Unable to remake the first GoldenEye game for legal reasons, Activision's latest Bond game is a 're-imagining' of the 1995 film, with new locations, modern technology and sneaky Daniel Craig swap-in job.
While the HD added to last year's Wii game adds a modern touch, the original's limitations have held the developers back. Great art direction and character design go a long way, but can't smooth cracks caused by dodgy textures and stupid AI enemies.
Nostalgia helps. It feels like a 1990s-style shooter, but it's hard to deny the appeal of dashing through corridors gunning down identikit Russians, and while the antique-feeling tech isn't ideal the modern influences really stir our martini. Alas, it takes more ideas from Call of Duty than Bond can fit in his tux, and much of the game's character is lost in a sea of night-goggle nonsense and constant explosions.
The game handles quite a lot like Call of Duty, too - it's built for fast-paced, close quarters combat, with no saggy body physics. The maps are on the compact side and strike an acceptable balance between challenge and simplicity.
Four player local multiplayer is probably the biggest draw. The frame rate lumbers a bit when there are four agents plugging away at one another, but the sight of properly fleshed-out offline multiplayer in action on Xbox 360 brings tears to our eyes. Especially when we're not allowed to play Oddjob.
Eurocom's recycled but robust offering might have been worth it if Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 weren't stealing the limelight this Christmas. Golden Eye Reloaded is fun, but fails to square up to the FPS big boys.
18 comments so far...
sonicmark on 6 Dec '11 said:
So it gets a crappy score, because an asshole decides to compare it to Call of Duty.
OXM Jonty on 6 Dec '11 said:
Should we have compared it to Skyrim instead?
CoD is, for better or for worse, the benchmark for first-person shooters at the moment, and this game shamelessly apes its onlie modes - perks, map size, Spec Ops derivation, the works. It's impossible to avoid the comparison.
CunningSmile on 6 Dec '11 said:
As Jonty says comparing this to CoD is valid in my opinion, if for no other reason than it's the Christmas period and anyone looking to buy Goldeneye is going to be wondering "Should I buy this, Battlefield or CoD?" All three have come out at the same time more or less and the majority of people will only be buying one FPS unless they are made of money so why not tell them which one will give them the most return for their money.
It would be different if they had released this in the middle of summer like any sane publisher would have done.
Bubblebeard JS on 6 Dec '11 said:
Im sorry but i disagree with you strongly, the first couple of games were good, but where is the dramatic change in the series.... the latest is boring, multiplayer is naff graphics dull as ever.....
you say its set the benchmark for FPS, but i beleive that the latest installment of battlefield 3 edged in front, graphics better, mulitplayer better, sense of realism better...ill stop there.
we all know your COD fanboys anyway
comabob on 6 Dec '11 said:
How has MW3 set the standard when it copies a formula from 2007?
You should be judging each game on its own merits pros and cons.
Otherwise you should be knocking a point off of SKyrim's score for the guilds questlines not being as good as they were in Oblivions - or for the level scaling not being handled as well as it was in Morrowind.
If anything you should be comparing this to its Wii counterpart. And its clearly better for its online and graphics boost.
GHOSTY05 on 6 Dec '11 said:
I played this months ago at Gamefest and it was shite, looks dated and dull.
Shame really.
HLLivingLoco on 6 Dec '11 said:
It's also an Activision game, which explains a lot of the familiar framework. If people are expecting a game completely different than Call of Duty, they'd be dead wrong. Just because it's a different development studio doesn't mean the entire game is a drastic departure from the winning format Activision has established.
OXM Jonty on 7 Dec '11 said:
I didn't say MW3 set the standard, I said that CoD has. MW3 is, as you point out, merely the latest iteration.
I'm sure the Activision connection didn't do it any favours; there was probably an even greater weight behind the management edict to "make it like Call of Duty, the kids like Call of Duty".
Lancer Armstrong on 7 Dec '11 said:
Nobody buys a Bond game because they're looking for a Call of Duty experience. They buy Bond games because they're looking for a good James Bond experience.
So is this a good Bond game? How does it compare to something like Quantum of Solace (a game I actually quite liked)? Will those of us who never played Goldeneye get something out of it?
Decent_Jam on 7 Dec '11 said:
Surely these strange people of which you speak are all locked up in a lunatic asylum by now, they couldn't possibly be allowed to roam free
HLLivingLoco on 8 Dec '11 said:
What you stated is precisely one of the issues with this game: it's less James Bond and more Call of Duty: Fancy Gadgets Edition. That's not a condemnation either. It's just not what you might be looking for.
CunningSmile on 8 Dec '11 said:
Some of them are just very young...although the Daily Mail seems to think that should be something you get locked up for.
comabob on 8 Dec '11 said:
If you never played the original on 64 - and liked Quantum of SOlace - you will probably like his as well...
Blood Stone was a good bond game though - prety underrated imho -
bamozzy on 8 Dec '11 said:
I loved the N64 version of this and downloaded the demo. I am so glad I didn't buy it as it is absolutely awful. Obviously the graphics are a lot better (still not good though compared to a lot of modern games)
to be honest I haven't played the multi-player so 6 is probably it would be more fun in multi-player although I think there are lots of games out there that deliver a better multi-player experience. Quantum of Solace isn't that good online and considering it was made by Treyarch (who gave us W@W and Black Ops) I expected more.
comabob on 8 Dec '11 said:
is the demo on xbl? i havent seen it up there yet.
bamozzy on 8 Dec '11 said:
I saw it on xbox.com and set it to download from there - You only get to play half of the first Dam mission though
SidTheSloth on 8 Dec '11 said:
Weirdly im playing Blood Stone through now and despite the mixed reviews i'm really enjoying it, it's not AAA but decent enough for the £8 i paid for it...!
I got this one as i was told it's better than QoS - is that not the case?
I was keeping my eye on (erm?) goldeneye but think i'll do the same as Blood Stone and wait till it's much lower in price - although given the quality of the demo i may not even risk that!!
I don't really play online much but if i did and it was a shooter i don't think i could in all seriousness overlook Gears/CoD/BF for this?
As much as the nostalgic part of me would like it to be good, the original was a loooong time ago and games have moved on so much since then.
Captain_Chao5 on 29 Dec '11 said:
I played GoldenEye on the N64, and played QoS and Bloodstone on Xbox360. I've now started playing 'Reloaded' and I like it! I'm not a COD fan - yes I've played MW, MW2, Black Ops..same shit different year - so I find 007 a good game in its own right.