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
There's your perfect 007 game.
It'd inevitably be a rather barebones, empty open world, with key areas occupying the missions. Wouldn't feel remotely fitting for a James Bond game; I'd sooner have straight-forward missions with a bit of a sandbox feel to them. Like you said earlier, something like the latest 'Hitman' title - not a massive open world, but an 'open' level letting you tackle things the way you went.
I'd say past the fact that you'd be given an objective, that's pretty much what a sandbox game is: drop you in a massive building or a limited, playable area, and let you tackle things the way you want to - numerous routes, numerous options, the ability to go in guns blazing or stealthily as possible. I think you and I are in agreement here, we're just describing it in different ways. Wouldn't mind seeing a Bond game like this, that's for sure, but at this point, I'll take just about anything short of a terrible mobile game.
agreed... either sandbox or narrative heavy (ie: The Last Of Us or Uncharted) i'll take either, as long as it's properly executed and is fun to play and replay... honestly though - multiplayer is one thing that i wouldn't miss if it were taken out of the next game.... its been so dodgy in the past, plus, i can't help but think that spending time creating a multiplayer, takes time away from making the full game itself the best it can be... i would rather take an excellent single player story mode, with no multiplayer - than a mediocre single player and a mediocre/poor multiplayer... besides, i dont need a Bond multiplayer mode trying to compete with all the other multiplayer games out there... just give me a great story to play through, and maybe some DLC missions at later dates, to hold over until the next game is released... that is it.
My thoughts exactly. Junk multiplayer, and focus on the single player mode.
i certainly don't need it either.
And i don't think the game would loose potential sales without a multiplayer.
Not when it's a game that has a strong focus on narrative and a story campaign anyway.
Thats what people would buy it for
It would actually be great fun to have a game that had a strong single-player, but also a great and fleshed out multiplayer too that did the fun things the Star Wars Battlefront game did, adding in Barry's original scores as we play on maps built around classic locations from the old films, like Dr. No's lair, FRWL's gypsy camp, Largo's Palmyra, Blofeld's volcano lair, Piz Gloria, etc. It would be a big load of fan service, but if the quality of the gameplay was high and the past locations of vintage Bond were as well realized as those in DICE's engine were for Star Wars, I'd be playing it constantly.
If QoS was still popular and was on next-gen systems, I'd still be playing that multiplayer, too; was so much fun, especially with friends.
Uncharted - zero multiplayer
The Last Of Us - zero multiplayer
The Batman Arkham Series - zero multiplayer
thats 3 games right off the top of my head that are extremely successful without a multiplayer mode - or a traditional multiplayer vs-mode... if you can't hook people with the game itself, no one will care about the multiplayer.... and i've actually seen a shift in gaming, where more people are starting to want a richer single player narrative with their games - than something simply thrown together just to sidecar onto a multiplayer platform.... not saying multiplayer isn't something that can still work - but it has to be done right - and just a simple vs-mode doesn't really cut it for me anymore, when there are 10-20 games out there that do it better.
@haserot, as it has been pointed out, every Uncharted game after 1 had a big multiplayer component, as did The Last of Us. Batman: Arkham Origins also had a multiplayer during that franchise's run.
Those examples are partly why I say the industry is the way it is. The big dogs have multiplayer, and that's how it is.
I think ideally Bond should have multiplayer. There was nothing like ppayong as classic characters running around killing eachother in iconic Bond locations in Goldeneye and Nightfire. I don't see the harm in bringing that back. If they go for an FPS game then they could use that to market the game: everyone has fond memories of GE's multiplayer. They could sell it as a spiritual successor (although I guess that's what the COD clone 2010 version was meant to be).
I guess it's just because I'm Creeded out. I don't even care for the next one coming out, which will no doubt be teased at this year's E3 Ubi conference. After Ezio the series faltered, and Black Flag is the only one that's really impressed me since, which is funny since that's not even considered a proper AC game by many. AC is just a perfect example of the Call of Duty Effect: give gamers the same experience over and over with minor changes or little attention paid to fixing what doesn't work, and be prepared to face the consequences.
And yet Ubisoft still put so much emphasis on the goddamn present day story that has only become more convoluted and uninteresting post-Desmond's arc, despite the fact that most gamers buy the titles just to screw around in different time periods and don't care about any of that. The series just doesn't feel like it has much left in it if it doesn't really revamp itself soon. If the next one feels and looks the same as usual, we'll know a lesson hasn't been learned. Hopefully Ubi's decision to avoid doing annual releases will result in games that aren't disappointments and that have actual time spent focusing on fixing what the others have failed at doing.
Syndicate I thought was a step back in the right direction after Unity. The plot wasn't great but the characters were original, fleshed out and developed well over time. The villain was one of the best in the series too. And it was very fun. Jumping off trains, fighting on top of carriages, taking part in underground fight clubs, I felt that there was a lot more variety in what to do than there was in Unity. It did feel a bit light though, there wasn't as much emotion and intensity as the best in the series have.
I disagree on it being the same thing. The only title that really felt similar to the last for me was Revelations (understandable since they apparently made it at the last minute because AC 3 wasn't ready on time), but even then I loved it because of the setting and the story. Apart from that they always feel like new experiences. I really don't understand how someone can look at the jump from the Ezio trilogy to AC 3, or from Black Flag to Unity, and say they don't see a difference. Not just in graphics but in terms of gameplay mechanics, stuff to do, etc. I can understand people being burnt out on the annual releases (personally though I enjoyed having a new one every year) but I don't think the games are all the same at all. I also don't think they don't pay attention to detail: one of the reasons I fell in love with the series was because of the attention to detail. There isn't just the amazing open worlds but there's the way that the stories tie into real history, the massive encyclopedia entries that come with every game, etc. The different settings alone do a lot to differentiate them (Black Flag for example, a pirate game, is nothing like the industrial set Syndicate). They have their faults but to me, the series has never felt rushed or lacking in detail. The only one that came close to feeling like that was Rogue but again, the story was so good there that it's one of my favourites.
Whether or not you'd enjoy Black Flag really depends why you didn't like AC 3 @Creasy47. The combat and parkour is pretty much the same. But the naval stuff is massively improved, expanded on and intergrated into the world in such a way that it feels like a whole new game. Exploration is a lot different because of the ship, just being able to sail around and go to any island or attack and try to board any ship gives an amazing sense of freedom (the world opens up quicker than in AC 3 too). The world is just as detailed as AC 3 but looks even better (it is the carribean after all). All the side content was a lot more meaningful and fun (the diving sections were a personal highlight but I was also partial to bar fights and taking over island forts) and while the missions are still fairly linear, a lot of the assassination missions are much more open (and the assassination contracts, optional side missions, are brilliant). The story is also very different and touches on very different themes.
Black Flag generally tends to be one of the games enjoyed whether you're a fan or not, it got very good reviews and feedback at the time so if it sounds appealing to you as a game (open world pirate assassin game) it might be worth checking out some day as it'll be quite cheap by now. I loved it, but I also really enjoyed AC 3 so I'm probably not the best recommendation for you.