topherfilms' forum posts

Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just stating my opinion. I don't like CoD or MoH, and obviously they have been the popular shooters for a while now. So naturally everybody copies them and that doen't leave a whole lot of room for innovation. I simply feel it's time for the genre to move on. I like GoldenEye 64 and don't wish to see it tarnished by shoe horning todays gameplay onto the game. The most recent preview on this site has me more optimistic for the game, as I hear there is an option to take out regenrating health. Hacking the turret guns sounds cool as well, something that would have worked well with the original game. I like the freedom they are advertising for this game. Most FPS seem very restrictive, in level design, in how you can aproach levels, ect. Even really old shooters like Doom, wand Wolfenstein 3D were less linear than CoD or MoH. If you ask me that's sad. You might as well get an on-rails shooter - plenty of those on Wii. I just saw a preview for Ghost Recon on Wii. It was like Ubisoft rolled up everything bad about modern shooters and created this game. Metroid Prime Trilogy is awesome but those aren't FPS. The Conduit sucked, and now I hear the sequel is gonna have a cover system and aiming down sites. Most of this just comes down a manner of personal taste. I've been watching the previews for Donkey Kong Country Returns. I'm not really excited for that one. Why? I really want to play that game with the DK Bongos ala Donkey Kong's Jungle Beat. DKJB had an obvious inspiration from Rare's original but I found the Bongo's made they game a lot more fun. I never owned a Super Nintendo, so I never played the originals back then. It doesn't mean that DKCR won't be good, but for me personally it won't be the same. I guess that is how I feel about GoldenEye. If I have to spend the whole game ducking for cover and aiming down sites it won't be GoldenEye. It will just be another shooter in an over crowded market.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
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.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
Again wrong. I simply was arguing for gameplay that enhances the game. You were trying to tell aaronfhff123 that GoldenEye's complex animation system something that enhances the gameplay in GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, and Resident Evil 4 & 5, is a thing of the past because modern developers are too lazy to put those animations in CoD, MoH, ect. Instead we have a system in play where you are spraying bullets center mass into a enemy and there is no reaction from other than some blood spray and the enemy continues to fire back. LAME. You can't say that this was cool in GoldenEye, but developers don't do that stuff anymore so it's no longer "innovative" and therefore should not be in the game. BS. My point and his point is that the game is better with the animations in. It's one of the things I foundly remenber about the original, and yes part of that system was the headshot(s) that every shooter since has hocked. They have however left the other animations out. Just like QTEs in Resident Evil 4 were a way of keeps you active while watching cut scenes, and developers used them later to replace real gameplay. Really the more you argue with me the more you prove my point. You suggested using QTEs to add melee combat to GoldenEye because slapping someone to death in GoldenEye was lame. A few years ago if any melee combat was gonna happen in a game like this, they would have built a dedicated hand to hand fighting system, maybe not supercomplex but something that would have functioned well enough (like Riddick). Now the answer is: Let's throw in some boring QTEs. That's not exactly games getting bigger and better, is it? I'm not saying these things to piss you off. I agreed with aaronfhff123's stance on the animations. They make the gameplay more complex, add a bit of strategy, and are fun to watch. They can be improved upon made even more complex and enhance the game even more (like RE4's ability to shot someone in the knee so they tumble to the ground.) Going with the more simple system that most games use today lessens the gameplay and tarnishes the game. Who cares whether other FPS still use it or not? If it enhances the game it should be in the game. Period! I'm not really a purist. A lot of things can be reworked and improved upon in this game. New gameplay elements can be added without changing the things that made the original great. But one thing I'm adament about is that these new gameplay elements should not take away from the gameplay. Nothing you can ever do or say is gonna convince me that QTEs, Regen Health, Cover based gameplay and the like enhances the gameplay or some how magically makes the game more fun. And they deffinatly don't make games bigger and better.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
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.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts

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.

Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
Right! Rare owns the engine, they built the game and used the engine again for Perfect Dark, which was re-released on XBLA. Level designs and art assest should be owned by Nintendo. Otherwise, why would Nintendo not have sold the game rights to MS? It is Rare's most famouse game and that says alot given the number of classics and mega hits they have in thier history. Kind of wish Nintendo had never sold them, then we'd see all those awesome N64 games on the VC. And yeah, GoldenEye used the body armor as a second lifebar. In multiplayer body armor respawned after like 15 seconds, and many maps had more than one.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
@intro 94: We we're really talking about mutiplayer for health packs... GoldenEye didn't have health packs it had body armor. I think people are confusing this with some sort of inventory managment system out of Resident Evil or something. As far as mutiplayer goes, I had a lot of fun boody traping body armor with mines. I guess that won't be happening any time soon. @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.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
@JuarN18: I agree, they are different systems that do different things for the same reason. I also say that regen health is retarded and should die a quick and horrible death. But that's just my humble opinion.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
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.
Avatar image for topherfilms
topherfilms

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 topherfilms
Member since 2009 • 88 Posts
I wasn't aware that it wasn't Nintendo's idea, based on thier E3 presentation it sounded like they asked Activision to remake the game for them. Nintendo has been promoting this game like it's one fo their own, and has said repeatedly that GoldenEye is thier most requested VC game. I also thought Nintedo owned the level designs and Rare owned the game engine, as it was used on the recently re-released Perfect Dark. Little point in re-releasing the game with just updated graphics and controls? Lotsa games have been remade over the years. 2D Final Fantasies have been remade like a million times. Both Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil were remade for the Gamecube. Conker's Bad Fur Day was remade for Xbox. Also why else is the Virtual Consol so popular? There are a lot of good games that I missed over the years for one reason or another, or games that I want to play again. 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. My personal feeling is that non of these other games have done these innovations nearly as well as GoldenEye did. Anyway that is just my opinion on the matter, and I don't want to see Activision toss aside the little details as well as the big ones that made the game so cool. I'm sure more poeple would rather play an updated version of the original, than a quick cash in by Activision.