPS on the market. If it were a throwback design it would stand out. Remember all the high review scores that Doom 3 got? Really if Activision wanted to make the big bucks, they wouldn't have made an exclusive FPS for the Wii. We all know that they don't sell on Wii. And who says that throwback designs are can't be fresh and exciting? Did you not play Madworld on Wii? Viewtiful Joe on Gamecube/PS2? Both were asesome modern takes on the old beat 'em up designs from the 2D days. QTEs are not there to ruin gameplay, but they do. They are a shortcut for developers so they don't have to spend time and money developing real gameplay. If you want to see a Bond fight go see GoldenEye again or some other Bond movie. If you want to see a Bond fight in the game the developers need to put in a first person fighing system like Chronicles of Ridick. QTE would be the cheap and lazy way out. You don't want another GoldenEye clone? You don't want another Doom clone? Oh! You want another Call of Duty clone. There's another 20 of those coming out this year. topherfilms

The sad reality is your just a purist. Again, somehow you have the answers to our problems. Somehow, our logic has fallen on deaf ears. Even on multiplayer forum on Goldeneye 007, somehow your just throwing comments to peoples face because you're better than them. I was arguing with aaronfhff123 back before, out of nowhere, you jumped in and just ranted to death how those innovations ruin games pure and simple. Even now you don't want changes happening for Goldeneye 007 Wii or start a war on FPS games that health regeneration, QTE and cover systems ruins the gameplay convention.

Face it, we should be embracing the future, not embrace the past and expect the game innovations of the past to work on a future console. Your sources is nothing short of spectacular. If you got anymore, I'm sure what you want is not going to happen on Goldeneye 007 Wii or future FPS games other than the essence of the genre. Nevertheless, your just a purist who is oblivious to change and nothing else.

Then why are you here? What are you on about? You signed up a year ago and so far, I don't see any blogs or reviews so I don't see you as an authority figure at all. Even if you're oblivious to proving your point, it's what purists do. When you play any future FPS games like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, what's your reaction? It makes a game too easy and developers to lazy to put in real gameplay. When you see QTE and health regeneration, you say it makes the game boring.

Sorry if I offended you but since you signed up, I expected your heart in the right place but instead it's like "I can handle any criticisms. I'll go down and teach people a lesson not to mess with me." That's a purist. Someone who likes to go around telling people. "I'm always right. These people are wrong and should follow my lead." Just so you know, on Goldeneye 007 Updated Hands On, someone already had it with you. Check the comments in the aftermath. To be extra clear, it's the multiplayer preview.

However, despite our difference, at least I'm glad you didn't take it far to personally to the point where we could've argue to death but I'm trying to be sure your not the type of person who just jumps in, and spin it to "I'm right again, Everyone else is wrong". Lastly I don't know a lot about you except about the argument over something trivial. If only your not just a one note purist, things would be different if you can at least learn from it, rather than if you see something you don't like, you don't go to a website and spread propaganda in that way the Chinese would do. Anyway, even if you don't like those innovations, I wouldn't be the first to make that argument popular with gamers going to this site. I rather keep to myself so I wouldn't have this argument in the future. You'll understand if you're the smart thinking type.

Seriously dude? You started an argument with somebody else. I was defending his point of view because I agreed with him. FYI a purist is somebody who thinks the game shouldn't be changed at all. I am arguing for changes and improvments. Howevery changing it to play just like every other shooter on the market makes it totally generic and senseless. This isn't every other shooter, it's GoldenEye. Keep it that way. Don't take away the things that made it great, enhance them. Make it shine on the Wii in ways it never could on the N64. You are the one that told the other guy that he was wrong. You totally missed his point and seem to be missing mine. Just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's "innovative" or even nessassary in every game. You have taken a stance that newer shooters are better because they have new "innovations" that weren't in the old games. What about the all the things that GoldenEye did that are not in modern games? As far as games getting bigger and better... Show me a modern shooter with GoldenEye's exhaustive list of levels, modes, cheats and options for both the single player and multi. You simply won't find one. Just because people write blogs doesn't make them any kind of authority figure. I myself have been gaming since the 2600's heyday, so I have learned a few things over the years. If anybody is spreading propaganda here it's you, trying to convice me and every one else that games today are so great and they have vastly improved over there predecessors. Lot's of people make comments on the game, you will not agree with all of them. Nor will I.topherfilms

Let me get this straight. You're arguing for changes and improvements. What changes? You like the old Goldeneye and you don't mind Daniel Craig and the improvements made for the Wii. However, what you want to keep is the health bar and the armour. What else? You don't like Call of Duty clones. So you want to keep the levels made from Rare. Lastly, you want to take out QTE and hiding behind cover. You just want to be Rambo than Bond. Put it all together and it would be just a port with Daniel Craig with the same levels and health bar and avoid calling the gameplay "outdated". In my research with IGN and Facebook, some parts will be true but prepare to be disappointed. No wonder you call "Call of Duty" crap. Health regeneration is going to be there, the game's story is updated to today, multiple controls, improved graphics and almost unlimited multiplayer. Keep in mind that they have to cram all that into the Wii optical disc. If Call of Duty or Medal of Honor never existed, the FPS will dire out and the situation would be different.

You said your never against progress but how you treat me says otherwise. You never admitted anything yet attacking me is what you're good at. It's common but still, it will have to end somehow. It would be wise not to attack me anymore, you don't want to let this argument drag on and continue to be right by not showing remorse. Yes I have spread propaganda but more in common sense then being number one. That's why I want him to hold back until the game comes out. We can talk about details but I don't have a fortune globe. We shouldn't be quick to judgement if the game hasn't came out yet. The only games on the Wii today is the Metroid Trilogy and The Conduit in the second level if you still prefer those types of FPS. You can dump the rest of Wii FPS and find something more of your taste that isn't crap. After all, old and remake games isn't outdated. Before you ask, I'm never familiar with the Final Fantasy series so give me a break on that. If that doesn't sway, why don't you go out and protest? That should make you feel better since the only game you have is Goldeneye 007 on the N64 and you dumped more recent FPS games you don't like because you believe the developers are doing it wrong. Last thing, be careful what you write because the moderator would come in at anytime and also, this blog could be locked as well so make it count.