Goldeneye 64 Remake

senordingdong

I recall reading an article a good while ago about rare making a remake or reimaging of the Goldeneye 64 for the 360.
I think I remember seeing some pictures and all.

Does anybody know if it's made any progress?

nevaeh-2die-4

senordingdong wrote: »

I recall reading an article a good while ago about rare making a remake or reimaging of the Goldeneye 64 for the 360.
I think I remember seeing some pictures and all.

Does anybody know if it's made any progress?

use google and stop being lazy

senordingdong

How very helpful of you.

gizmo

It was on the cards for awhile as an XBLA game however due to the issues with licensing it never got off the ground.

Here is a brief run-down of the legalities surrounding the game. Note, the "Bond licence holders" Burton mentions there are Activision.

In the meantime we have Goldeneye Wii to look forward to.

senordingdong

Would have been awesome.

A bit apprehensive about the Goldeneye Wii thing, jusall the changes etc... though this could turn out to be a brilliant move. (but mostly becasue I don't have a Wii)

But I have to admit, it looks good.

gizmo

I'll certainly pick it up alright but I'll definitely be playing with a Classic Controller, I'm not having my nostalgic trip ruined by dodgy Wiimote controls.

As for the changes regarding the characters et al, I find them completely unnecessary but I assume it's a toss up between not having access to the original audio files and them wanting to be as up to date as possible with the licence.

senordingdong

gizmo wrote: »

I'll certainly pick it up alright but I'll definitely be playing with a Classic Controller, I'm not having my nostalgic trip ruined by dodgy Wiimote controls.

As for the changes regarding the characters et al, I find them completely unnecessary but I assume it's a toss up between not having access to the original audio files and them wanting to be as up to date as possible with the licence.

Didn;t they say there would be features dependant on the wiimotes functions within the game?

fat__tony

senordingdong wrote: »

I recall reading an article a good while ago about rare making a remake or reimaging of the Goldeneye 64 for the 360.
I think I remember seeing some pictures and all.

Does anybody know if it's made any progress?

It'll be released in November.

It looks pretty good but I'm betting it won't be a patch on the original.

Just ignore what I've said. doh!

Retr0gamer

You can be pretty sure if Goldeneye Wii is even average it will be better than goldeney on the N64. With the rose tinted glasses off the game has aged badly in gameplay terms.

senordingdong

I disagree Retro.
I was playing it not too long ago on an N64 I acquired..the only problem was the analogue sticks had not aged well.

Other then that it was still a great FPS, with an awesome soundtrack.

Retr0gamer

Well can't disagree with the soundtrack being awesome but I feel the framerate especially in the PAL version ruins the game. There's also so many old school FPS mechanics in it that never worked and have been phased out like the respawning bad guys, hit and miss stealth mechanics and some horrible levels like protect natalia and the tank. It's a bit of a dinosaur and has been surpassed. I played it recently and multiplayer is still fun but sure how could it not be with 3 other drunken mates but single player really is past it.

Still a framerate increase would help it a lot. Perfect Dark is another game I don't rate for the same reasons but the 360 remake which fixed the framerate surprised me because the game was actually playable even if it still wasn't a great game.

Patricide

I thought that perfect dark aged much better than goldeneye myself. Both were classics in the day though.

senordingdong

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's a bit of a dinosaur

But dinosaurs are awesome.

Retr0gamer

Patricide wrote: »

I thought that perfect dark aged much better than goldeneye myself. Both were classics in the day though.

Perfect Dark was way better than Goldeneye up until the point Elvis the alien comes in and it pulls a Halo by introducing the alien enemies that are no fun to fight.

steo2009

I have my n64 hooked up to my 50 inch 3d tv, its looks well class, sharp picture and sound. Still a classic game to this day.

senordingdong

Are the pixels huge?

cedan

jury is out for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrRV0KCD8ZQ&feature=related

steo2009

hi no dead pixels, sharp picture, best ever playing goldeneye.

Retr0gamer

I suggest you take those rose tinted specs off next time you play it.

TerrorFirmer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I suggest you take those rose tinted specs off next time you play it.

God man, what is your obsession with that phrase in reference to Goldeneye? Couldn't the same be said of any game that's been surpassed visually, which is an obviously inevitability with regardless of the continuing evolution of games/consoles? Oh wait - that's every game ever made with correlated to todays titles?

Goldeneye came out 12 or 13 years ago, was a cracking game for it's time, that it's still even playable in the modern day to any extent (namely, MP) is truly an achievement. Do you honestly expect an FPS, of all genres, from 1997 to hold up to the current standard in regards to SP? To what standards are you holding it up to, exactly, if you don't mind me asking? The bottom line is that upon release, Goldeneye was the best console FPS around, sold by the bucketload, and established itself as a benchmark for a great deal future shooters to prove their worth by.

I could name any amount of FPS titles from that era that, having loved personally, and always holding fondly in my heart, would be an utter pain to play having been conditioned by todays shooters, and I would never attempt to do so. Whereas Goldeneye, as old as it is, still manages to hold itself high enough to be worthwhile playing with a few friends in favour of the likes of MW2, MOH, and so on, at given times - something I would not say of more than 2 or 3 titles that old. What we should be doing is praising the fact that an FPS title well over a decade old still manages to entertain, and whats more, on technical merits rather than plain old nostalgia (which is the only thing that gets me through certain older titles, like Quake II and Medal of Honor).

I'm really just not sure why you seem to harbor such discontent towards it. Goldeneye was, is, and always will be an amazing game, no matter how old it gets, provided you're being realistic in what standards you're holding it up to.

steo2009

What specks.

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

God man, what is your obsession with that phrase in reference to Goldeneye? Couldn't the same be said of any game that's been surpassed visually, which is an obviously inevitability with regardless of the continuing evolution of games/consoles? Oh wait - that's every game ever made with correlated to todays titles?

The same can be said of any game that has aged but in this case people just aren't realistic. Goldeneye hasn't aged well at all and people won't admit it.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Goldeneye came out 12 or 13 years ago, was a cracking game for it's time, that it's still even playable in the modern day to any extent (namely, MP) is truly an achievement. Do you honestly expect an FPS, of all genres, from 1997 to hold up to the current standard in regards to SP? To what standards are you holding it up to, exactly, if you don't mind me asking? The bottom line is that upon release, Goldeneye was the best console FPS around, sold by the bucketload, and established itself as a benchmark for a great deal future shooters to prove their worth by.

Yes it was the best console FPS around on release by a long margin but it has been surpassed and has been left behind and it's technical limitations can't be forgiven. Do I honestly expect and FPS from 1997 to hold up to current standards in regards to SP? No I don't because I'm being realistic. Goldeneye doesn't live up to FPS games that came after it and it's what it has to come up against. As for the standards I'm holding it up against well I'll put it this way old FPS games I think haven't aged would be Doom and Half Life. These two games have gameplay that hasn't aged and also don't suffer from the technical problems of goldeneye.

The biggy against goldeneye is that it is constantly experiencing slowdown and the framerate is terrible. This really negatively affects any gamebut especially an FPS. It was forgiveable in 1997 because goldeneye was so far ahead of the pack that there was nothing else like it but when better games that built on goldeneye came out on the PC and later consoles without this limitation then it was less forgiveable. Also Goldeneye was a massive step forward in shaping how todays FPS games are played but the gameplay wasn't refined into the better games we have to day. There's loads of terrible hangovers from older FPS design like respawning enemies, the terrible tank level etc.

Basically I'm holding it up against the much better FPS games of today and I think it's fair. I'm not denying Goldeneye's legacy as one of the most important FPS games ever released or that it was great on release but it is an FPS and if you hold it up against everyother FPS ever made it doesn't look so good. Also if you think goldeneye is a good looking game still you need your glasses checked. N64 games have aged terribly, even worse than PS1 games and Goldeneye is damn ugly and sluggish thanks to it's poor framerate performance. This is in stark contrast to something like Chrono Trigger. If you hold it up to every other game in the RPG genre it's still one of the best looking games ever made and one of the greatest RPGs. Goldeneye is in the FPS genre which is faster moving than any other and older games will get left behind with very few being timeless like Doom, Half-Life or system shock 2.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I could name any amount of FPS titles from that era that, having loved personally, and always holding fondly in my heart, would be an utter pain to play having been conditioned by todays shooters, and I would never attempt to do so. Whereas Goldeneye, as old as it is, still manages to hold itself high enough to be worthwhile playing with a few friends in favour of the likes of MW2, MOH, and so on, at given times - something I would not say of more than 2 or 3 titles that old. What we should be doing is praising the fact that an FPS title well over a decade old still manages to entertain, and whats more, on technical merits rather than plain old nostalgia (which is the only thing that gets me through certain older titles, like Quake II and Medal of Honor).

Agree as well but then again my problem is with goldeneyes single player. Multiplayer despite al it's problems is still great fun.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I'm really just not sure why you seem to harbor such discontent towards it.

I don't harbour discontent towards it, I just hate when people over rate games. It just annoys me when people say it;s one of the best FPS games ever made. It might have been but it's far from it now.

Patricide

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The same can be said of any game that has aged but in this case people just aren't realistic. Goldeneye hasn't aged well at all and people won't admit it.



Yes it was the best console FPS around on release by a long margin but it has been surpassed and has been left behind and it's technical limitations can't be forgiven. Do I honestly expect and FPS from 1997 to hold up to current standards in regards to SP? No I don't because I'm being realistic. Goldeneye doesn't live up to FPS games that came after it and it's what it has to come up against. As for the standards I'm holding it up against well I'll put it this way old FPS games I think haven't aged would be Doom and Half Life. These two games have gameplay that hasn't aged and also don't suffer from the technical problems of goldeneye.

The biggy against goldeneye is that it is constantly experiencing slowdown and the framerate is terrible. This really negatively affects any gamebut especially an FPS. It was forgiveable in 1997 because goldeneye was so far ahead of the pack that there was nothing else like it but when better games that built on goldeneye came out on the PC and later consoles without this limitation then it was less forgiveable. Also Goldeneye was a massive step forward in shaping how todays FPS games are played but the gameplay wasn't refined into the better games we have to day. There's loads of terrible hangovers from older FPS design like respawning enemies, the terrible tank level etc.

Basically I'm holding it up against the much better FPS games of today and I think it's fair. I'm not denying Goldeneye's legacy as one of the most important FPS games ever released or that it was great on release but it is an FPS and if you hold it up against everyother FPS ever made it doesn't look so good. Also if you think goldeneye is a good looking game still you need your glasses checked. N64 games have aged terribly, even worse than PS1 games and Goldeneye is damn ugly and sluggish thanks to it's poor framerate performance. This is in stark contrast to something like Chrono Trigger. If you hold it up to every other game in the RPG genre it's still one of the best looking games ever made and one of the greatest RPGs. Goldeneye is in the FPS genre which is faster moving than any other and older games will get left behind with very few being timeless like Doom, Half-Life or system shock 2.



Agree as well but then again my problem is with goldeneyes single player. Multiplayer despite al it's problems is still great fun.



I don't harbour discontent towards it, I just hate when people over rate games. It just annoys me when people say it;s one of the best FPS games ever made. It might have been but it's far from it now.

I thought the tank level was good. Gave a nice break in gameplay and an opportunity to let off some steam.

I agree with the rest of your post though. Great game but it hasnt aged in the same way that doom or half life 1 have.

senordingdong

As much as I love Goldeneye, I really hated the tank level.

maddymcmaddser

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't harbour discontent towards it, I just hate when people over rate games. It just annoys me when people say it;s one of the best FPS games ever made. It might have been but it's far from it now.

So you're judging a game that's almost 13 years old by today's standards?

Retr0gamer

maddymcmaddser wrote: »

So you're judging a game that's almost 13 years old by today's standards?

Yes. If even older games like Robotron 2084 or Mario Bros 3 can still be as good as the day they came out and be classed as some of the best games ever made then goldeneye has to be held up to those standards and quite frankly it falls well short.

maddymcmaddser

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yes. If even older games like Robotron 2084 or Mario Bros 3 can still be as good as the day they came out and be classed as some of the best games ever made then goldeneye has to be held up to those standards and quite frankly it falls well short.

Well that's fair enough but that's just your opinion, I still regularly play Goldeneye and still find it just as enjoyable as the day I got it, what is it exaclty that hasn't aged well in it?

Retr0gamer

The biggie is the framerate. The game has a maximum framerate of 30 FPS but it rarely hits this. Actually the european PAL version is set to 25 FPS but again it's usually running constantly slower than this. It means the controls are really sluggish and feel laggy and not very fluid. It's the big thing letting it down. If you played the xbox live version of perfect dark you can see how much the consistent 60 frames per second framerate makes the game so much more enjoyable. Other than that it's a few little things like respawning enemies, stealth mechanics that have been much improved on, one or two duff levels and AI that is no longer state of the art. Bad graphics can be forgiven, there's not many N64 games that have dated well but the framerate really does negatively affect it .One thing it does do that other modern games don't do anymore is the levels can be quite non-linear which is kind of unique to goldeneye.

Riesen_Meal

maddymcmaddser wrote: »

Well that's fair enough but that's just your opinion, I still regularly play Goldeneye and still find it just as enjoyable as the day I got it, what is it exaclty that hasn't aged well in it?

Exactly, and opinions are like arseholes, we all have them! That right Retro?



It seems Retro constantly home's in on Goldeneye & Halo all of the time from what ive read of his posts in certain gaming forums, for which he has his own reasons, which is fair enough, thats his opinion, I wouldnt be over in the fighting forum and giving out about Tekken as im a Street Fighter fan, as there aint no point really.... which again goes back to the opinions arseholes thing!

Yes the framerate is terrible, especially compared to todays games, and as Retro said the AI is full-retard in some cases but it still will remain a classic in me and all of my close friend's books, we had the time of our lives playing 4 player goldeneye back in the day, mainly because we couldnt afford big ass PCs to play Half-life etc which if memory serves was maybe 2 or 3 years after goldeneye? Im open to correction on that as im not arsed opening another tab on my laptop!

One of the lads even went out and re-bought an N64 with it a few years back just to play it again for nostalgia's sakes, and it was still super-fun...

Every Xmas eve in the pub wouldnt be Xmas eve if Goldeneye didnt come up in our reminiscing of past antics....

And I still hate that fecking Control level!

maddymcmaddser

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The biggie is the framerate. The game has a maximum framerate of 30 FPS but it rarely hits this. Actually the european PAL version is set to 25 FPS but again it's usually running constantly slower than this. It means the controls are really sluggish and feel laggy and not very fluid. It's the big thing letting it down. If you played the xbox live version of perfect dark you can see how much the consistent 60 frames per second framerate makes the game so much more enjoyable. Other than that it's a few little things like respawning enemies, stealth mechanics that have been much improved on, one or two duff levels and AI that is no longer state of the art. Bad graphics can be forgiven, there's not many N64 games that have dated well but the framerate really does negatively affect it .One thing it does do that other modern games don't do anymore is the levels can be quite non-linear which is kind of unique to goldeneye.

But these are things that were all true when it first came out, why do they bother you so much now?

maddymcmaddser

Fieldog wrote: »

Exactly, and opinions are like arseholes, we all have them! That right Retro?



It seems Retro constantly home's in on Goldeneye & Halo all of the time from what ive read of his posts in certain gaming forums, for which he has his own reasons, which is fair enough, thats his opinion, I wouldnt be over in the fighting forum and giving out about Tekken as im a Street Fighter fan, as there aint no point really.... which again goes back to the opinions arseholes thing!

Yes the framerate is terrible, especially compared to todays games, and as Retro said the AI is full-retard in some cases but it still will remain a classic in me and all of my close friend's books, we had the time of our lives playing 4 player goldeneye back in the day, mainly because we couldnt afford big ass PCs to play Half-life etc which if memory serves was maybe 2 or 3 years after goldeneye? Im open to correction on that as im not arsed opening another tab on my laptop!

One of the lads even went out and re-bought an N64 with it a few years back just to play it again for nostalgia's sakes, and it was still super-fun...

Every Xmas eve in the pub wouldnt be Xmas eve if Goldeneye didnt come up in our reminiscing of past antics....

And I still hate that fecking Control level!

Well said, that control level is still a bitch!