Is anyone anticipating Goldeneye: Rogue Agent?

evilpenguin9000

evilpenguin9000

CAGiversary!
So I was watching some footage of this game on the EGM DVD and it looks sweet. I know loads of people consider the first game the best console shooter ever (I'm more inclined toward Halo, but I can see their point).

I really like the character designs and the traps you can use. I also like the idea of being the bad guy for a change. What can I say, I have a villanous nature. :twisted:
 
I'd like to be able to hopefully anticipate it. But I'm way too pessimistic about it being able to fill the big shoes left by the first Goldeneye.
 
I'm going to have to wait and see. I don't generally like EA games. Plus I don't think the xbox version has any Live element to it. I really dislike buying new games that offer no Live content. If it turns out good then I may pick it up when hits $15 after GGC.
 
[quote name='evilpenguin9000']Hmmm, not the reception I was expecting.[/quote]
I know what you mean but I too have heard alot of bad things about this game. It just doesn't seem to match up to the original Goldeneye.
 
I liked the idea of it, until I heard about all the stupid eye powers. I mean, telekinesis and force field? What were they thinking.
 
It's just so obviously a cash in on the Goldeneye name. Don't tell me it's the spiritual succesor cause that's crap. They could have just as easily called it 007: Rogue Agent not Goldeneye. Plus who cares about playing as a bad guy? It really doesn't affect the game in a FPS. It would have a bigger impact in an RPG or other genres. But the game still controls just the same as all other FPS so whoopie. The game just looks and sounds so blah...
 
This game hasn't been reviewed, so who's to say it sucks. You may not like EA's games, but they usually aren't just crap. They may be bland, but they are polished.
 
I expect it to be good, but I generally don't get my hopes too high on anything. I expect the single-player to be better than Halo 2's (which sucked). The Multiplayer looks good, but nothing spectacular. But I liked the previous bond games as well (though Goldeneye was the best).

BTW, I think the best console FPS is Perfect Dark (which was more or less the spiritual succesor to Goldeneye)
 
[quote name='drfrielgood']I know it may not be the most reputable magazine, but PSM gave it a pretty disappointing review.[/quote]

They only give out like 1 bad score a month, that sound's really reputable. I'm not dissing you, but they should never be the final say in any argument. So it's best to just not mention them at all.
 
I might be interested in it after the price drops, but I have too many other games to play right now.
 
I'd also like to add that while many people have a problem with EA, I actually like many of their games.

But, I really don't like any of the games of the developer (EA LA) who previously made Medal of Honor Frontline & Rising Sun.
 
[quote name='Jrunt20x']It's just so obviously a cash in on the Goldeneye name. Don't tell me it's the spiritual succesor cause that's crap. They could have just as easily called it 007: Rogue Agent not Goldeneye. Plus who cares about playing as a bad guy? It really doesn't affect the game in a FPS. It would have a bigger impact in an RPG or other genres. But the game still controls just the same as all other FPS so whoopie. The game just looks and sounds so blah...[/quote]

The whole line of Bond games has been a cash in of the Goldeneye name. Seriously how many Bond games were there before Goldeneye hit it so big. Then all of a sudden there's at least one a year and some goofy spin offs (007 racing, anyone?).
 
yeah, i would pick it up used for 20 or less someday, certainly not very anticipated by me though, or many others. i think all the buzz was when it was originally revealed they were working on a new goldeneye title, which got all us gamers phyched for a revolutionary new FPS like goldeneye was, but when i realized that really wasnt going to happen i stopped worrying about it.

what turned me off the most about it was when i read that although EA has many of the staff who created the original goldeneye as employees, they put the timesplitters crew on it instead. honestly, this is by far the most proof that EA is more interested in cashing in on the name instead of progressing the series, as they had the resources available to put some of the original people on it and they chose not to, likely because its just cheaper that way and most people wont know the difference anyway.
 
I personally don't have any deserve to get the game, but when the price drops (to say, under $20) I may pick it up. However, if the majority of the reviews are negative, I'll pass on it regardless of the price.
 
[quote name='scargums']what turned me off the most about it was when i read that although EA has many of the staff who created the original goldeneye as employees, they put the timesplitters crew on it instead. honestly, this is by far the most proof that EA is more interested in cashing in on the name instead of progressing the series, as they had the resources available to put some of the original people on it and they chose not to, likely because its just cheaper that way and most people wont know the difference anyway.[/quote]

Many of the employees who worked on Goldeneye now made Free Radical (the developer of Timesplitters) those people are now working on Timesplitters Future Perfect. They are not EA employees, their game (Timesplitters) is just being published by EA (Eidos published the first 2). EA does not have the authority to tell Free Radical to make Goldeneye Rogue Agent (but they probably have enough money to).
 
Whoa. I played it today.

Awful. Abysmal. Extremely dark.. not to mention DEATH ANIMATIONS? I thought these were the days of ragdoll physics.. Extremely slow.. avoid.
 
had it in the xbox demo system at work today. everyone who played it (including the 3 employees i was working with) hated it. i didnt even bother after hearing all the complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top