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
look at how you can do things in multiple ways. I like Activison but show me a single bond game where you have that option Heck even EA was sort of one note compared to Blacklist and that isn't including the Stealth elements of the first 3 and the decision making elements of Double Agent combined with the environment ability in Conviction.
Sorry Ubisoft Montreal gets 007 I will thank my lucky stars.
and there is still that mystery 2016 release from them but it is more then likely Spilnter Cell 7 (which I will own)
Speaking of that, though, I haven't heard anything from WOE's application being released. I heard some people have played it here, but my assumption is that Glu has immediately pulled it out due to... negative reaction? Rogue Nation and UNCLE have released their applications in a short time, but WOE isn't even around to be found but in video format. I wonder... has Glu restarted development or something? A new project with Bond in it?
Or am I thinking too much?
How is Assassin's Creed in any way like GTA? The span of time between San Andreas and GTA4 was four years, and between GTA4 and GTA5 was five years (wait a minute... I'm sensing a pattern here... Because between GTA3 and San Andreas was three years... Oh, wait, I skipped Vice City. Oops...) The wait between Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood was a year, between Brotherhood and Revelations was a year, between Revelations and III was a year, between III and IV was a year, between IV and two games was a year, and between Rogue/Unity and whatever the hell the next one is is also a year. The only "large" gap of time between AC games is two years between AC1 and AC2.
While I will admit that Splinter Cell is a good series (I stop short of "great" because most of its characters outside Sam, Grim and Lambert aren't as developed), Ubisoft won't treat the Bond license like that simply because they'll look at Bond as a way of replicating their AC numbers with a second franchise, much like Activision did.
No. If Blood Stone was the last good Bond game we got (I lump Reloaded in with the Wii version simply because there's no difference aside from graphically), then so be it. I'd rather see the Bond gaming series end with Blood Stone than continue on with annual releases that sh*t all over the license in the name of profit. Blood Stone was a quality game who's only failure was being released alongside GoldenEye.
Someone brought it up elsewhere, but given how great of a job Rocksteady did with the Batman games, I can't imagine how great a Bond game would turn out by them.
Well Im against the every year release but why not if the story was different and they are making money out of it .. Bond games could be released every year but with two different developers.. Now this applies for COD as well .. BUT if this turns to fail with bond games then a game every two years is more appreciated.. Bloodstone was a great start they should've adverts well for it which they didnt .. They also should've save Goldeneye for the next year .. But I guess Activison are so stupid and a I hate them alot now ..
Now, to defend Activision for a moment, their release strategy with Blood Stone and GoldenEye was perfect. One game a Wii exclusive, one game on everything else, they can make money both ways as opposed to people just picking the PS3 or 360 version and the Wii version being left in the dust. Their choices with the two games was their problem. It doesn't matter if the game with the title "GoldenEye" slapped on it is absolute sh*t, it has the name "GoldenEye" slapped on it, people will buy it. It was the exact same tactic EA used to get people to buy Rogue Agent. Blood Stone is in every way superior to GoldenEye, but people are naturally drawn to the name "GoldenEye", because of all the great multiplayer memories they have from their childhoods.
But, no, even with Activision's strategy of sticking different development teams on each COD game, it doesn't matter, because you're still playing the same game every year. Ubisoft does it with Assassin's Creed, as well, but it's not whether or not multiple teams are working on games at the same time to be released at different times, what matters is the content, and in that regard, Activision and Ubisoft are f*cking people up the ass every single year because even with the advances in gaming technology, we're still playing the same damn COD game we played in 2005 known as Call of Duty 2. Nothing has changed with regards to how the games look (Activision still can't produce a decent looking river to save their damn lives), or how the games play, or anything. Here's your two minute briefing to set up who you're shooting at and why, here's your gun, go shoot them, occasionally plant or diffuse a bomb. This is every COD game since 2, whether set in WWII, Vietnam, the present, the future, or the goddamn Dark Ages (God help me, they better not go that far). It's the same with Assassin's Creed, where we've been playing the same game since 2009, when it was called Assassin's Creed II (notice a pattern here? Companies seem to stop at 2, then recycle).
The difference between AC and COD is that Ubisoft will occasionally drop in a new gimmick in each game. Brotherhood, it was the option of recruiting assassins and sending them out on missions; Revelations had that zipline thing; III introduced boats, IV fleshed them out, Rogue was IV with a new skin and I don't what the f*ck Unity added except for a metric ton of bugs.
I like the suggestion of Rocksteady. I wasn't a big fan of Asylum, but City was okay, though I've heard that Origins and Knight are the same as City, save for the addition of a new island (Origins) and the Batmobile (Knight). Plus, as cool as it would be to drive around an open world in any of the Bond cars, what would you actually do? An open world Bond game sounds ridiculously cool, but it's also pretty restricting, since Bond never really does too much of anything in any one city/area in any of the films. Bond would basically have to be dumped in a city that the bad guys control, and everything they do would have to conveniently happen within city limits. The closest that's come to happening is From Russia With Love and Quantum of Solace.
No, the Bond gaming license needs to expire, and not be renewed. We've peaked with games like GoldenEye on the N64, Everything or Nothing and Blood Stone, with an honorable mention of NightFire. We'll never get anything resembling those great adventures ever again, so we should just accept what we have.
has this been released then pulled? video inside
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/gaming-jbwoe-james-bond-world-of-espionage-launched?t=&s=&id=03931
Well I think AC is more comparable to GTA than COD. The only thing it has in common with COD is the yearly releases. In terms of the sort of game they are, AC and GTA are much more similar (open world, third person action).
I think people are very harsh on the AC series. I mean while we're talking about GTA I'd argue that the AC games have changed and added more between releases more than GTA has (GTA has basically been refining the same formula since GTA III, just adding little things, while AC has changed the foundation of the series numerous times, most notably with the way they expanded the naval stuff in AC IV).
I'm still a fan of AC. The only real crap one so far is Unity imo (and I'm not a fan of the first one either, but for it's time it was great, it's just the sequels have made it sort of unplayable), which tried to pander to the masses too much. resulting in a huge disappointment in terms of characters and story. I loved nearly all the others (yes even AC III, which I think is pretty underrated, and I think the complaints about that game that resulted in a lot of Unity's flaws). And I'm very excited for Syndicate, it all looks really cool and it's being made by the team who made Freedom Cry, which was really fantastic imo. The same great gameplay of AC IV but with a story that was really powerful and even more well written than the core game imo.
If Ubisoft got the licence and put as much detail as they put into the AC series, using the gameplay of Splinter Cell as a starting point (it should just be a starting point though, there's much more to Bond than just sneaking around shooting people), and gave the game an original story by one of the AC writers, then I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
I'm not a big fan of Rocksteady's Batman series. I really loved Aslyum but I thought City was disappointing and I didn't even finish Origins. Haven't played Arkham Knight, I'm not interested in it at all because I've sort of lost faith in that series.
Maybe the first or second release of AC or the game-changing 'Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare,' but anything after, absolutely not.
GE was revolutionary, and despite the misjudged space finale I love Nightfire, but I thought Bloodstone was just an average action game, fun but terribly written. Everything Or Nothing had an admirable amount of effort put in, with the great cast and clearly big budget, but had a crap story (ridiculously OTT, worse than DAD).
When stuff like The Walking Dead, GTA V, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, etc, is coming out, should we really settle for Bloodstone?
I think all the fantastic games being released show that we could get a game a lot better than any of the Bond games we've got so far, if they gave it to a publisher/developer who gave enough of a sh*t to put some time, money and effort in, rather than just churning out a generic first or third person shooter.
I disagree. The only lifeless AC protagonist was Altair in the first one imo (and even he was redeemed in Revelations). Ezio, Connor, Haytham Edward and Adewale were all great fleshed out characters (can't comment on Aveline, haven't played Liberation) that all had interesting character arcs/development. Even Arno, despite being a terrible character, a badly written Ezio clone with a dodgy English accent despite being French, was far from a lifeless character.
EDIT: Oh actually I forgot Desmond. He was bland and lifeless. But he's an exception, the rest aren't lifeless in the slightest imo.
I would love this. This would leagues beyond anything Ubisoft could cook up.
I don't agree with that. I think they're all very different characters with different personalities (except Arno, who was basically a weaker version of Ezio) and motivations. I think the sequels are part of the reason Ezio was such a great character and it's annoying how they never do that anymore (I understand why though because the yearly releases mean there's multiple games in production at the same time, it takes years to make them and it's impossible to know if a protagonist would be well received enough to warrant a sequel until the game is out, by which point the next game would be nearly finished, sp it's too big a risk).
guys is this out i cannot find it but theres an mi6 article out on it has anyone played it yet?
You'd be better off doing something else. Anything else. Literally, anything at all, like go for a walk or bake a cake or build a birdhouse with nothing but wood, nails, and your forehead. Any of these things would be more enjoyable, surely.
That's how I felt. Though I did like the first game and Altair, up until Black Flag, wherein Edward and his respective game became my favourites. Bu if Bond must take influence from a game series, I would rather it be Splinter Cell.