It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Maybe that's what we need. We expected certain levels of quality from EA and Activision because they were well-known. Volition would only have the pressure of making a Bond game, not the pressure of outdoing their previous releases.
What happened to all the gadgets? What happened to Q? Bond is about being a spy and using his secret items. What items did blood stone have or even QOS? A cell phone. That's it. EA actually had inspiration in their bond games. Take the Q spider for example from everything or nothing (by far the best GAME i've ever played), the grapple hook in nightfire, the laser watch, the PDA, all these things add up to making the game actually feel like you're in bond's shoes.
The only thing lacking in EA's games was the fact that they didn't produce enough PC games. Nightfire was their only PC-produced bond game
Now, gadgets and Q I understand. Activision's trying to keep their Bond games in the style of Daniel Craig's Bond films, and Bond's PDA (QoS) and smart phone (GE & Blood Stone) are easily representative of this. Since EA was working the Brosnan era (which had more gadgets than was necessary), they made games with a lot of gadgets. But gadgets alone do not a spy make.
Also, Activision's only had the license for three or four years. Give them time to grow into the role. EA had the license for almost ten years. Activision is putting good studios on the series (Treyarch, Eurocom, Bizarre Creations, maybe Raven), and I'm certain that after their current successes (and they all have been critical successes in one way or another, though Blood Stone was more a mixed success), they'll do even better with the next few games. Look back at Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and 007 Racing, all on the PS1 (the N64 TWINE was okay), and you'll see that EA wasn't so good with their first three releases. Only Rare got it right on their first try.
I'm not even going to buy the skyfall game, especially if there is an original bond game coming out that year. If I've seen the film, I'll have no intrest in the story and so I won't care about the game. I'll buy the original game, but unless the skyfall game gets really good reviews then im not going to bother
but it didn't take them ten years to get a good game (agent underfire was good, nightfire was/is the greatest game ever along with assasins creed revelations). Tommorow never dies game was alot better than QOS game, and you've already said that TWINE on N64 was good. I'll give activision more time but it looks like all they can make is cod games
And, Blood Stone is not a COD game. I would like to know how TND was better than QOS, and as good as N64 TWINE was, PS1 TWINE is the exact opposite, and as such, cancel each other out (PS1 TWINE was the "equal, opposite reaction" to N64 TWINE's "action").
bloodstone wasn't a cod game but wasn't bloodstone developed by a different studio than the other games??? or maybe I have that wrong. TND mixed cool 3rd person gameplay with ski sequences and driving missions, plus there were parts where you could have first person. Quantum of solace was basically call of duty. TWINE was bad on ps1, but it was good on N64 so thats about 50/50 yeah. Then EA got back on track with agent underfire (good), and nightfire (awesome).
I'll give activision a chance as the next game could be good like agent underfire was, but EA were doing better than they were right now.
Although I think the game itself was pretty fun and it was great to hear Connery as Bond again (no matter how bad/weird it sounded) I agree it was a poor choice to adapt FRWL as a game. A TB game or a YOLT game would of been better with the amount of content in the film that could of been put in the game. Now of course game devolopers would of had to put more in there to make more than a 3 hour game but FRWL was a poor choice
I bought it (I think that's what you meant). I loved it. Also, give GoldenEye a shot (either Reloaded or the original Wii release), it's good, too.
I don't know about a "poor choice". They wanted to recreate a 60's Bond film, and they just so happened to choose this one. All in all, it was good. Except for a few things (the ending is a big example), the changes made the game a little better (especially that assault on Station T).
I want it for Christmas. But alas most of the NZ copy's are on board a stricken cargo ship. :(
Also, what do you think about Bond games on handhelds? As great as the Vita looks, and as much as the 3DS annoyingly exists, I think Bond games belong on the big screen. I think they should stay true to home consoles, and PC. N'est-que pas?
QOS= PS3,PS2,360,PC,wii & DS
BS= PS3,360 & PC
GE= wii, DS
GERL= PS3,360
The only bond game ever for the PSP was EA's From Russia With Love
Everything Or Nothing is good.
BloodStone is good.
GoldenEye Reloaded bored the life out of me
...and learn what a gunbarrel sequence is!!!
SO true!!
I played QoS on my friend's PS3, and I own the PS2 (superior) version. I own Blood Stone on the 360. I have GoldenEye for the Wii (probably not gonna buy Reloaded). Once another game comes out, I'll probably buy it on the 360 (I hope its that game from Raven).
I do have to give them credit for finding a formula (even if it is COD) that worked and sticking with it. And, we all have to admit, we've had fun on at least one COD.
I was a little disappointed with the lack of driving levels in QoS (granted, there would have only been 2 if any), but Blood Stone made up for that, and at least they didn't take the tank out of GoldenEye. They could have done that and royally screwed that game up.
Maybe it is a fun game, but it totally ruined the film. The game seemed to be based on the Jason Statham version of FRWL, instead of the cold-war spy thriller Connery version. But I guess gamers in 2005 needed wall-to-wall action to be entertained, and will fall asleep in stealth missions... FRWL the game was the COD version of a Connery film.
I defy you to find me a version of From Russia With Love that has Jason Statham in it.
And a good portion of that game was pretty boring. The "action" it did have was slow, and very reliant on standing in one place, pressing the square button to bring up a reticle and shooting the marked spots. The one "stealth" level could easily be beaten by waiting for a guard to turn his back and shoot him in the back of the head.