News: Goldeneye Dev has Issues with Remake Page 1

erv 04.09.2010#1

I know where he's getting at. Rare in its former glory was all about infinite investments to get games to a level of perfection not seen before. Delays of 16 months were no exception just to get the game to be great.

It's not weird to want to make money off of it, but it was great to have played the games where you could feel the love poured in. To be the best type of game, it needs to go all the way.

RudyC3 04.09.2010#2

Now that's some bitter comment XD... though i understand how they must feel of course.

But then again it makes you wonder what kind of agreement there is between Rare and Activision so that they are allowed to remake the game. I mean if it was a complete revamp there wouldn't be any need for an agreement. Activision owns the right to the James Bond Franchise, and that's it. But the new Goldeneye reuses some of the ideas and draws heavily from the level design from the original (when you see the dam level, it's quite obvious)... Those design ideas were those of Rareware's developers... among which a lot are now gone God knows where, but that's another story.

Cubed3 Limited Staff :: Review and Feature Writer

crackedthesky 05.09.2010#3

I think of all of the big-name companies who just want to make a buck, Activision isn't. They've been continually focused on bringing games to the Wii that can stand up to the PS3 and Xbox. And it works. Look at the Guitar Hero games. They do better on the Wii than any other system. They keep the Spider-Man games up to par with their hi-def counterparts. And while a lot of credit for Modern Warfare Reflex goes to Treyarch, Activision was also behind that game. If they just wanted the money, they could've handed that project to any devloper and forced them to churn out a game to make the same release date, but instead believed enough in the game to release it alongside the sequel for other systems. They also put a lot into the DS versions, which were also held in high regard.

Anyway, I think if this was just about the money, this remake would have happened a LONG time ago.

Besides, like anybody at Rare has room to talk. They moved over to Microsoft... and then proceeded to make nothing but ports, remakes, and sequels to games they made with Nintendo.

( Edited 05.09.2010 01:29 by justonesp00lturn )

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Martin_ 05.09.2010#4

I agree with pretty much all of what he says. This game only exists to milk all those who would buy the original GoldenEye from the VC but can't because it's not on the service.

Kafei2006 said:
But then again it makes you wonder what kind of agreement there is between Rare and Activision so that they are allowed to remake the game. I mean if it was a complete revamp there wouldn't be any need for an agreement.

The bits that look a lot like the original Rare game probably look a lot alike because they are somewhat direct references to film sets used on the GoldenEye film. Legally this wouldn't be infringement, since these designs belong to the holders of the film rights or whoever, not Rare. I notice how it looks unlike Rare's game whenever I see it.

There are similarities, but beyond any other Bond FPS game, I don't see any real extra similarities beyond being based on the same film. The game looks largely as different as all the other non-Rare Bond FPS games, to me.

justonesp00lturn said:
Anyway, I think if this was just about the money, this remake would have happened a LONG time ago.

OR they spent a long time working out, legally, how close of a remake they could make without infringing on Rare.

justonesp00lturn said:
Besides, like anybody at Rare has room to talk. They moved over to Microsoft... and then proceeded to make nothing but ports, remakes, and sequels to games they made with Nintendo.

Rare wholly-owned the IP rights to Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, etc. These are entirely original creations by Rare, just like Sabre Wulf, and the character Saberman. Nintendo merely published those games on N64, and were the studio's parent company at that time.

Nintendo then sold Rareware along with all Rare's assets to Microsoft. Yes, those games are no longer on Nintendo platforms, and are exclusive to MS platforms. It's not because Rare hate you or want to treat you bad. It's not because MS hate you. It's because Nintendo sold Rare to MS, who naturally only let Rare deliver games to their platforms (bar some GBA games).

Would you be bitching like this if Sony sold Naughty Dog to Nintendo and began to release games only for it's parent-company's platforms? I bet you wouldn't, but millions of Sony fanboys would be crying out in anguish, as Uncharted 3 is released to Wii only. Fanboys, you see? You make yourself sound like one.

Nintendo are the reason that there are no longer Rare games on Nintendo platforms, including many of their Nintendo-platform classics. Nintendo even refused a deal years ago with MS that would have allowed the Banjo games and such to be on the VC, but Iwata couldn't stand the thought of GoldenEye being on XBLA, even to the extend of depriving Nintendo gamers of the Banjos and Perfect Dark and such, which ended up on XBLA regardless.

I hate hearing N fanboys cry about Rare going to MS, trying to establish some sense of real betrayal on Rare's part. It is Nintendo who are responsible for Rare being owned by MS, and Nintendo platforms therefore being bereft of Rare games. In fact they are the sole force that made all of this happen. Rare are fully-entitled to do whatever they want with their own games. Accept that and move on.

Edit this post:

I agree with pretty much all of what he says. This game only exists to milk all those who would buy the original GoldenEye from the VC but can't because it's not on the service.

[quote][b]Kafei2006 said:[/b]<br/>But then again it makes you wonder what kind of agreement there is between Rare and Activision so that they are allowed to remake the game. I mean if it was a complete revamp there wouldn't be any need for an agreement.[/quote]

The bits that look a lot like the original Rare game probably look a lot alike because they are somewhat direct references to film sets used on the GoldenEye film. Legally this wouldn't be infringement, since these designs belong to the holders of the film rights or whoever, not Rare. I notice how it looks unlike Rare's game whenever I see it.

There are similarities, but beyond any other Bond FPS game, I don't see any real extra similarities beyond being based on the same film. The game looks largely as different as all the other non-Rare Bond FPS games, to me.

[quote][b]justonesp00lturn said:[/b]<br/>Anyway, I think if this was just about the money, this remake would have happened a LONG time ago.[/quote]

OR they spent a long time working out, legally, how close of a remake they [i]could[/i] make without infringing on Rare.

[quote][b]justonesp00lturn said:[/b]<br/>Besides, like anybody at Rare has room to talk. They moved over to Microsoft... and then proceeded to make nothing but ports, remakes, and sequels to games they made with Nintendo.[/quote]

Rare wholly-owned the IP rights to Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, etc. These are entirely original creations by Rare, just like Sabre Wulf, and the character Saberman. Nintendo merely published those games on N64, and were the studio's parent company at that time.

Nintendo then [i]sold[/i] Rareware along with all Rare's assets [i]to[/i] Microsoft. Yes, those games are no longer on Nintendo platforms, and are exclusive to MS platforms. It's not because Rare hate you or want to treat you bad. It's not because MS hate you. It's because Nintendo sold Rare to MS, who naturally only let Rare deliver games to their platforms (bar some GBA games).

Would you be bitching like this if Sony sold Naughty Dog to Nintendo and began to release games only for it's parent-company's platforms? I bet you wouldn't, but millions of Sony fanboys would be crying out in anguish, as Uncharted 3 is released to Wii only. Fanboys, you see? You make yourself sound like one.

[i]Nintendo[/i] are the reason that there are no longer Rare games on Nintendo platforms, including many of their Nintendo-platform classics. Nintendo even refused a deal years ago with MS that would have allowed the Banjo games and such to be on the VC, but Iwata couldn't stand the thought of GoldenEye being on XBLA, even to the extend of depriving Nintendo gamers of the Banjos and Perfect Dark and such, which ended up on XBLA regardless.

I hate hearing N fanboys cry about Rare going to MS, trying to establish some sense of real betrayal on Rare's part. It is Nintendo who are responsible for Rare being owned by MS, and Nintendo platforms therefore being bereft of Rare games. In fact they are the sole force that made all of this happen. Rare are fully-entitled to do whatever they want with their own games. Accept that and move on.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

crackedthesky 05.09.2010#5

Martin_ said:
Rare wholly-owned the IP rights to Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, etc. These are entirely original creations by Rare, just like Sabre Wulf, and the character Saberman. Nintendo merely published those games on N64, and were the studio's parent company at that time.
Nintendo then sold Rareware along with all Rare's assets to Microsoft. Yes, those games are no longer on Nintendo platforms, and are exclusive to MS platforms. It's not because Rare hate you or want to treat you bad. It's not because MS hate you. It's because Nintendo sold Rare to MS, who naturally only let Rare deliver games to their platforms (bar some GBA games).
Would you be bitching like this if Sony sold Naughty Dog to Nintendo and began to release games only for it's parent-company's platforms? I bet you wouldn't, but millions of Sony fanboys would be crying out in anguish, as Uncharted 3 is released to Wii only. Fanboys, you see? You make yourself sound like one.
Nintendo are the reason that there are no longer Rare games on Nintendo platforms, including many of their Nintendo-platform classics. Nintendo even refused a deal years ago with MS that would have allowed the Banjo games and such to be on the VC, but Iwata couldn't stand the thought of GoldenEye being on XBLA, even to the extend of depriving Nintendo gamers of the Banjos and Perfect Dark and such, which ended up on XBLA regardless.
I hate hearing N fanboys cry about Rare going to MS, trying to establish some sense of real betrayal on Rare's part. It is Nintendo who are responsible for Rare being owned by MS, and Nintendo platforms therefore being bereft of Rare games. In fact they are the sole force that made all of this happen. Rare are fully-entitled to do whatever they want with their own games. Accept that and move on.

Yeah, Bethesda didn't take thirteen years to make Fallout 3 different enough from the rest of the series to avoid being sued by Interplay. I don't think they've been fighting legal battles with Rare this entire time.

The first Banjo game Rare made under Microsoft was originally Diddy Kong, they just pasted Banjo over it. Not sure how "original" I could call that. (Not that Activision hasn't done the same *cough*Prototype*cough*) Plus, they never did anything with Jet Force Gemini, so idk why that was even mentioned.

I think the extent to which Microsoft "owned" Rare is pretty questionable. Rare continued to make games for Nintendo long after the purchase. Anyway, when I said they made games "with" Nintendo, I meant "under." Bad wording on my part.

Also, I like how you completely flipped shit on me over my "fanboyism." A few things: I've never even played Goldeneye, nor do I have even a remote amount of interest in the remake. And second, for someone with such charged words about who owns what and what is or isn't original or ripping off, you seem to be entirely forgetting that Rare didn't create the 007 franchise, and they're nowhere near the only company to make games set within its universe.

As for Rare, you seem to be under the impression that I have some animosity toward them for "betraying" my beloved Nintendo and making games I don't care about for Microsoft. You're mistaken. I have lukewarm feelings toward Donkey Kong, never played Conker or Perfect Dark, and the only thing I dislike about Rare is that JFG never went anywhere. I absolutely loved Jet Force Gemini. Had it been on the Xbox, I assure you, I wouldn't be doing any "fanboy bitching." I'd be dancing. I own an Xbox.

So yeah, sorry if I led you to believe my feelings were dowsed in fanboyism and deep-fried in whining. I said what I said because that's how I feel. I really could not care less what system Goldeneye is on. Just making observations, here. And anyway, I wasn't even defending Nintendo. I was defending Activision.

I also find it ironic that you defend Rare specifically over the series, but then blame Nintendo directly for everything you're apparently very angry about. But Nintendo isn't making this game. Activision is. You aren't being very consistent in your anti-fanboyism.

I know the kind of people you're talking about. And yeah, they can be incredibly annoying.
But so can people who are so incredibly antifanboy, they automatically pull the trigger any time anyone says something even remotely positive about a company they support, without knowing at all whether the person they're attacking even falls under the umbrella to begin with. But in your case, you didn't even get said company right.

No game company is perfect. I'll be the first to say that Activision has milked Tony Hawk until his nipples wore off. But I don't believe they're making this particular game just for the sake of making it. There are plenty of other games they could have done that with. And if that is the case, then it's whatever, to me. My main issue will be that they're wasting time they could be using to make Modern Warfare 2 Wii happen.

Edit this post:

[quote][b]Martin_ said:[/b]

Rare wholly-owned the IP rights to Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, etc. These are entirely original creations by Rare, just like Sabre Wulf, and the character Saberman. Nintendo merely published those games on N64, and were the studio's parent company at that time.

Nintendo then [i]sold[/i] Rareware along with all Rare's assets [i]to[/i] Microsoft. Yes, those games are no longer on Nintendo platforms, and are exclusive to MS platforms. It's not because Rare hate you or want to treat you bad. It's not because MS hate you. It's because Nintendo sold Rare to MS, who naturally only let Rare deliver games to their platforms (bar some GBA games).

Would you be bitching like this if Sony sold Naughty Dog to Nintendo and began to release games only for it's parent-company's platforms? I bet you wouldn't, but millions of Sony fanboys would be crying out in anguish, as Uncharted 3 is released to Wii only. Fanboys, you see? You make yourself sound like one.

[i]Nintendo[/i] are the reason that there are no longer Rare games on Nintendo platforms, including many of their Nintendo-platform classics. Nintendo even refused a deal years ago with MS that would have allowed the Banjo games and such to be on the VC, but Iwata couldn't stand the thought of GoldenEye being on XBLA, even to the extend of depriving Nintendo gamers of the Banjos and Perfect Dark and such, which ended up on XBLA regardless.

I hate hearing N fanboys cry about Rare going to MS, trying to establish some sense of real betrayal on Rare's part. It is Nintendo who are responsible for Rare being owned by MS, and Nintendo platforms therefore being bereft of Rare games. In fact they are the sole force that made all of this happen. Rare are fully-entitled to do whatever they want with their own games. Accept that and move on.[/quote]

Yeah, Bethesda didn't take thirteen years to make Fallout 3 different enough from the rest of the series to avoid being sued by Interplay. I don't think they've been fighting legal battles with Rare this entire time.

The first Banjo game Rare made under Microsoft was originally Diddy Kong, they just pasted Banjo over it. Not sure how "original" I could call that. (Not that Activision hasn't done the same *cough*Prototype*cough*) Plus, they never did anything with Jet Force Gemini, so idk why that was even mentioned.

I think the extent to which Microsoft "owned" Rare is pretty questionable. Rare continued to make games for Nintendo long after the purchase. Anyway, when I said they made games "with" Nintendo, I meant "under." Bad wording on my part.

Also, I like how you completely flipped shit on me over my "fanboyism." A few things: I've never even played Goldeneye, nor do I have even a remote amount of interest in the remake. And second, for someone with such charged words about who owns what and what is or isn't original or ripping off, you seem to be entirely forgetting that Rare didn't create the 007 franchise, and they're nowhere near the only company to make games set within its universe.

As for Rare, you seem to be under the impression that I have some animosity toward them for "betraying" my beloved Nintendo and making games I don't care about for Microsoft. You're mistaken. I have lukewarm feelings toward Donkey Kong, never played Conker or Perfect Dark, and the only thing I dislike about Rare is that JFG never went anywhere. I absolutely loved Jet Force Gemini. Had it been on the Xbox, I assure you, I wouldn't be doing any "fanboy bitching." I'd be dancing. I [i]own an Xbox.[/i]

So yeah, sorry if I led you to believe my feelings were dowsed in fanboyism and deep-fried in whining. I said what I said because that's how I feel. I really could not care less what system Goldeneye is on. Just making observations, here. And anyway, I wasn't even defending Nintendo. I was defending Activision.

I also find it ironic that you defend Rare specifically over the series, but then blame Nintendo directly for everything you're apparently very angry about. But Nintendo isn't making this game. Activision is. You aren't being very consistent in your anti-fanboyism.

I know the kind of people you're talking about. And yeah, they can be incredibly annoying.
But so can people who are so incredibly [i]anti[/i]fanboy, they automatically pull the trigger any time anyone says something even remotely positive about a company they support, without knowing at all whether the person they're attacking even falls under the umbrella to begin with. But in your case, you didn't even get said company right.

No game company is perfect. I'll be the first to say that Activision has milked Tony Hawk until his nipples wore off. But I don't believe they're making this particular game just for the sake of making it. There are plenty of other games they could have done that with. And if that is the case, then it's whatever, to me. My main issue will be that they're wasting time they could be using to make Modern Warfare 2 Wii happen.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Marzeee 05.09.2010#6

The bits that look a lot like the original Rare game probably look a lot alike because they are somewhat direct references to film sets used on the GoldenEye film.

Strangely, the beginning of the Dam level isn't even in the film, but the screen below is from the new Goldeneye on the Wii and shows a very similar level design to the Dam level in the N64 version.

( Edited 05.09.2010 12:53 by Marzy )

WP-Final 05.09.2010#7

I don't see the issues. He's stating the obvious really.

Of course it's a money making game. Same with the original Goldeneye game. It was meant to to capitalize on Bond's Popularity like all adaptations. Both were made to make money.

Activision probably just want more money but I'm sure Eurocom are trying their best to make a game that respects the original and does it justice.

jb 05.09.2010#8

I can understand why he'd be annoyed, especially when it's a totally different studio and publisher re-imagining the game instead of improving the original.

There's no denying that there would be exec licking their lips for a heap of cash, definitely, definitely.

There's no denying that Activision are playing off nostalgia to grab a heap of sales, however by the amount of depth that's gone into this remake, I do feel that there has been care and attention in this project - but that's mainly coming from Eurocom.

I doesn't seem like a quick cash-in from what I've played, there's a solid multi and single player system in play.

That said it isn't a Rare game, it feels different. It may share visual similarities, but the music and solid movement in the N64 version has been replaced by more EA/Activision styled looseness and shininess. I can't quite describe it, but it's like playing Goldeneye N64 then playing CoD on 360 for example.

At the end of the day it's a different game that shares similarities with the orginal. There's no denying that one of the reasons it's being made is down to cash, but with all the effort going into it there's some reassurance that they're doing it for the fans as well.

We'll see how it turns out - it does seem better than Eurocom's pretty shoddy previous efforts (World is not Enough, Nightfire *shudder*), so you can see Activision's assistance helping it bring the game to a Call of Duty standard instead of those two pretty crap games.

( Edited 05.09.2010 14:03 by jb )

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

crackedthesky 05.09.2010#9

I'll never understand why people complain or get offended at the idea of developers or musicians or artists or filmmakers trying to make money. It's kind of their job.

Anyway, if this was nothing but a money grab... wouldn't Activision release it for all systems? If they were lazy, wouldn't they develop it for a system with a non-motion controller like the original, rather than starting from scratch to keep it Nintendo-exclusive like the original was?

The only thing I really don't like about it (and I'll remind you I've never played the original and I really don't care all that much) is the inclusion of Daniel Craig. Craig wasn't even in Goldeneye.
Though I guess bringing Pierce Brosnin back at this point might just be kind of weird.

( Edited 05.09.2010 23:36 by justonesp00lturn )