[Green]

Activision seems to have done this.

Original and 'Remake'. Can you see what the problem is here?

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 
• 

[ReaperMan]

Mr. Green, on Jun 19 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Activision seems to have done this.

Original and 'Remake'. Can you see what the problem is here?

Indeed, i see the problem, they made it for the Wii!

[Green]

Thats the second problem.

[Sangman]

LOL did they make the "remake" poster with paint or something

they made the guy look a bit like duke nukem actually

[Jinroh]

Sangman, on Jun 21 2010, 09:42 PM, said:

they made the guy look a bit like duke nukem actually

The MSPaint one looks quite like a Blonde Keanu Reeves to me, but that's just one man's opinion. ^o^

[blackharted]

Mr. Green, on Jun 19 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

Activision seems to have done this.

Original and 'Remake'. Can you see what the problem is here?

IT SOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE! GOLDENEYE DOESN'T NEED A REMAKE!!!
(catches breath)

IT WAS PERFECT!

[Inspector Lagomorf]

blackharted, on Jul 5 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

IT SOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE! GOLDENEYE DOESN'T NEED A REMAKE!!!
(catches breath)

IT WAS PERFECT!

Except for the fact that it, well, wasn't.

[blackharted]

The Mighty Bison, on Jul 6 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

Except for the fact that it, well, wasn't.

Yes it was. What the hell was wrong with it?

[CruX]

blackharted, on Jul 5 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

IT SOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE! GOLDENEYE DOESN'T NEED A REMAKE!!!
(catches breath)

IT WAS PERFECT!

It was a great game, but given that it came out in that era of butt-ugly polygonal graphics, it was hardly perfect. I can't really see the harm in modernizing it if they retained the overall feel of the original game, which is what it looks like they're doing to me.

[blackharted]

EmericaSkater, on Jul 7 2010, 04:25 AM, said:

It was a great game, but given that it came out in that era of butt-ugly polygonal graphics, it was hardly perfect. I can't really see the harm in modernizing it if they retained the overall feel of the original game, which is what it looks like they're doing to me.

They won't retain the feel of the original, because it on modern consoles, with modern tech so right there it proves that it won't. Addionally the graphics at the time were fantastic, also a large reason for the game success was that it was made in an unorganized way, which is hard to explain, but i read that on Rare's site. AND Goldeneye was the only game I know that exceeded itself.

[CruX]

blackharted, on Jul 7 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

They won't retain the feel of the original, because it on modern consoles, with modern tech so right there it proves that it won't.

That doesn't prove anything at all. Putting something on a modern console doesn't automatically mean it's going to lose the feeling of the original.

Quote

Addionally the graphics at the time were fantastic

Uh...The graphics at the time might've been acceptable, but fantastic? I don't really think so.



If you're really delusional enough to say that looks fantastic, then it's a waste of time and energy to keep arguing my point.

[blackharted]

EmericaSkater, on Jul 7 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

That doesn't prove anything at all. Putting something on a modern console doesn't automatically mean it's going to lose the feeling of the original.




Uh...The graphics at the time might've been acceptable, but fantastic? I don't really think so.



If you're really delusional enough to say that looks fantastic, then it's a waste of time and energy to keep arguing my point.

I said AT THE TIME they were great. And remaking a game on a modern console does automatically mean the feel is lost because well this remake will have a modern feel unlike the orginal. If you you want more proof look at Perfect Dark Zero.

[CruX]

blackharted, on Jul 7 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

I said AT THE TIME they were great.

And had you actually read my post, I said that AT THE TIME its graphics may have been acceptable, but that was the extent of it. No one from any point in time is going to look at something like that with a genuinely critical eye and say it looks "great" or "fantastic" because it doesn't, end of story.

Quote

And remaking a game on a modern console does automatically mean the feel is lost because well this remake will have a modern feel unlike the orginal. If you you want more proof look at Perfect Dark Zero.

Perfect Dark Zero wasn't a remake, so that point is null from the get-go. If we operate off your crippled train of logic, no remake of ANY game will ever be worth anything because it wasn't done on the same console which is obviously a pretty stupid, narrow minded way to think.

[blackharted]

EmericaSkater, on Jul 7 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

And had you actually read my post, I said that AT THE TIME its graphics may have been acceptable, but that was the extent of it. No one from any point in time is going to look at something like that with a genuinely critical eye and say it looks "great" or "fantastic" because it doesn't, end of story.



Perfect Dark Zero wasn't a remake, so that point is null from the get-go. If we operate off your crippled train of logic, no remake of ANY game will ever be worth anything because it wasn't done on the same console which is obviously a pretty stupid, narrow minded way to think.

I know Perfect Dark Zero wasn't a remake but its part of same series and was made on mordern console and didn't have the same feel as the old one.

[Alithinos]

EmericaSkater, on Jul 7 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

That doesn't prove anything at all. Putting something on a modern console doesn't automatically mean it's going to lose the feeling of the original.




Uh...The graphics at the time might've been acceptable, but fantastic? I don't really think so.



If you're really delusional enough to say that looks fantastic, then it's a waste of time and energy to keep arguing my point.

Well at it's time (1998) it had the best graphics for consoles we had see.
It was like the Crysis of it's time.
Look at the texture's detail.
Other games of that era where Crash Bandicoot 3 and Tomb Raider 3,and belive me they had worse graphics.
You could see the polygons..

[Alithinos]

blackharted, on Jul 7 2010, 08:18 PM, said:

I know Perfect Dark Zero wasn't a remake but its part of same series and was made on mordern console and didn't have the same feel as the old one.

The reason PDZ didn't had the feeling of the original PD is because it wasn't the same people who worked at these 2 games.
When RARE was bought by Microsoft,it's employees felt betrayed and left the studio.
Some of them stopped working at video games,while some others made Free Radical.

Not a single person who worked at N64's Perfect Dark worked at Perfect Dark Zero.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Alithinos, on Jul 15 2010, 09:11 PM, said:

Other games of that era where Crash Bandicoot 3 and Tomb Raider 3,and belive me they had worse graphics.
You could see the polygons..

While I may be waxing nostalgic, I take issue to you criticizing Tomb Raider 3's graphics. You chose a particularly bad level, too. Some of the vistas in the game are actually quite amazing. They had a lot of shading and lighting, something which GoldenEye lacked.



Of course they used polygons, but they took advantage of them even with the limitations. GoldenEye levels looked bland, nondescript, and obviously textured. It reminded me of badly placed wallpaper. I'll even go so far as to say that Spyro The Dragon looked better than GoldenEye.

[blackharted]

The Mighty Bison, on Jul 15 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

While I may be waxing nostalgic, I take issue to you criticizing Tomb Raider 3's graphics. You chose a particularly bad level, too. Some of the vistas in the game are actually quite amazing. They had a lot of shading and lighting, something which GoldenEye lacked.



Of course they used polygons, but they took advantage of them even with the limitations. GoldenEye levels looked bland, nondescript, and obviously textured. It reminded me of badly placed wallpaper. I'll even go so far as to say that Spyro The Dragon looked better than GoldenEye.

WRONG! BULLSHIT!
Alithinos you say PDZ didn't retain the feel of the first game because none of the origanal team worked on it? well doesn't that automatically mean this new game won't? In fact I'll answer my own question: YES!

[Inspector Lagomorf]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Quake 2 also come out in 1997? Granted, it took two years for it to come out for the Nintendo 64, but as far as graphics, GoldenEye was hardly cutting-edge.

[blackharted]

The Mighty Bison, on Jul 16 2010, 01:53 AM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Quake 2 also come out in 1997? Granted, it took two years for it to come out for the Nintendo 64, but as far as graphics, GoldenEye was hardly cutting-edge.

WRONG! you must be high.

[CruX]

Alithinos, on Jul 15 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Well at it's time (1998) it had the best graphics for consoles we had see.

Not debating that, but the graphics themselves were still bad. Just because it was the best I'd seen at the time doesn't mean I wasn't still making fun of it for how goofy/corny it looked. That doesn't really apply to modern, and even slightly aged games like Resident Evil 4 though (the last console game I played all the way through). In any event, this entire topic is revolving around a troll who's trying to say this Goldeneye remake is going to automatically suck because it's not on the same console, which is an absolutely moronic way to think about things, so the graphics themselves aren't completely relevant.

[MusicallyInspired]

To Blackharted, I actually agree with most everything you're saying. But what about Perfect Dark HD on XBL? That's a remake with improved graphics but it is exactly the same game underneath. The engine was only touched up to support higher/widescreen resolutions, hi-res textures, and hi-poly models.

[blackharted]

MusicallyInspired, on Jul 19 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

To Blackharted, I actually agree with most everything you're saying. But what about Perfect Dark HD on XBL? That's a remake with improved graphics but it is exactly the same game underneath. The engine was only touched up to support higher/widescreen resolutions, hi-res textures, and hi-poly models.

Thanks. Think wrong about the PD thing i think you've got mixed up.

[Martin]

blackharted, on Jul 20 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

Thanks. Think wrong about the PD thing i think you've got mixed up.

Nope, he's right.

Warning: Wall o' text coming up! Don't start reading the first bit thinking there's only gonna be a paragraph or two. It's probably 'TL;DR' for most people.

I'm a massive GoldenEye/Perfect Dark/Rare fan. I have two N64s. One regular PAL unit (I'm from the UK), one NTSC unit which has been modded for RGB output, and modded to play any NTSC games (so Japan and US games both work). I have both GoldenEye and Perfect Dark in both PAL and NTSC formats, and have Perfect Dark XBLA and Perfect Dark Zero. I have legitimately unlocked every single one of the cheats on all the different versions I own of both GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. You have probably never met anyone who's a big a fan of the game (and it's spiritual succession into Perfect Dark) as me.

With all that in mind, I'll start to opine on the subject. This GoldenEye remake addresses a variety of things, specifically for the Wii platform, and the somewhat-beleaguered Nintendo fans (who once had the best console FPS, and now don't really have any at all). For starters, we have to go back a few years. We all know Rare are with MS, and that Rare's games that were wholly their own have been appearing on XBLA (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Perfect Dark). There was a leak a few years back (before BK XBLA) about how MS were in negotiations with Nintendo about rights to put GoldenEye on XBLA. You can easily find a veritable wealth of media that proves an XBLA version of the original was in the works, and looked to be very far along in the porting process, as well. Here's a video for your viewing pleasure. Here is one of many articles on the subject.

Apart from the audio being all out of sync in that vid (could just be how that video was recorded/uploaded), you can see that it's a port of GoldenEye in much the same vein as the XBLA port of Perfect Dark that we eventually got instead. Textures are improved, character models are improved, reliable 60 frames per second, and though the video doesn't show it, it probably rendered natively at 1080p (as Perfect Dark XBLA does). Despite improvements, they have kept the exact same overall 'feel' of the game. This also applies to Perfect Dark XBLA. I know that game like the back of my fucking hand, and I'm telling you Perfect Dark XBLA is an extremely faithful port which, despite enhancements, does actually feel the same. It is an enhanced-port. Not a remake.

The idea behind these ports was to make it look and feel like you remember it, because if you actually look at GoldenEye or Perfect Dark on an N64 now and judge it in the harsh light of day - they look pretty bad, and gameplay is marred significantly by terrible frame rates and overall fuzziness. Even on an RGB-modded N64 they still look kind of fuzzy. In short, they look worse than you remember them (as is often the way with these old games). Now, word is, GoldenEye XBLA never happened for the following reason (there is little/no proof of what I'm about to say, but it's generally held as true due to leaks); MS had initially secured a deal with Nintendo which would have allowed both MS and Nintendo access to Rare's games to put up on their respective digital-distribution services (VC and XBLA). Obvious the VC releases would have just been emulated N64 ROMs, whilst 360 would have what we see on it now.

The story goes that it was all going to happen (hence GoldenEye XBLA being far along in development/porting) when Iwata got wind of the agreement, and basically tore it up, since he did not want any Nintendo games to be available on 360, and certainly not the venerable classic GoldenEye. So the deal fell through, GoldenEye XBLA was canned, MS/Rare went on to just port the ones that they own, and Nintendo's VC went on to only have the Rare games that were Rare-developed Nintendo properties (Donkey Kong). It also meant that the N64 original version of GoldenEye remains N64-only, since while Nintendo could stop MS from having it, Rare could also object to Nintendo having it, since it features a lot of their own original design or something.

So this left Nintendo in a somewhat undesirable position with regards to the classic partnership they once had with Rare. Some of those classic games started popping up on XBLA regardless (since Rare wholly-owned those ones), and with some very nice enhancements while keeping the original feel. BK, BT, PD all run at native 1080p on 360, and the latter is a nice constant 60fps. I liken them to how expensive paintings are sometimes lovingly restored. They didn't paint over everything, just made it look kind of nice again (while still looking old). Nintendo fans became irked. There was a lot of demand for some classic Rare-goodness on Wii.

Enter EA with GoldenEye: Rogue Agent. A shit game absolutely made solely to cash-in on the absence of said Rare-goodness on VC. As said, that game was shit, and it just made the 'situation' look worse for Nintendo. Now enter Activision with Eurocom's 'remake' of GoldenEye. It's definitely no less of a cash-in than EA's pile of crap, it only exists to fill that void, because even today people still associate Rare with Nintendo, and especially GoldenEye. Does it matter that it's a cash-in? Not really, as long as it's a good game. And I do think it will be a good game, since Eurocom are a pretty good development house, who were actually responsible for arguably the second best Bond FPS.. The World is Not Enough (most GoldenEye fans agree this game was the closest anybody else came to Rare's classic, especially in 'feel').

So if you can't have Rare, Eurocom are the next best choice for Bond. I think it'll work out nicely, and Wii gamers will finally have a good FPS game. Whenever I see it, I see how it doesn't really look like a remake of Rare's game, but more of a different interpretation of the film. This would correlate with how Rare own much of the design of the original N64 game, so 'remaking' that content would be shaky, legally. The only things that seem similar are the set designs taken directly from the film, which wouldn't in any way be property of Rare. There's a couple things that look similar, but mostly it looks quite different to me. So yes it's absolutely a cash-in, but I think it'll be a good game regardless, and it'll give the Wii a much-need leg up on the FPS stakes.

Now if only Nintendo could do away with the shitty friend code system and implement a decent online structure, we'd have ourselves something awesome!

[MusicallyInspired]

blackharted, on Jul 20 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

Thanks. Think wrong about the PD thing i think you've got mixed up.

Dude, I own it. Both versions. Natively on my trusty N64 and on XBLA. It's the same game. Modified engine is all.

[Green]

Since you bought up Goldeneye XBLA...
http://rapidshare.co...deneye_XBLA.zip

I had an interest in Goldeneye XBLA a while back and collected up some media that was floating around the internet and still had it on my PC.

[MusicallyInspired]

Thanks for that! It's truly sad that Nintendo had to be so pompous about it. They would have even gotten the Banjo Kazooie games on VC but Iwata chose to be a dick instead. My respect for Nintendo is now even lower. Truly a kick in the balls to all fans of the game just because it's a "Nintendo game that should only be on a Nintendo console". Screw you, Iwata. I wish that guy would have leaked the source code...

[blackharted]

"I know that game like the back of my fucking hand, and I'm telling you Perfect Dark XBLA is an extremely faithful port which, despite enhancements, does actually feel the same. It is an enhanced-port. Not a remake."

I know. But this new Goldeneye is a brand new game, with a brand new engine, thus a differant feel. I agree with your comment on Goldeneye and PD. They are incredible. But no GE didn't have a slow frame rate Perfect Dark did.

[Martin]

blackharted, on Sep 24 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

I know. But this new Goldeneye is a brand new game, with a brand new engine, thus a differant feel.

I did say that (with different words) in my previous.

blackharted, on Sep 24 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

I agree with your comment on Goldeneye and PD. They are incredible. But no GE didn't have a slow frame rate Perfect Dark did.

PD chugs a little more, but really there's not that much in it. GE will chug like hell even just walking across the Dam with nothing going on. I still prefer PD on N64 to GE. It's simply better in every way. If PD's framerate bothered you, GE's should have as well. It's almost the same.

[MusicallyInspired]

blackharted, on Sep 24 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

"I know that game like the back of my fucking hand, and I'm telling you Perfect Dark XBLA is an extremely faithful port which, despite enhancements, does actually feel the same. It is an enhanced-port. Not a remake."

I know. But this new Goldeneye is a brand new game, with a brand new engine, thus a differant feel. I agree with your comment on Goldeneye and PD. They are incredible. But no GE didn't have a slow frame rate Perfect Dark did.

When did I say it did? I was talking about Perfect Dark. You said:

Quote

Thanks. Think wrong about the PD thing i think you've got mixed up.

No, I didn't. I was talking about Perfect Dark and I'm right. I know that the new Goldeneye is a new game altogether. Where did you get the idea of anything to the contrary?