By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - GoldenEye 007 confirmed for Wii?

twistedcellz on 14 June 2010
killeryoshis said:
twistedcellz said:
killeryoshis said:
twistedcellz said:

hope they dont fuck up

and hope its true we can play it with the classic pro


why? The wii controller is superior?

ur right but I dont care about that

Im more comfortable  playin with a real controller

thats the way I been playin video games all my life so Im not changin that

but to get more option is always better than forcin everybody to play it their new way


So you hate change -_- Well you better get used to it. Motion controls will be standered
by next generation and most likly the standered controller will be gone. So its best to start
now

well I dont think so and yes I hate useless change bcuz mario galaxy could be played with a gc controller easily (exept for the mini games )and most of the Nintendo wii games can or could be played with a classic controller too

so MOTION in controls are far from bein the future, killeryoshi



Nintendo made me a gamer so I'd be stupid to ever try to forget that                                             like so many people nowadays

The Top  Best Consoles Are SNES and PSX 

Currently Playing: 1.Monster Hunter tri 2.MegaMan 10

Around the Network
allenfake on 14 June 2010

Wow thats looking real good.  But they should really bring back the traditional golden eye faces as an easter egg, you know what I'm talking about, the frozen 2d faces superimposed onto 3d models.



LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010
RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
RolStoppable said:

All those games you mentioned came out in 1998 or later.

The graphics of the original Goldeneye deserve to be put on a pedestal for many reasons, just like all other aspects of the game. It wasn't just a game with addicting gameplay and multiplayer, it was a new benchmark for console FPS all around, including its graphics.

I wonder if this new Goldeneye game is really looking so bad that you already have to do preemptive damage control for the final product. The developers of this title have to live up to high standards and nobody should give them the impression that they can get away with halfassed graphics. Fans of the original game have the right to expect nothing less than the best FPS experience on the Wii. Which, actually, isn't that high of an expectation anyway, given the efforts other developers put into their FPS games so far.

And that's the notion that I have a problem with. Somehow having "halfassed graphics" (by some silly standard the polygon count matters more than art direction) will netage EVERY OTHER THING that would make this what you want it to be, even if it met those.

In most cases halfassed graphics go hand in hand with a lack of polish in other areas, that's why people automatically assume that a game that doesn't look good also doesn't play all that great. So doubts about the quality of this game are justified, after all it wouldn't be the first Wii third party game that ends up falling (clearly) short of expectations.


That isn't what you wrote at first. If you meant that, why did you write something that implied you were putting graphics above the other elements?



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010

Forget what I just wrote. I HOPE the graphics are halfassed, because the developers focused on make the rest of the game awesome (such as we're still getting 4 player local, and online). Then we will see once and for all if these kinds of games sell because of graphics or the other elements.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010
RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
RolStoppable said:

In most cases halfassed graphics go hand in hand with a lack of polish in other areas, that's why people automatically assume that a game that doesn't look good also doesn't play all that great. So doubts about the quality of this game are justified, after all it wouldn't be the first Wii third party game that ends up falling (clearly) short of expectations.

That isn't what you wrote at first. If you meant that, why did you write something that implied you were putting graphics above the other elements?

I don't want this to end up in discussing semantics.

Our exchange started because you said that Goldeneye was not graphically impressive for its time, so I corrected you (as did somebody else). I am not disputing that the addicting multiplayer and gameplay was the main factor that Goldeneye became the hit it was. All I was taking issue with was your statement that Goldeneye didn't have top notch graphics for its time, so nobody should expect this remake to have great graphics or complain that it doesn't have them.

The problem is "great graphics" is no longer defined by art direction or how talented the developers are as artists. It's now defined by polygon count, how many flashy effects are in the game, basically things that take more time and money, but don't make the games better (which is why I don't want detailed graphics in this game, to prove that the game will stand on its own without those).



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010
RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

Forget what I just wrote. I HOPE the graphics are halfassed, because the developers focused on make the rest of the game awesome (such as we're still getting 4 player local, and online). Then we will see once and for all if these kinds of games sell because of graphics or the other elements.

Pretty much every bestselling FPS has great graphics as well as good multiplayer (offline and online in latter generations). One without the other doesn't seem to work, although the multiplayer aspects are of course more important. Graphics serve as differentiation in a genre that suffers from oversaturation. If there are many similar games out there, gamers obviously flock to the better looking product, except if it doesn't play good.


No, content serves as a differentiation. Modern Warfare didn't set itself apart by its graphics. Ads for Gears barely showed any gameplay, and therefore graphics, but showed a soldier in a city ravaged by war. Those were games that offered awesome content, and gamers flocked to it.

That could also explain why Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories didn't sell as well compared to III and Vice City, since they didn't really offer any new content. Even though both games showed better texturing and performance than their predecessors.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010
RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

The problem is "great graphics" is no longer defined by art direction or how talented the developers are as artists. It's now defined by polygon count, how many flashy effects are in the game, basically things that take more time and money, but don't make the games better (which is why I don't want detailed graphics in this game, to prove that the game will stand on its own without those).

I don't think that's true. The most common complaint regarding The Conduit's graphics was the lousy art direction. In the same way Mario Kart Wii and NSMB Wii didn't get criticized that much in the end. They had good art direction, so it wasn't a problem that their graphics weren't that detailed.


I didn't write you won't notice if a game has bad art direction. If TC had great art direction, but didn't have all the effects, I don't think it would have gotten even the praise it did. And the reviews sure as hell bashed those Mario games for not having sufficient graphics that the reviewers thought they should have.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

pariz on 14 June 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

Forget what I just wrote. I HOPE the graphics are halfassed, because the developers focused on make the rest of the game awesome (such as we're still getting 4 player local, and online). Then we will see once and for all if these kinds of games sell because of graphics or the other elements.


If only that could be true...



Play, Create & Share: the Photography Thread!

LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010

Basically, I am sick off the assumption that graphics help the sale of games to such a large degree, when there hasn't been anything to actually verify that, other than assuming that games that happened to have graphics sold well (colrrelation=causation fallacy), while ignoring games that have great graphics and don't sell so well (Crysis).

Now that might be the case that graphics are a reason people flocked to Modern Warfare, but to just assume it's the case is wrong. It's takikng the customers for granted that they agree with you on the product.

I mean, someone should just poll a representative sample of people who bought games (might have to be somewhat large, since calling random numbers won't lead always to gamers), and why though bought those games, and find out what actually sells them.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 14 June 2010
pariz said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

Forget what I just wrote. I HOPE the graphics are halfassed, because the developers focused on make the rest of the game awesome (such as we're still getting 4 player local, and online). Then we will see once and for all if these kinds of games sell because of graphics or the other elements.


If only that could be true...


It's in the trailer.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs