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
Agreed 100%. I would've loved to have been a fly on the wall of that meeting where EoN decided this was the best option. Because this is complete BS, and I mean it. We are now 5 years without a Bond game. That's longer than the gap between The Duel and Goldeneye 64, longer than the gap between FRWL and QOS. Why? Why don't they sell the Licence? I don't understand.
I think EON is missing something important here. Bond games not only got me into gaming, they are what got me into Bond, and I believe it's the same for many people in my age range (at the very least, one would assume the games helped make people interested in Bond). They are hurting the future of the film franchise by not bringing new generations into the fold of Bond fans.
They seem to think that there is no interest in Bond games due to the poor reception of the recent games. They seem oblivious to the fact that the reception was due to a lack of quality in the games, not a lack of interest. I imagine this is because the people making decisions at EON aren't gamers. From the outside looking in, selling the Bond license to Activision would have seemed like a good idea. On paper, Activision looks great; they are a big, well-known company and they publish games that sell in huge volumes. But if you're a member of the gaming community, you know that they are one of the most hated names in the industry, responsible for a franchise (COD) that is mocked for its lack of creativity and stagnation, essentially being the same game re-released every year. I don't think EON knows this. I think they believe they sold the license to the best, most logical bet, and because it failed there must not be a market for Bond games. So why not sell it to some random slot machine company? Maybe it'll make some money then?
@ClarkDevlin I'm sure this will do;
Bond Gaming is now a subject to gambling casino games on slot machines, and video games are out of the question.
I have given up hope on EON
Would be nice to bring back romance to the games as well. Lust it up a bit. Make it an M-rated game, for violence, language, sexual situations, and drug/alcohol/tobacco.
Open world games are intended to concentrate on certain city maps where turfs are to be conquered by the players and defended perhaps. Something started off with GTA: San Andreas and that's all what it's for. Bond isn't the genre of turf wars and certainly not a subject of non-linear stories. Open ended levels, different outcome of choices like in Alpha Protocol, most definitely. But, open world GTA-like Bond game? No chance.
@Murdock The article referred to the license they signed as "exclusive" and said "It encompasses casino, lottery and social/digital gaming". If the wording is accurate, then an exclusive license pertaining to digital gaming means no Bond games as long as they hold the rights. Though, I do wonder if the wording of the article doesn't correctly portray the legal jargon of the deal. One can hope, but there doesn't sound like much wiggle room for interpretation.
I just have a bad feeling it's more phone-based mobile crap.
I get the feeling what we'll end up with is a slot machine-esque mobile "game".
I actually think it would be cool to have an open-world. An overall encompassing story arc that takes you around the world, where you have the ability to come and go as you'd like. Fly to London to visit MI6, get mission updates, and upgrade weapons and gadgets, Go to Dubai to find specialty weapons from an underground black market. Visit Las Vegas to gamble and experience nightlife other side opportunities with Felix Leiter.
I think it definitely could work, and be both engaging and extensive. Even with the ability to drive around towns and locales as you please. You'd have the ability to make your own decisions in the field, watch out for civilians, decide whether to go in stealthily or guns blazing.
I believe this would lead to a TRUE Bond gaming experience.
Except it'd be impossible. Not even a standard development team in the industry or a big dog team could make that many open world locations and then actually have them feel "lived in" and important. What you'd get with that kind of game is just a rush job where you do the same repetitive, padded missions over and over again that were designed by the developers in a desperate attempt to make their game feel immersive.
It takes Rockstar at least five years for each of their open world games, and those maps aren't that mind-blowingly big. To have a development team make a Bond game like you're describing with all those locations and different things to do in each would take forever, cost too much money and would probably never get finished in the end. It'd be lost in its own ambitions.
The technology and hardware we have on console is exciting, but it also makes games harder to create because polygon counts on models are blasted through the roof, environments, clothes and surfaces all need full texturing and the game engine has to create natural lighting and have that lighting bounce off everything convincingly. It's a nightmare, and the process has only gotten more expensive as games have become closer to the uncanny valley. The simple days of 8 bit gaming are long, long gone.
Why @ClarkDevlin, I and a few others want a more limited open world where you have a smaller location to do one mission at is because you can then take Bond all over the world, but you can do it sensibly. Instead of developing a gigantic Dubai, have Bond go on a mission in one part of it to get a target, and have it play out that way. Instead of creating a massive London, have a little area open and have an interactive section of the MI6 building for Bond to prepare for missions inside. You can do the globe-trotting the same way the films do with this approach, as you have Bond focus on one area of a location to get some kind of information he needs to move on to another.
The Hitman games are a great template for this. Each game has detailed but small open sections with all kinds of objectives inside that give you the freedom to act as you wish, and each mission carries into the next. It then becomes much more feasible, realistic and cost-effective to have Bond do missions in a gala, at a racetrack, festival, carnival and small parts of major cities than have fully open worlds that wouldn't be possible to render with any time or budget.
I think that future Bond games should go back to the EA formula; original stories with awesome multiplayer content for the fans. I have always dreamed of a Bond game where you could roam around in Blofeld's Volcano lair, or similar classic locations. But as I mentioned previously, its becoming increasingly difficult to wrap my head around this decision. Why? Of all the companies EON could sell the Licence to, a Casino company is just ridiculous. At least with WoE it made somewhat sense to me when first announced, but that turned into compete shit. Sometimes I wonder about EON when it comes to things other than the films.
I also agree with everything Brady said up there, mind you the chap is MI6's supreme lawyer no one could escape the clutches of. ;) The Bond games should definitely go to the EA formula and avoid adaptations as much as they can. Why? Because adaptations always end up butchering the films or the stories by adding unwanted and unnecessary content too much often. Too much stealth would be boring and too much action will become tiresome way too soon. Best they can do is to follow the Nightfire and Everything or Nothing formula. Those two games combined with one another, adding some elements from Agent Under Fire would give a James Bond game its identity.
Perspective-wise? Switchable between first person and third person, as it's known to be done in the middle three Hitman games (namely Silent Assassin, Contracts and Blood Money) or the recent Grand Theft Auto V (albeit, I'd like a more refined portrayal of a first person view and improved version of the POV from the cockpit when driving a car. It's almost too hard to achieve that in GTA). You could interact with your character with a more distinguished tone and control it even.
Actors-wise? The Bond games don't have to rely on the film universe. Sure, make a game or two in the film canon to promote or satisfy the fans but only if they act as spin-offs from the mainstream James Bond video games canon which should have its own actor and its own James Bond (I'm looking at Andrew Bicknell as the role model in Agent Under Fire). I'll also address this idea coming from the Dynamite Comics who have been publishing comics based on James Bond by giving the IP ongoing continuity and timeline, standalone and additional entries that don't interfere with the ongoing pieces, and spin-offs with other characters. So, back to the actor, to cost less, the Bond character model should have its own likeness so we don't have to depend on the voice actor returning or not.
Years ago, I've come across a digital artist by the name of Gabriel Murray who did James Bond artworks more than once. He introduced his own Bond, Craig's Bond and Connery's Bond, just for those who might be curious (I'm looking at you, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7). He managed to give his own spin on Ian Fleming's character and I actually fancied that a lot. The picture up there is lifted from Murray's gallery. So, instead of being lazy and repeating themselves, video game developers, even in a limited creativity as to not derail the IP and characters from its standards, can come up with something original and make it all their own. Dynamite achieved that. EA almost did. And with the popularity of video games and the creative gestures done with many titles and franchises these days, this can easily (but with large amount of effort and hard work) can be achieved. So, what's stopping Eon/MGM from going down this path?
GE's going to make its 20th anniversary this year. And I just did a homage for it, with the so called "Pencil" KF7 Soviet.
The pen(cil) is mightier than the sword.
Great work!
I suspect that something's been lost in translation here, gents, perhaps between British and American English. 'Gaming' in the USA is a polite/legalistic way of saying 'Gambling.' For instance, all casinos in Las Vegas are regulated by the Nevada Gaming Comission.
So it's entirely possible that this company has been granted the exclusive 'gaming' licence, and that 'gaming' in this case means "gambling in its various forms" rather than "video games" per se.