Gaming GoldenEye: Rogue Agent

[Brasil]

[IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/goldeneye2_screen001.jpg[/IMG]

I was poking around on Gamespot and came across a rather extensive update on GoldenEye: Rogue Agent (formerly named GoldenEye 2). It has a developer interview up there that gives you a better idea of what they're doing with Rogue Agent.

[url=http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/jamesbond007goldeneye2/preview_6095454.html]GoldenEye: Rogue Agent[/url]

The premise is neat, I'll give them that, and I like what the developer says about the "timeless universe" of Bond movies, where everything happens fairly close to each other, but this made me question that:

[QUOTE]The game will open up with you making a go of the virtuous life, fighting alongside Bond during one of the climactic action sequences from [i]Goldfinger[/i]. Unfortunately, your overly enthusiastic approach gets you cast out of MI6 and finds you going to work for Auric Goldfinger instead.[/QUOTE]
The dev interview says the opening sequence takes place in Fort Knox. Sounds fine, right? You play as an aspiring agent sent in to defuse the situation, while Bond defuses the bomb, hehe. But...Goldfinger got sucked out of the window in his jet, right? After Fort Knox? So how can he possibly still be the leader if he is either dead before Fort Knox, or dead immediately after? Just a tiny question I have, lol.

But other than that, the game sounds pretty neat. I'm sure it's not going to live up to what the true GoldenEye 007 did, but it still might prove an enjoyable experience.

The video interview is nice, and the preview on Gamespot is reasonably in-depth. It sounds like EA is really paying close attention to what a Bond game should be. Hopefully they've learned from their poochscrews of Nightfire, AUF (though, AUF wasn't all that bad), TWINE, etc.

Only time will tell, obviously, but what does everyone else think, now that we actually have some concrete info?

[NorykoAngelcry]

[COLOR=darkred][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I am intregued by the premise of the game. The ideas that they are planning seem pretty original for a game. . but who knows.

My biggest problem comes from the fact that they are using Goldeneye's name. In argueably one of the best multiplayer FPS games, I just feel that they are giong to ruin the name of it by EA getting it's hands on it. Perhaps that is rather bold of me to say, since I have not even played a sampling of it. . But from all of their other 007 games, I am not really holding my breath on it. [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[BlueYoshi]

The whole new 'choosing-sides' concept for a Bond game is a new approach altogether, but I wouldn't call it the most original, look at SMT3 for example.

I think that G:RA was generally intending to make its appeal through the single-player mode with its new plot and not focusing much on multi-player, though [I]you[/I] lucky PS2 owners will be able to play against each other online.

As for multi-player mode, I don't care how much EA's Bond games degrade the original Goldeneye, it has been around too long and it still holds the crown at number one. However, I've heard that G:RA holds a wide galore of multi-player options as well as maps, I can only hope that its not just a lame excuse for yet some more poor game play.

Anyway, don't you think it's about time Bond finally did get dismissed for reckless brutality? lol

[Semjaza]

[IMG]http://www.gu-videogames.de/uni-gamecube/screengalerie/9208.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.gu-videogames.de/uni-gamecube/screengalerie/9207.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gu-videogames.de/uni-gamecube/screengalerie/9205.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gu-videogames.de/uni-gamecube/screengalerie/9206.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gu-videogames.de/uni-gamecube/screengalerie/9175.jpg[/IMG]

These screens are ripped from Gamespot's movie of the game. Looks okay, although I've not seen the video (which apparently isn't very impressive).

[Brasil]

I'm actually getting more and more interested as time goes on, for the "reckless brutality" idea, anyway. I'm envisioning Fort Knox, as I run in alongside James Bond, who suspiciously looks like Sean Connery, heh, and I just start blowing enemy soldiers away. Anarchy, I tell you, anarchy. :evil grin:

One of the more interesting points the Dev made was how the Bond villains share a very similar lifestyle to Bond himself. It had actually never crossed my mind that both hero and villain live in a life of luxury, with beautiful women, cars, wealth...it's interesting. It's almost as if Bond and the supervillain are two different sides to the same...person. Er, not to say schizophrenia, lol, but it's a neat duality.

I'm not sure if they were solely concentrating in Campaign and are adding in Multi as an afterthought, though. It sounds like they're really working hard to make this worthwhile in all facets of gameplay. And based on what we've seen in EoN, they now have a nice idea of how to make a Bond game. I don't want another Nightfire, of course, but G:RA is sounding cool and promising.

Time will tell, but I'm warming up to the game the more I read about it.

EDIT: Thanks for the screens, Tony. The game is still fairly new in development, isn't it? I remember only hearing rumors last year, and these new details were just released within the month.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well I think EA would do well to concentrate on, more than anything, multiplayer this time around. If a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good multiplayer. After all, that's where the comparisons are gonna be drawn between the original and this one.

Personally, I think Perfect Dark really improved on GoldenEye, and that's actually the game that I've used as the FPS multiplayer standard for a while now. So I'm hoping G:RA will try to aspire to THAT and not even just the original GoldenEye.

[Semjaza]

[url]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/897/1084206918.jpg[/url]
[url]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/897/1084206921.jpg[/url]
[url]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/897/1084206916.jpg[/url]

Here's some new direct feed screens. They're from EA's E3 presskit apparently.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well I think EA would do well to concentrate on, more than anything, multiplayer this time around. If a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good multiplayer.[/quote]
I can't agree with this at all. Here's why. Gamers are not only going to be comparing Rogue Agent's multiplayer to GoldenEye. They're going to be looking at the entire package. While GE's multi set the standard (the fundamentals of which PD did not improve upon, but merely just added bells and whistles), GE did not only set the standard for multi.

GE set the standard for the entire FPS. You don't hear gamers trashing Nightfire simply because the Multi was substandard. You hear gamers criticizing Nightfire because it was a substandard game entirely, in terms of both Campaign [i]and[/i] Multi.

I hardly think it would be wise of EA to concentrate solely on Multi for Rogue Agent. If they focused their efforts primarily on building Multi, we might be given a Turok: Rage Wars, which, let's face it, was not a game.

See, if a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good Campaign and good multiplayer, because that's what GE is: stellar Campaign and stellar Multi. EA absolutely [i]cannot[/i] just build a stellar Multi and throw in a Campaign mode as an afterthought. That will not fly with gamers, especially the GE vets.

Regarding the new screens, even at this stage in development, some of the textures are looking very nice, the OddJob one, in particular. I can actually see the hairs in his moustache, lol. Obviously, the rendering is still a bit off, and there are some iffy parts of the texturings (I'm looking at the hands here), but the game looks to be coming along nicely. The wall in the back is nice.

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Anime_fangurl*247]See, if a title has the word GoldenEye in it, everyone's expecting some attempt at good Campaign and good multiplayer, because that's what GE is: stellar Campaign and stellar Multi. EA absolutely [i]cannot[/i'] just build a stellar Multi and throw in a Campaign mode as an afterthought. That will not fly with gamers, especially the GE vets.[/quote]

I can see where you're coming from. So according to your argument, if Square-Enix stopped making Final Fantasy and another company took over to make the next FF game in the series, it would still be the same because it has FF in the title? You'd be surprised.

As for the screens, yeah looking good. I particularly like the lighting effects surrounding the fires and explosions though. Cool.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi]I can see where you're coming from. So according to your argument, if Square-Enix stopped making Final Fantasy and another company took over to make the next FF game in the series, it would still be the same because it has FF in the title? You'd be surprised.

As for the screens, yeah looking good. I particularly like the lighting effects surrounding the fires and explosions though. Cool.[/QUOTE]Not quite my point, but close. See, what you have to keep in mind about the FF series, is that fans expect a very specific game when it has Final Fantasy in the title, true? The gaming mechanics remain relatively unchanged. Obviously, there have been variations in the battle systems over the years, and of course greater technology means we can expect a more immersive environment. But the key point here is the fan expectations.

A different company taking over the FF series will surely bring about variation on the FF mechanics. I don't argue with that for a second. But what I do think is worth mentioning is that a different company taking over production of the FF series will still need to focus on creating a total package, and not focus their energies on one facet of gameplay and one alone, unless the game they are creating is something that must strictly adhere to one, specific gameplay style, like FF Tactics.

This is evident in 8, for example. The battle system was not as developed as it should have been. It felt half-baked, as it were, and was disjointed from the rest of the game. This is what I'm talking about when talking about EA and Rogue Agent.

If EA wants to impress FPS/GE fans, they cannot pull a FF8, and not develop the entire game. EA needs to create the total package.

Different developers are fine and dandy, and I realize there will be some variation, but that variation needs to feel complete, which is very important in Rogue Agent's case. The name, GoldenEye, is a direct comparison point to the original, and EA cannot only develop particular facets of gameplay if they wish to hold a candle to GE, arguably one of the best total package FPS around.

Get what I'm saying?

Yeah, I really get a kick out of the explosion in the new screens. The guy being propelled like that is just hilarious, and I can't wait to see that stuff in motion.

EDIT: I'd just like to add something here. "Reckless brutality." LOL. I don't know why, maybe it's just the time of night, maybe I'm just mentally exhausted from Finals Preparation, but "reckless brutality" just sounds awesome right now. I mean, if it turns out to be what I think it is, we're going to be running through Fort Knox gunning down whoever gets in our way, which totally violates everything James Bond stands for, lol. Man, I'm hoping this game turns out well. We get to play as the bad guy!

[Shiguru]

Who the hell wants to play alongside Bond? I want to BE Bond so I can get cool gadgets and hot chicks. Sad what they did to what could have been a kick-*** single player.

And do you know if the new Bond game was anygood.


As for multiplayer Goldeneye was the king of FPS console games (FPS are better on the PC though.) until Halo came out. While I'm damn sure history will not repeat itself with the sequel I hope to god they get the multiplayer package right. I want things like Paintball and DK mode back dammit!

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Anime_fangurl*247]I can't agree with this at all. Here's why. Gamers are not only going to be comparing Rogue Agent's multiplayer to GoldenEye. They're going to be looking at the entire package. While GE's multi set the standard (the fundamentals of which PD did not improve upon, but merely just added bells and whistles), GE did not only set the standard for multi.

GE set the standard for the entire FPS. You don't hear gamers trashing Nightfire simply because the Multi was substandard. You hear gamers criticizing Nightfire because it was a substandard game entirely, in terms of both Campaign [i]and[/i] Multi.
...
I hardly think it would be wise of EA to concentrate solely on Multi for Rogue Agent. If they focused their efforts primarily on building Multi, we might be given a Turok: Rage Wars, which, let's face it, was not a game.[/QUOTE]

Well I didn't say they should not work on the campaign mode. But I still think that multiplayer is where GE truly shined and really what players would be looking for in G:RE more than anything. Certainly that is the case with me.

I mean, if EA didn't work much on multi and made just a killer single-player campaign, then what's the point of calling it GoldenEye really? You know what I mean? Anyway, I'm not saying they should work solely on multiplayer, but I think it should be a priority over the single player (not by far, but slightly). It IS what the original is known for, really. And not only that, but as far as single-player FPSs (and 3rd-person-shooters) go, there's gonna be a heck of a lot of competition. Multiplayer, though, is currently only good in Halo and barely bearable in Timesplitters (and I guess there are the Battlefield games and other similar stuff on PC, and Counterstrike... but nothing like GE anymore in any case).

Also I can't say that GE set the standard for single-player FPSs. Many people would probably put Half-Life in the top spot when it comes to that. ... Well no, console-wise I can't think of a better single-player FPS than GE, unless you count current generation games.

As for Perfect Dark only adding bells and whistles, I suppose you could think of it that way. But they were some sweet bells and whistles--killer simulants, and unsurpassed customizeability, including really neat stuff like smart slo-mo. It'd be nice if G:RE looked into adding things like that.

Eh, I'm all over the place here. It's late. Ok I guess what I'm saying is this: getting yet another single-player Bond game is all nice and stuff (well they've all had multi, but nothing spectacular unless you count EoN's co-op, but that's not what we're talking about), but I think what we're really itching for is a good Bond multiplayer game. It's been a while since I've really enjoyed a good one-hit-kill proxymine/sniper rifle setup (in PD, but still...). And if EA delivers a great single player campaign and a blah multiplayer, I'll be far more upset than if the multiplayer is stellar but the single-player campain blows. Especially because GoldenEye is in the title.

As for getting a Turok: Rage Wars, I'm sure nobody wants that. The weapons were kinda cool, but I would've preferred that they be in a different game. Like DK64 or something.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well I didn't say they should not work on the campaign mode. But I still think that multiplayer is where GE truly shined and really what players would be looking for in G:RE more than anything. Certainly that is the case with me.[/quote]
GE truly shined in [i]both[/i] Multi and Campaign, though. That's the beauty of it. It was a total package. You could talk to gamers for hours about the Campaign mode, and you could tell countless stories about GE's Multi.

[QUOTE]I mean, if EA didn't work much on multi and made just a killer single-player campaign, then what's the point of calling it GoldenEye really? You know what I mean? Anyway, I'm not saying they should work solely on multiplayer, but I think it should be a priority over the single player (not by far, but slightly). It IS what the original is known for, really. And not only that, but as far as single-player FPSs (and 3rd-person-shooters) go, there's gonna be a heck of a lot of competition. Multiplayer, though, is currently only good in Halo and barely bearable in Timesplitters (and I guess there are the Battlefield games and other similar stuff on PC, and Counterstrike... but nothing like GE anymore in any case).[/QUOTE]
Multi shouldn't take priority over Campaign, though, if EA is serious about what they want to do with Rogue Agent. You've seen the Dev interview, right? They are very dedicated to getting this [i]entire[/i] game right.

I'm not convinced quite yet that the game will be stellar, but from what I've seen, it's shaping up very well. The Dev looks to understand what the Bond universe is, and specifically, what a Bond game is. I have a feeling that EA knows where they went wrong in Nightfire and such. And if the entirety of EA doesn't know, then the Dev in the interview knows. I expect them to devote themselves to crafting both a strong Campaign mode and Multi.

Competition-wise, look at it this way. With the Trinity FPS coming out (Halo 2, Doom 3, Half-Life 2), Rogue Agent isn't really going for that audience. While many FPS fans are going to want to play all of these FPS, Bond games have always known to be more "audience-friendly" to fans that wouldn't really be the target audience of say, Doom 3.

I've been reading up on Doom 3 lately, and it's not for little kids at all. It doesn't even sound appropriate for the 12-15 year old bracket, so right there, Rogue Agent has a leg-up, so to speak. This is similar with Halo 2 and Half-Life 2, both of which will certainly have a Mature rating. Rogue Agent, in keeping with EA's Bond games, I expect to have a Teen rating.

Now, I think reasonable competition--that is, FPS games targeting the same audience--is something like Star Wars Battlefront (which sounds spectacular and will probably get me to subscribe to Xbox Live). That looks to be geared toward a more, I want to say childish, but that's not the right term. SWB is more geared toward a [i]wholesome[/i] audience.

[QUOTE] Also I can't say that GE set the standard for single-player FPSs. Many people would probably put Half-Life in the top spot when it comes to that. ... Well no, console-wise I can't think of a better single-player FPS than GE, unless you count current generation games.

As for Perfect Dark only adding bells and whistles, I suppose you could think of it that way. But they were some sweet bells and whistles--killer simulants, and unsurpassed customizeability, including really neat stuff like smart slo-mo. It'd be nice if G:RE looked into adding things like that.[/QUOTE]
And for GE to have held that pinnacle of FPS since 1997, with many FPSers still regarding it as the best FPS ever, there's something there. Even today, I can find gamers who still have their N64s hooked up. Mine is right here next to me. GE is the precise example of good gaming never dying. The singleplayer is still unmatched, both in scope and execution. Granted, today's technology has allowed for some fantastic stuff, but we expect that today.

Back then--but even today--GE gives us singleplayer how it should be: intense, fast, unforgiving at times, but always incredible. Whether it was sniping with the AR33 in the Jungle, sneaking around the Aztec Temple with double Moonraker lasers, carefully stepping through the Golden Gun chamber, or blazing through the Facility as fast as you can to get Invincibility, GE had it all. There are some who criticize it for lack of stealth, but I find those who criticize it for "only running and gunning" often only see running and gunning as a viable gameplay. GE has stealth; it just doesn't force--er, [i]suggest[/i] that you use it.

The only options from PD's Multi I'd really crave are the Bots and customizability, and they've become a staple of Multi now, so it's really common practice. The slo-mo was extraneous and really, served no strategic purpose whatsoever. If they really wanted to make slo-mo something worthwhile, make it player specific. One of my biggest beefs with PD was how slo-mo affected all players.

I mean, Combat Boost? One player using it? Why does it slow down everyone? What really should happen, is the player using it should go into slo-mo on their screen, while becoming insanely fast on everyone else's. Think Bullet Time. That's how it should have been. And since it wasn't utilized that way, it became a gimmick, something that served no purpose in terms of actual gameplay.

[quote]Eh, I'm all over the place here. It's late. Ok I guess what I'm saying is this: getting yet another single-player Bond game is all nice and stuff (well they've all had multi, but nothing spectacular unless you count EoN's co-op, but that's not what we're talking about), but I think what we're really itching for is a good Bond multiplayer game. It's been a while since I've really enjoyed a good one-hit-kill proxymine/sniper rifle setup (in PD, but still...). And if EA delivers a great single player campaign and a blah multiplayer, I'll be far more upset than if the multiplayer is stellar but the single-player campain blows. Especially because GoldenEye is in the title.[/quote]
Think EoN's Campaign mode and GE's Multi. That's what they're looking to do, I'm pretty sure. And remember, had GE not had a stellar Campaign mode, nobody would have unlocked any cheats at all until Gameshark or the button press codes came out. EA is going to put insane amounts of effort into both modes, to make sure it's a stellar experience throughout. To do otherwise spells their doom.

[quote]As for getting a Turok: Rage Wars, I'm sure nobody wants that. The weapons were kinda cool, but I would've preferred that they be in a different game. Like DK64 or something.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because Turok: Rage Wars wasn't a game, lol. It was pure Multi, and not even done very well.

[quote name='Shigeru']Who the hell wants to play alongside Bond? I want to BE Bond so I can get cool gadgets and hot chicks. Sad what they did to what could have been a kick-*** single player.[/quote]
This is precisely why Rogue Agent is what it is, because gamers depend on being Bond so much. I get the feeling you didn't watch the Dev interview. He answers all of your questions there, and I think I answered them in my first post in this thread, too.

[QUOTE]And do you know if the new Bond game was anygood.[/QUOTE]
Everything or Nothing? One of the best Bond games I've played. Rivals GE in many respects. Damn near matches it in Campaign mode.

[quote]As for multiplayer Goldeneye was the king of FPS console games (FPS are better on the PC though.) until Halo came out. While I'm damn sure history will not repeat itself with the sequel I hope to god they get the multiplayer package right. I want things like Paintball and DK mode back dammit![/QUOTE]
It's not a sequel, though. It's more similar to how Perfect Dark was a "sequel in spirit." It used to be called "GoldenEye 2," sure, but they've transformed it into something original, an entirely new animal. Sequel in spirt, sequel in spirit.

I wouldn't mind Paintball coming back, though. That was fun.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Anime_fangurl*247]Competition-wise, look at it this way. With the Trinity FPS coming out (Halo 2, Doom 3, Half-Life 2), Rogue Agent isn't really going for that audience. While many FPS fans are going to want to play all of these FPS, Bond games have always known to be more "audience-friendly" to fans that wouldn't really be the target audience of say, Doom 3

....The only options from PD's Multi I'd really crave are the Bots and customizability, and they've become a staple of Multi now, so it's really common practice. The slo-mo was extraneous and really, served no strategic purpose whatsoever. If they really wanted to make slo-mo something worthwhile, make it player specific. One of my biggest beefs with PD was how slo-mo affected all players.

I mean, Combat Boost? One player using it? Why does it slow down everyone? What really should happen, is the player using it should go into slo-mo on their screen, while becoming insanely fast on everyone else's. Think Bullet Time. That's how it should have been. And since it wasn't utilized that way, it became a gimmick, something that served no purpose in terms of actual gameplay.
[/QUOTE]

About the target audience thing... well, the fact that GoldenEye is in the title will make some of the seasoned gamers pay attention to it (gamers who buy "mature" games nowadays, that is). I agree that Doom 3 and G:RE are completely different playing experiences, but I fall into the target audience for both, as do a lot of gamers I'd imagine. And "mature" games are purchased by younger gamers as well (GTA3, etc.). I suppose G:RE might be more "accessible" to the younger and non-hardcore crowd, but I don't know if that will matter too much when you're talking [i]such[/i] heavy hitters as Halo 2. Anyway, Halo 2's multiplayer will also be killer, so that's a whole other thing to talk about.

Anyway, I saying that a really killer multiplayer would be a way to even get the attention of the Doom 3 audience (who otherwise would only have (what seems to be) a pretty stale deathmatch mode in Doom 3) and Half-Life 2 audience. Halo... there's probably no hope for G:RE on X-box once that monster hits shelves. I'm thinking nearly everyone with an X-box will get it.

As for the PD slo-mo, you maybe only played the crappy setups with it. Combat Boosts, I'd agree, are horrible. But you wouldn't be able to do a "slow on your screen, fast on other screens" sort of deal because that's sort of impossible due to what you'd be doing to [i]time[/i] in that case. The combat boosted player would be "behind" in time as he moved.

The [i]right[/i] way to do slo-mo was "smart slo-mo," which slowed down the action as opponents neared each other (not teammates, but opponents specifically). It worked great for one-on-one with one-hit-kills, because my brother and I would be running around fast when we're not next to each other, getting a weapon or two, and as we got close to each other ready for action, the game would slow down and it's be all matrix-y for a couple of seconds as we tried to shoot each other, just barely missing. It was especially cool with crossbows because you can see the bolts fly and the trails they leave, meaning you can anticipate successive shots.

Smart slo-mo also helped even the playing field when playing against many DarkSims (though the level would have to be HUGE for the game not to be slow all the time, seeing as DarkSims hound you to no end)

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]About the target audience thing... well, the fact that GoldenEye is in the title will make some of the seasoned gamers pay attention to it (gamers who buy "mature" games nowadays, that is). I agree that Doom 3 and G:RE are completely different playing experiences, but I fall into the target audience for both, as do a lot of gamers I'd imagine. And "mature" games are purchased by younger gamers as well (GTA3, etc.). I suppose G:RE might be more "accessible" to the younger and non-hardcore crowd, but I don't know if that will matter too much when you're talking [i]such[/i'] heavy hitters as Halo 2. Anyway, Halo 2's multiplayer will also be killer, so that's a whole other thing to talk about.[/quote]You and I may be the audience that can appreciate both Doom 3 and Rogue Agent, but for little Bobby (great show, Bobby's World), whose mother simply talks to the employee at GameStop about Doom 3, Rogue Agent will definitely be a more viable option.

GTA isn't a proper point here. What GTA did was...potty humor, more or less. What Doom 3 is looking to do is intense psychological horror. Just reading the previews and hands-on for it, Doom 3 is going to be something that would give kids nightmares, quite the opposite of GTA, which is merely outlandish for the sake of being outlandish. I mean, Doom 3 making you [i]choose[/i] between unarmed with a flashlight, or armed with no light at all?

GTA is kid's stuff, despite the M rating. Doom 3, however, is not looking to be suitable for those kids who slip under the radar, so to speak.

[QUOTE]Anyway, I saying that a really killer multiplayer would be a way to even get the attention of the Doom 3 audience (who otherwise would only have (what seems to be) a pretty stale deathmatch mode in Doom 3) and Half-Life 2 audience. Halo... there's probably no hope for G:RE on X-box once that monster hits shelves. I'm thinking nearly everyone with an X-box will get it.[/QUOTE]My local GameStop already has 50 pre-reserves for Halo 2. But if Halo 2 lives up to the hype, expect absolutely nothing to survive, not Doom 3, Rogue Agent, whatever. So, really, there's no hope for anything when Halo 2 is released.

And look at what Doom 3 is going to be. It's going to focus on creating an experience, visually, aurally, structurally. The singleplayer is going to be something to behold, and if the Multi is half as good as Campaign, then the Multi will be quite impressive. On top of that, Doom 3 is being designed, really, catered specifically for Xbox Live 2.0 or 3.0, whichever is coming out next. It's utilizing everything available. Rogue Agent will again, need to be a total package to have a reasonable marketshare.

[quote]As for the PD slo-mo, you maybe only played the crappy setups with it. Combat Boosts, I'd agree, are horrible. But you wouldn't be able to do a "slow on your screen, fast on other screens" sort of deal because that's sort of impossible due to what you'd be doing to [i]time[/i] in that case. The combat boosted player would be "behind" in time as he moved.

The [i]right[/i] way to do slo-mo was "smart slo-mo," which slowed down the action as opponents neared each other (not teammates, but opponents specifically). It worked great for one-on-one with one-hit-kills, because my brother and I would be running around fast when we're not next to each other, getting a weapon or two, and as we got close to each other ready for action, the game would slow down and it's be all matrix-y for a couple of seconds as we tried to shoot each other, just barely missing. It was especially cool with crossbows because you can see the bolts fly and the trails they leave, meaning you can anticipate successive shots.

Smart slo-mo also helped even the playing field when playing against many DarkSims (though the level would have to be HUGE for the game not to be slow all the time, seeing as DarkSims hound you to no end)[/QUOTE]"all matrix-y for a couple of seconds"

Okay, keep this in mind. If you and your bro were in a more open area, say, the Grid, fighting in one corner of the glass ceiling room, and a third player was on the opposite side, observing the fight, what would that third player be seeing?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Anime_fangurl*247]
"all matrix-y for a couple of seconds"

Okay, keep this in mind. If you and your bro were in a more open area, say, the Grid, fighting in one corner of the glass ceiling room, and a third player was on the opposite side, observing the fight, what would that third player be seeing?[/QUOTE]

The game slows down equally on all screens is what happens. So yeah, if player 1 meets player 2 and they start fighting, and player 3 is a mile away, the game still slows down for him also. Smart slo-mo is best for one-on-one or 2 players vs. DarkSims or something. It's not bad with more players, but it does get a bit too slow for too long. Especially the whole "waiting FOREVER until you finally die and respawn" thing.

[Brasil]

I figured I'd check-up on Rogue Agent. IGN had a closed-door hands-on, apparently, on May 13:

[font=Arial][size=2][quote][b]May 13, 2004[/b] - Behind closed doors today Electronic Arts showed off its potentially AAA James Bond game, [i]Goldeneye: Rogue Agent[/i], the first-person shooter that makes you feel good for being bad.

[/size][/font]
[font=Arial]The idea behind [i]Goldeneye[/i] is based on fundamentals, getting the small things right, and building from there. So when we saw and played the PS2 and Xbox games today we saw past the slow framerate and the chunky graphics and into the game itself. EA has stated that it's confident about its technology, so that by getting its basics down tight, the rest will follow. The demo we saw and played shows that idea through.

As a rogue agent, an M16 agent who's been exiled for brutal behavior, you join Auric Goldfinger's criminal organization, and in a civil war that is started between the two criminal factions, you lose an eye. It's replaced by new technology that gives you enhanced abilities, such as greater vision, greater abilities, and enhancements that can be upgraded throughout the game. It's your "goldeneye." Being able to wield two weapons, each independently controllable, in addition to a constantly upgradeable eye, your villain becomes a powerful force in the Goldfinger organization.

The movie demo we were shown was impressive indeed, but it put a high gloss on a game that's still very much in development, and has more than great potential. EA has assembled a top-notch team of developers and designers, snatching personnel from Ubi Soft's [i]Tom Clancy[/i] teams, Bungie, and Konami, among others, and together they have focused on creating a game that's highly dynamic, intense and intelligent.

We played a single-player mission that takes place in Fort Knox, and we also played in a four-player LAN game in the Moonraker level. [b]The single-player mission puts you on track to escape a crumbling base, starting with you seeing a crashed helicopter stuck in a crumbled rooftop, and James Bond, of all people, dangling from one hand above a 10-story atrium. You walk over and push him off, thinking he's dead (but you know Bond, he'll never die).[/b] Descending down several sets of stairs, gaggles of enemies show up, showing off the E.V.I.L. AI system the team has spent so much time on. Enemies are based on a node system, meaning that the more pressure you apply to them, the more aggressive they respond. [b]Enemies duck and hide behind objects, and the upper tier enemies actually use lower ranked enemies as human shields[/b].

Using a range of weapons, including 357 pistols, P95s (a modified P90 that's a great sprayer), assault rifles, heavy machine guns, missile launchers -- all of which are over-the-top in their design -- as well as concussion and napalm grenades, you descend down a set of stairways through heavier and heavier soldiers. The set design is intensive. There are tons of obstacles to use for you and enemies to hide behind, and ducking and hiding is recommended. There is no stealth or wall clinging because EA decided this game wasn't about stealth, it's about all-out combat. Any weapon you see in the ground can be picked up and used. Just think! You can run around with two assault rifles and literally clear the room.

Players can engage in close-combat melee, handling their weapon butts to attack an opponent with, or they can use their fists, as long as a single hand is open. When you stun an enemy with a punch, you can then grab them and do two things: either swing them around and use them as a human shield, or throw them ahead of you. That could mean you throw them off a ledge, or into a explosive barrel, which you can later shoot, or into a crowd of exacerbated enemy fodder.

The multiplayer level I played enables you to explore the traps and design of the environments with far greater precision and attention. It's all about learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are. The level is actually quite massive, including multiple split stories, hallways and deathtraps. There are numerous control panels with switches in them that explode wall panels, drop huge levels, and more. [b]In one particular area, a circular sub-level, you can trick enemies into entering into it, and then hit a button trapping them down in the chamber. The switch launches a rocket, the exhaust of which burns you or your opponents to a crisp. It's quite satisfying[/b].

The online is for both Xbox and PS2, though EA LA is still filtering ideas for the final styles of gameplay it wants to deliver. Some standard online modes of play include deathmatch and team deathmatch to name a few. EA is really aiming for online game more like [i]Counter Strike[/i] than anything else, with team-based objectives, such as, say, pitting the Bond villains versus MI6 agents, or Bond villains against Bond villains.

In short, while [i]Goldeneye: Rogue Agent[/i] is still not ready to graphically wow the world, but the fundamental gameplay is indeed looking sharp and exciting, if you can get around the chunky graphics and rough control. The final game, we're told, will run at a solid 30 FPS, which is OK with us, though 60 is preferrable. The combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice. That's what we're really looking for in a game, something that sparks our imagination and makes us forget all the bad games we've been played so much of. This looks like the game to happily distract us for some time, indeed.[/QUOTE] [/font]

[font=Arial]Looks like there are the usual early development graphical hiccups, but really, that's to be expected from most FPS at this stage of development. IGN seems optimistic, which when you think about it, is a rarity, so that's getting my interest piqued. I've bolded some very neat parts, as well. The Moonraker deathmatch level looks to satisfy the GE Gameshark hackers who tried to get in there and only found glitchy, minimal success. ;)[/font]

[BlueYoshi]

[COLOR=Teal]I hope EA know what they're doing here; the ability to wield a weapon in each arm seems a bit rash in terms of compatibility. It will probably suit multiplayer better, I suppose.

EA are really aspiring in the FPS world though, their flexibility could possibly bring G: RA up the ranks for multiplayer, not shoving a side solo of course. But from how it sounds, it's now become evident that EA are actually trying to produce a stunning game, as well as moving away from quantities like massive storylines, and crisp graphics all together. They don?t really count when it comes to ones judgement.

Interestingly enough, controlling each weapon individually seems to be a more routeful control mechanism, which, in a sense could possibly add more depth or complexity if used right. It's good to see that, though I really hope they adapt a similar control system to go with that... it makes you think whether the PS2 is running out of buttons, heh.[/COLOR]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Dammit! More like Counterstrike?? No stealth?? I really like how " it's all about learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are." Why even call it Goldeneye at all?

Anyway, I hope that IGN was just saying random crap there and nothing else. In the end I'm probably gonna rent the game and see if I like it enough to buy it, but for now I'm getting only more ambivalent about it.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Dammit! More like Counterstrike?? No stealth?? I really like how " it's all about learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are." Why even call it Goldeneye at all?[/quote]
That quote was referring to the [b]Deathmatch[/b]. And that's what the GoldenEye 007 Deathmatch was: "learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are."

[quote]Anyway, I hope that IGN was just saying random crap there and nothing else. In the end I'm probably gonna rent the game and see if I like it enough to buy it, but for now I'm getting only more ambivalent about it.[/QUOTE]
How can it be random crap if it's precisely what GE's Deathmatch was?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

That's wrong. In Goldeneye, you learned where the weapons and ammo were in about 30 seconds of playing a level. From then on it was all about using the surroundings wisely and getting advantageous angles at your opponents, as well as just plain out-shooting them. Goldeneye was certainly not all about knowing weapon/ammo/armor locations. Sure, the body armor was pretty useful. As was knowing where the proxy mines were or something. But really, it took no time at all to know where to go for what you wanted.

Perfect Dark, because it allowed for heavy customizeability, allowed you to balance weapons to the point that "knowing where the weapons are" didn't matter at all sometimes.

Anyway, I'm really wondering about what IGN editor wrote that article on G:RE. Because really, "the combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice"??? What [i]is[/i] this? "The combination of dual weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players" compare the game to Halo 2 and find that some developers are just plain better than others. If I were EA I'd be a bit careful about where they're going. I don't want a little bit of everything. I want a streamlined but polished direction for the gameplay.

Really, the game should be called "Goldeneye: Halo Counterstrike Tournament 2005."

[James]

[color=#707875]I think that the original GoldenEye was definitely all about knowing the locations of things -- as well as knowing how to take advantage of the level design itself. I specifically remember the Facility level in particular, and how critical it was to know how to get to the nearest weapon pickup. This was important largely because of the relatively small size of the level itself. Of course, it was very easy to learn where everything was...but it was still critical to know your way around.

I think that this game definitely has a lot to give up to, both in terms of deathmatch as well as regular single player.

The original GoldenEye's multiplayer was really a combination of stealth and a "going psycho with guns" mentality. Afterall, they didn't have rocket launchers and grenades for nothing.

The cool thing about GE is that many of the levels allowed for a combination of these two play strategies. The levels were very open to the concept of having a direct firefight, but most of them also had hiding places and some strategic points of interest (particularly when laying Proximity Mines and stuff).

I'm not sure how this new GE will compare, but obviously everyone [i]will [/i]make the comparison, if only because of name alone.

EDIT: And let's not forget...the original GoldenEye had [i]quite [/i]a strong focus on having a weapon in each hand at the same time. All it really did was increase your firepower though. If this new GE does it in a more intelligent way...so be it. It will probably add to the strategic nature of multiplayer.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']That's wrong. In Goldeneye, you learned where the weapons and ammo were in about 30 seconds of playing a level. From then on it was all about using the surroundings wisely and getting advantageous angles at your opponents, as well as just plain out-shooting them. Goldeneye was certainly not all about knowing weapon/ammo/armor locations. Sure, the body armor was pretty useful. As was knowing where the proxy mines were or something. But really, it took no time at all to know where to go for what you wanted.[/quote]
Sciros, you do understand the difference between "using the surroundings wisely and getting advantageous angles at your opponents" and "stealth," right?

I ask because, in a [b]Deathmatch[/b], if someone sneaks around a back way in the Facility, Bunker, Complex, etc, that's not Stealth at all, because with or without Radar, an experienced player can counter it easily. And if the experienced player is sneaking around against a Newbie, then it's simply taking advantage of the Newbie, not using Stealth.

Think about when P1 has P2 pinned down in the bottling room hallway in Facility. No amount of sneaking will let P2 escape out of there. It's a gauntlet, after all, and only some quick dodging and strafing will give P2 a chance, not hiding in a corner and waiting for P1 to pass by.

Like James has said, obviously, some players are going to be very sneaky when it comes to using certain weapons, like Proxies, but even then, it's not Stealth; it's just using battle strategy (and using a very effective method of getting Most Dishonorable, hehehe).

Simply, "using the surroundings wisely and getting advantageous angles at your opponents" is something entirely different from Stealthing your way through a Deathmatch.

Deathmatch is a fire-fight, regardless of the level. Don't confuse battle strategy with Splinter Cell, please.

[QUOTE]Perfect Dark, because it allowed for heavy customizeability, allowed you to balance weapons to the point that "knowing where the weapons are" didn't matter at all sometimes.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so what? Random weapons, then what? What do you think the players are going to do then? They're going to learn where the high-powered weapons are in the Random set-up. Customization means nothing, because the player will still go right for the heavy-hitting weapons or the most useful weapon.

[QUOTE]Anyway, I'm really wondering about what IGN editor wrote that article on G:RE. Because really, "the combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice"??? What [i]is[/i] this? "The combination of dual weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players" compare the game to Halo 2 and find that some developers are just plain better than others. If I were EA I'd be a bit careful about where they're going. I don't want a little bit of everything. I want a streamlined but polished direction for the gameplay.[/QUOTE]
"The combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice."

How in the hell could you have a problem with this?

Are you familiar with Nightfire? Trust me when I tell you that what EA is doing with Rogue Agent is very streamlined compared to what they did with Nightfire, AUF, and TWINE.

[quote]Really, the game should be called "Goldeneye: Halo Counterstrike Tournament 2005."[/QUOTE]
Why? What purpose would that serve?

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James']The cool thing about GE is that many of the levels allowed for a combination of these two play strategies. The levels were very open to the concept of having a direct firefight, but most of them also had hiding places and some strategic points of interest (particularly when laying Proximity Mines and stuff).[/quote]

[COLOR=Teal]True. Many of us are forgetting how flexible the original was; it pursued both tactics and all out firefights. Remember the Archive? Or the Statue?

Obviously, you had to think about your sense of direction, what weapon to use, and where to hide, most games performed that factor adequately, but Goldeneye took it to another level. Knowing your enemy is essential, as is knowing how capable they are; like what weapons they have etc, and depending on you or the opponent, the level you?re in may be an advantage, or could prove at a disadvantage.

Quite frankly, without all the gadgets that make Goldeneye what it is today, it would just be another FPS title reflecting its abilities off other well known and highly regarded FPSs.[/COLOR]

[quote name='SciroDarkblade']Anyway, I'm really wondering about what IGN editor wrote that article on G:RE. Because really, "the combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice"??? What is this? "The combination of dual weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players" compare the game to Halo 2 and find that some developers are just plain better than others. If I were EA I'd be a bit careful about where they're going. I don't want a little bit of everything. I want a streamlined but polished direction for the gameplay.[/quote]

[COLOR=Teal]I think you've got it a little misunderstood, heh...

Goldeneye very much focused on both parts of the game, single and multi. G:RA, according to the article, wants to top-up on the multiplayer aspect. EA are actually doing everything they didn't in their previous Bond games, if anything you should be happy about this. I mean, EA are attempting a solid approach, it may not live up to the original but you have to give credit where it's due. They aren?t the best developers around after all.

For one, I have high hopes in G:RA, both single and multi player sound great. Overall, it'll be interesting to see how all these new additions work out, for better or worse.[/COLOR]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Anime_fangurl*247']Sciros, you do understand the difference between "using the surroundings wisely and getting advantageous angles at your opponents" and "stealth," right?[/quote]
In Goldeneye there wasn't too much stealth, yes. In Perfect Dark there was, as long as you set up the scenario to where it allowed for it (Ravine, no radar, etc.) But "using the surroundings..." was me telling you Goldeneye was not "all about knowing where the weapons are." Because it's not. James and everyone else here is absolutely right when he says that it was critical to know where things were in Goldeneye. BUT, it took no time at all to learn just where everything was. Everyone knew where to go for body armor, rockets, etc. Playing with anyone except complete newbies, Goldeneye multiplayer was not at all about knowing where everything was. Yes it was critical, but it was also a given.

[QUOTE][quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Perfect Dark, because it allowed for heavy customizeability, allowed you to balance weapons to the point that "knowing where the weapons are" didn't matter at all sometimes.[/quote]
Okay, so what? Random weapons, then what? What do you think the players are going to do then? They're going to learn where the high-powered weapons are in the Random set-up. Customization means nothing, because the player will still go right for the heavy-hitting weapons or the most useful weapon.[/QUOTE]
If you [i]balance[/i] the weapons (i.e. not RANDOM, as you for some reason assumed), then it won't matter which one you pick up! There isn't a "most useful weapon" in that case. There wasn't just a "random" set-up in PD for weapons; there was also a "custom," in case you don't remember.

[QUOTE]"The combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice."

How in the hell could you have a problem with this?[/QUOTE]
Well, first of all dual-wielding and grenade throwing doesn't add anything to make sure players don't experience the same game twice. Those mechanics are cool and fun, and do add to battle strategy, but it's not as if the game would get old without them. Also, I'm not sure what game I've played where I actually cared if I experienced it the same way twice, as long as the game was decent.

But anyway I'm still looking forward to trying the game out. EA has been steadily improving with their Bond games, and hopefully this one will continue in that trend (as it does seem to be doing). But EA has not only Goldeneye to live up to, it has Halo 2, Timesplitters 3, and a bunch of other competitors to worry about.

Still, in the end, it's not [i]what's[/i] there that's important; it's how it's done. The original Halo showed us that. It had 100 times less weapons than Goldeneye and PD, less freedom in multiplayer modes (no kill/time limit options), and zero customizeability with characters (colors, woohoo). But it still pulled off a great game. EA seems to be throwing in a lot of different stuff here, and that's why I'm concerned about how polished all of the gameplay elements will be in the end. After all, there's not THAT much production time going into this game compared to others.