What Did Activision do right when it came too 007?

Since it is apparently going to be a while till we get a new Bond game (and NO World of Espionage doesn't count) what do you feel over all Activision did right they are usually the but of a lot of jokes but I feel out of the 5 bond games (I count Quantum of Solace for the ps2 to be a different game entirely) they did some great things over all.

my list

1. The mi6 Trials in Goldeneye Reloaded. Much Like the challenge maps in the Arkham Series I felt as an Idea this added a lot of replayablitiy and honestly was an Idea I would of loved to see grow (perhaps with Maps based on classic Bond locations) perhaps a future developer (rocksteady.. Ubisoft..) Could expand on this

2. Some great stealth based moments. Is bond ever going to top Splinter Cell (or MGS depending on your view) no probably not however the Facility Level in Goldeneye Moments of Blood Stone the opera sequence in Quantum and the Haiti level of PS2QOS were all fun stealthy moments that I feel were better then the stealth levels in the EA games

3. Trying to react to what the perceived the fans wanted. 007 legends was horrible however they were at least attempting to do something similar to what they perceived fans wanted

4. great driving levels in Blood Stone and 007 legends: the driving levels in both games are fun. whether you are behind the DBS the DB5 it's fun and quite enjoyable even the Tank level in Goldeneye was fun.

5. Action packed levels. Ok sure some of the shootouts got repetive but overall I feel there was some great action sequences the Runway level in Goldeneye is a Stand out for me The Pool Scene in Casino Royale etc

6. Trying a different kind of level. Ok so they only did it once (though apparently the PSP versions you could play holdem poker as 007. They did try a non action story based level with the Casino Royale Poison scene.




So that is a summary of what I felt were positive elements of the Activison era.

In terms of rank over all it's Hard as I rarely replay the EA games sadly due to no working PS2 but based on memory I would put it Second behind EA (but that is not a dis at all)


thoughts?

Comments

  • Posts: 1,580
    The only good thing that Activision did with the licence was to give it up.
  • Posts: 2,486
    I got an e-mail today that it was exactly 5 days since the release of Bloodstone. I loved that game
  • Posts: 1,407
    The Activision era will go down as one of utter confusion.

    Things started off well with the QOS game. Using the Call of Duty 4 engine made perfect sense since that game was still a global craze, and it was a really big selling point. The game itself was solid with some great multiplayer. But in wanting to tie in the release of the film, the game was released in the same window as other big games such as COD: World at War. So even with a decent marketing campaign, the game didn't sell all that well. The film's reception probably also didn't help.

    Flash forward two years. Activison decides to release two Bond games on the same day. One being the Goldeneye remake for the Wii (an obvious $$$ choice) and Blood Stone for PS3/360. Only one of those games was marketed at all. Blood Stone, while an ok game, sank into oblivion. Why were Activion surprised when it didn't sell well? It wasn't marketed and it was released once again in a very crowded window of big AAA games.

    My first experience with the Goldeneye remake came in the form of the "Reloaded" version a year later. While it was sorta fun, it was just Call of Duty. This was ok for QOS, but not for Goldeneye.

    Once again, a November release and very little marketing outside of a few online only walkthroughs and ads.

    Then 007 Legends. While it was a solid idea, all of us knew something was wrong when all of the ads for the game looked really rough around the edges. The gameplay was the same as Reloaded (Call of Duty style) and the presentation just screamed minimal effort. It's a shame because Eurocom made some great games (Bond included) in years past.

    Activision obvoiusly misjudged the Bond franchise. Releasing it in overcrowded holiday windows with no marketing whatsoever (especially since they themselves were marketing the hell out of their other games). It's just confusing. I think there could have been a really great game in there somewhere (I LOVED Raven Software and really wanted to see their game), but I hope EON knows that the failure of these games doesn't mean that there isn't a market for Bond games, it's that they can't be phoned in and expected to sell.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,541
    dragonsky wrote: »
    I got an e-mail today that it was exactly 5 days since the release of Bloodstone. I loved that game

    I do too. Criminally underrated IMO, and the score for the game is also excellent.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,724
    BS is a fine game. I played it this weekend for the tenth or so time actually.
    I love the driving in this game, the shooting, the fighting, the music, the story, the graphics, Bond's looks... I'm a fan of Blood Stone, people.
  • The only game that was done well was Quantum of Solace, everything else was terrible, bland, boring. I am still laughing at 007 Legends...WHAT WERE THEY THINKING LOL.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,703
    GoldenEye really ruined Bond on video games. Ideally, Bond should be third person perspective with a strong emphasis on stealth and espionage, which Metal Gear Solid does brilliantly. But most games always seem to aim as FPS, with few exceptions that seem to get the least glory aside from EVERYTHING OR NOTHING (which should have set the new standard). GE is a great game, but it's not a great Bond game. Once developers realize that Bond games should by spy games and not just shoot me ups then we'll get something interesting.
  • Posts: 8,678
    I am playing the mi6 ops missions On goldeneye
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    dalton wrote: »
    The only good thing that Activision did with the licence was to give it up.

    Best answer. :)

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,423
    GoldenEye didn't actually ruin the Bond games but forged a future for the license, and since the then-current era of the film series were based on over-the-top action adventures that did not take themselves seriously, the standards of the game franchise reflected on that, which is why the Brosnan era Bond entries as video games worked greatly in the shadow of the Nintendo 64 title with the First-Person shooter genre. EA's The World Is Not Enough (N-64), Agent Under Fire (though not Brosnan, but still influenced by the era) and Nightfire are living proofs.

    However, that kind of action that featured explosions and tons of armies attacking Bond and getting killed in the video games worked for Brosnan's tenure, and not Craig's. Because, Craig's films were supposed to be injecting realism and they did. But, Activision didn't comprehend that and somewhat got Bond semi-right only in Blood Stone. They relied on the success of GoldenEye on Nintendo 64 and the popularity of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, so they merged them both into one, which is why it appeared outdated and never worked for the current Bond.

    All in all, as the poster above stated, the only good thing Activision did was to give up on the Bond license, but all too late when they've already damaged the reputation. Probably we might not get a Bond game anytime sooner than in ten years at the earliest.
  • Posts: 8,678
    Warning this is going to be sort of a long post in playing legends I realized honestly Activision could of had a winning formula with 007 if they had played their cards right sadly they didn't But I am going to post my ideas of how Activision should of done things also highlighting a few things they did right each game

    1. Quantum of Solace

    both the PS2 and 360 versions were great However I would of made it
    A) more chronological
    b) I would of had added 3 levels to the Quantum side of things

    Level 1 Should of been based on Casino Royale's pre title sequence (as a way to get a sense of the mechanics and fighting style of the game) move through the Royale levels we got (though would it have been to hard to put a poker level in) moving right through Quantum's story line.

    the 4 levels I would of added are the PTS from Royale level mentioned above, and at least one Poker level. a Car chase level based on Quantum's PTS the Haitian Level that was in PS2 I would put in the 360/ps3 version as well. The plane Chase would be an on rails segment for the game and would be included.


    2. Have a game out in 2009

    There were talks of an updated racing game personally I would of been fine with even a small sort of Mini Game kind of thing with racing and different casino Games where you could Play as Craig's bond (with maybe dlc for the other 5 actors) where you race cars and play Baccarat texas hold em etc. would it have sold extremely well no probably not but it would of been better then the year of silence we got


    3. Goldeneye and Bloodstone shouldn't of come out the same year.

    I get it they had a racing game in 09 but it wasn't finished and morphed into Bloodstone fine but don't release it along side goldeneye Goldeneye for all platforms should of been released in 2010 and Bloodstone should of been released in January

    As controversial as it is there really isn't anything I would change In Goldeneye 2010/2011 except for 2 minor gripes.

    1. Keep the Cover system from Quantum
    2. Allow players the chance to maintain stealth in certain levels


    4. As for Bloodstone

    Release it March or heck November 2011 and use the additional time to tie it in with Quantum (perhaps even including Mr White or at the very least Guy Haines) and make the story feel more complete

    5. Daniel Craig is James bond 007 in Ian Fleming's Goldfinger in 2012 instead of legends

    this is going to make everyone scream bloody murder and I get it many here like the films to remain films I do too but honestly if they took Goldeneye's formula (with the cover system) and applied to the film everyone claims is their second favorite (for some reason) it's going to be a huge money maker for casual fans as for us hard core bond fans yeah lets face it we would buy it and play it too though we would complain.

    6. get into a Cycle

    What I mean by this is as a franchise Activison could of done so much better if they had well produced games with Craig as bond each year with the even years (2008/10/12/14) being based on Films and the odd years (09/11/13) be original stories. we then could of conceivable had

    Colonel Sun the Video Game 2013
    Skyfall the video Game 2014
    No Deals Mr Bond (the video game)
    Spectre the video game (this year 2016


    overall Eurocom in particulare developed beautiful levels fro games like Goldeneye Legends and Quantum and (I cant remember the company that did blood stone) did a good job with original location and original levels. had both companies continued one year after the other the Bond video Game franchise would be alive and well... sigh

    as it stands I like Legends a bit more and the level design isn't bad it's just the voice actor is horrible and the changes made to LTK annoy me slightly and the OHMSS levels REALLY piss me off now that Spectre has happened as I always considered the games and films extensions to each other.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    A big fat NOTHING
  • MalloryMallory Are you ready to get back to work?
    Posts: 1,442
    A big fat NOTHING

    I agree. CR and QoS had great potential and could have been an excellent TPS a la Uncharted.

    Goldeneye (and Reloaded) was just plain odd, a money grab if there ever was one (even if the game was decent).

    Bloodstone, again in the right direction but super short and graphics that made everything look like it was made of play-dough.

    007 Legends... well lets not go there.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,833
    I read your post and for the most part enjoyed it until I got to this part.
    Risico007 wrote: »

    6. get into a Cycle

    What I mean by this is as a franchise Activison could of done so much better if they had well produced games with Craig as bond each year with the even years (2008/10/12/14) being based on Films and the odd years (09/11/13) be original stories. we then could of conceivable had

    Colonel Sun the Video Game 2013
    Skyfall the video Game 2014
    No Deals Mr Bond (the video game)
    Spectre the video game (this year 2016

    I don't care how many teams you have or how well the mechanics work to begin with, annual releases kill fun in video games. They also kill overarching stories, because then each title is just a retread of the last one and doesn't progress the story forward save by an inch, and it's never an inch in the right direction.

    The series became paint-by-numbers over Activision's era anyway, what annual releases would do would take away even the "paint" aspect and just make it "by-numbers".
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,423
    007 Legends gets a special hate for the sake of it. It's the very same game as GoldenEye 007: Reloaded, seeming like an expansion pack for it. What I'm saying is that if one should hate 007 Legends, Reloaded should get equal hate for it. They are the very same game, only the latest one is a direct and strict continuation (graphics/HUD/gameplay/visuals/layouts/textures/animation/motion capture-wise) of the title that came before.

    As for Blood Stone, my only protest was that the game was super-linear, and kept telling you what to do, where and when. Not much of a game, is it?
  • Posts: 8,678
    007 Legends gets a special hate for the sake of it. It's the very same game as GoldenEye 007: Reloaded, seeming like an expansion pack for it. What I'm saying is that if one should hate 007 Legends, Reloaded should get equal hate for it. They are the very same game, only the latest one is a direct and strict continuation (graphics/HUD/gameplay/visuals/layouts/textures/animation/motion capture-wise) of the title that came before.

    As for Blood Stone, my only protest was that the game was super-linear, and kept telling you what to do, where and when. Not much of a game, is it?
    Almost done with Legends (in die another day and without rechargeable health the game becomes surprisingly difficult)

    and A few points


    1. the level designs are brilliant and really well done

    2. I HATE the voice actor for this game. Sorry he sounds nothing like Craig or Connery or any other bond and it's quite jarring to say the least if they went for their own bond modal like Agent under Fire or Goldeneye Rogue Agent I wouldn't be too upset but as it stands it kind of annoys me especially when craig did the voice for Quantum of Solace Goldeneye and Bloodstone...

    3. the lack of story also bothers me Again If Eurocom just focused on one of the 6 films and made a proper game or found a good way to intertwine the plots of the 6 films a bit better it might oif been nice but as it stands it just feels lazy and bad

    4. the choices of Films also bothers me slightly

    Craig in Moonraker? really Activision out of all the Roger Moore bond Adventures?


    For Your Eyes Only? Octopussy? heck an updated Man with the golden gun would of been fine. but nope we get Moonraker..
Sign In or Register to comment.