Haven't said much this past week: Mostly becuase it's the Christmas season and this is the time of year people are taking breaks and making the effort to visit family and friends.
Other than that I'm still continuing on with Mass Effect. It seems daft but I'm keen on unlocking all achievements to build a Shepard to take into ME2 and beyond.
The idea of 360 achievements to encourage repeated plays is an interesting one but I have doubts as to whether it is a successful one. Now there is appeal in having game achievements that affect future plays - that is kinda cool. However with Mass Effect, if you play anything like me, it now becomes a challenge to play through multiple times to unlock everything - and for what? The ultimate play through just to prove...something. Much like World of Warcraft being propelled by new quests every week, it's just like Alexander the Great invading India on a regular basis.
I do recall as a child playing Batman on the Commodore 64. Sure I could complete in one sitting but it wasn't the longest game in the world. Conversely, an RPG is something that demands many hours of playtime - perhaps that is why so many Final Fantasy games are listed in my Hall of Shame. Indeed, doing the same thing in Mass Effect is beginning to get tedious to me. Indeed, I have three achievements left (Asari Ally, Extreme Power Gamer and Medal of Valor) and it would indeed be a kick in the nuts if I get to the end of my current play through and not get all of them.
Are achievements really there to be done in the same sitting? I mean to do that, you would have to be keen indeed.
...or least have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Motivate me
Seeing the popularity of de-motivational images online, I thought I might try my hand at making one:
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wait! There's more
For those keeping score, some more games I recently got a hold of:
Bioshock/Oblivion (Xbox 360)
These two were given to me as a Christmas present from a good friend. Both came in the same pack. I've played Oblivion before, however briefly, and I was impressed by the rendering of it (particularly seeing things stretching out for miles). Sure many of the NPCs share the same voices but for an action/medival-esque RPG this may be just the thing...
Bioshock, conversely, is something that's completely foreign but may be worth taking a look. Personally I've had a keen interest in steampunk so someone trying their hand at it is fine by me.
Faxanadu (Virtual Console)
Now this is interesting: I have a long-standing love for RPGs and a long standing love for platformers - both of which stretches back many years. So someone combining these two? I'm sold! Looking at it, Faxanadu has a degree of charm to it and worth taking further.
Eternal Darkness Sanity's Requiem (Wii/Gamecube)
I'm intrigued by how techniques of horror movies can work in games: The sense of isolation, thinking something's there when it isn't, fighting a losing battle against madness and fighting an unstoppable foe with limited resources. Indeed, video games have a significant edge over horror movies as the viewer is an active participant. And with horror games, you may as well start with one of the best. I've heard good things about this (particularly with it being on a 'kiddie' console), so it will be interesting to see how it holds up.
So many games, so little time. Seeing as I have many games to work through (not least my Hall of Shame) I think its fair to say I'll be occupied until....2020?
Bioshock/Oblivion (Xbox 360)
These two were given to me as a Christmas present from a good friend. Both came in the same pack. I've played Oblivion before, however briefly, and I was impressed by the rendering of it (particularly seeing things stretching out for miles). Sure many of the NPCs share the same voices but for an action/medival-esque RPG this may be just the thing...
Bioshock, conversely, is something that's completely foreign but may be worth taking a look. Personally I've had a keen interest in steampunk so someone trying their hand at it is fine by me.
Faxanadu (Virtual Console)
Now this is interesting: I have a long-standing love for RPGs and a long standing love for platformers - both of which stretches back many years. So someone combining these two? I'm sold! Looking at it, Faxanadu has a degree of charm to it and worth taking further.
Eternal Darkness Sanity's Requiem (Wii/Gamecube)
I'm intrigued by how techniques of horror movies can work in games: The sense of isolation, thinking something's there when it isn't, fighting a losing battle against madness and fighting an unstoppable foe with limited resources. Indeed, video games have a significant edge over horror movies as the viewer is an active participant. And with horror games, you may as well start with one of the best. I've heard good things about this (particularly with it being on a 'kiddie' console), so it will be interesting to see how it holds up.
So many games, so little time. Seeing as I have many games to work through (not least my Hall of Shame) I think its fair to say I'll be occupied until....2020?
Friday, December 10, 2010
2 Good 2 B True
The support for R18+ here in Australia is gaining momentum. So in relation to this, may I say the following:
Currently here in Australia we say games banned or heavily censored (although, presumably, not for much longer) for questionable content. That being said, I would like to see a game not being released here becuase it's awesomeness is too great for Australian minds to comprehend.
Chrono Trigger anyone?
Currently here in Australia we say games banned or heavily censored (although, presumably, not for much longer) for questionable content. That being said, I would like to see a game not being released here becuase it's awesomeness is too great for Australian minds to comprehend.
Chrono Trigger anyone?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Remake it so
For today I thought I'd share my thoughts on the thorny issue that is remakes.
Everyone has an opinion on this don't they? More often than not it is groans of disgust that old ground is being worked over, memories of childhood pleasure being irrevocably ruined and no one has the balls to come up with something new.
Personally, I can see both sides of the remake debate. On one hand, it presents a good opportunity for gamers to discover something that may have slipped their view the first item around: Older gamers can find something they didn't previously know about and younger gamers can something that made their comrades turn cartwheels over. As long as a formula works (and isn't tampered with too much), it can still keep working. And indeed, as long as there is a graphical upgrade, any old game can give any newer game a run for it's money.
On the other hand, game developers want something that can sell: Like any other project, making games is certainly not a cheap venture (how Jonathan Blow happened to have 250,000 lying around to make Braid is beyond me) so what you need is something that will return the investment. And that is no easy task seeing as gamers themselves tend to have attention spans that last no longer than five minutes.
So what do I think is a successful remake? The remake of Sid Meier's Pirates on the Xbox and Wii. I did try Pirates on the Commodore 64 back in the day but I found it stiff and unimpressive. On the Xbox however, I found it heaps of fun and quite easily to get lost in. As is my understanding the changes have been minor other than a complete graphic upgrade. But what does it matter? I've enjoyed playing Pirates and it is interesting to note the remake getting through to me when the original didn't.
A remake can work if the people understand what made it work the first time and not touch it further. A remake can be ruined by people adding too many changes and/or trying ever so hard to please fans of the original. But what I'd like to see is a remake done by the original developers who feel that they could've done a better job the first time around. Alfred Hitchcock did such a thing with the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much so I would like to see someone in the games industry with that kind of balls.
Ultimately though, I feel time spent on remakes would be better spent on developing new franchises to muck around with. Which is why I'm glad I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on my Xbox 360 and not some Baldur's Gate Redux (or something).
Everyone has an opinion on this don't they? More often than not it is groans of disgust that old ground is being worked over, memories of childhood pleasure being irrevocably ruined and no one has the balls to come up with something new.
Personally, I can see both sides of the remake debate. On one hand, it presents a good opportunity for gamers to discover something that may have slipped their view the first item around: Older gamers can find something they didn't previously know about and younger gamers can something that made their comrades turn cartwheels over. As long as a formula works (and isn't tampered with too much), it can still keep working. And indeed, as long as there is a graphical upgrade, any old game can give any newer game a run for it's money.
On the other hand, game developers want something that can sell: Like any other project, making games is certainly not a cheap venture (how Jonathan Blow happened to have 250,000 lying around to make Braid is beyond me) so what you need is something that will return the investment. And that is no easy task seeing as gamers themselves tend to have attention spans that last no longer than five minutes.
So what do I think is a successful remake? The remake of Sid Meier's Pirates on the Xbox and Wii. I did try Pirates on the Commodore 64 back in the day but I found it stiff and unimpressive. On the Xbox however, I found it heaps of fun and quite easily to get lost in. As is my understanding the changes have been minor other than a complete graphic upgrade. But what does it matter? I've enjoyed playing Pirates and it is interesting to note the remake getting through to me when the original didn't.
A remake can work if the people understand what made it work the first time and not touch it further. A remake can be ruined by people adding too many changes and/or trying ever so hard to please fans of the original. But what I'd like to see is a remake done by the original developers who feel that they could've done a better job the first time around. Alfred Hitchcock did such a thing with the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much so I would like to see someone in the games industry with that kind of balls.
Ultimately though, I feel time spent on remakes would be better spent on developing new franchises to muck around with. Which is why I'm glad I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on my Xbox 360 and not some Baldur's Gate Redux (or something).
Monday, December 6, 2010
We R Australian
Big news down here in Australia with government support now behind the lifting of the R18+ ban. This has been a big thing down here as we are the only country who doesn't have an R18+ classification and as a result many games are either being unreleased or being heavily censored. So, with a shot in the arm to the ban being lifted, I thought I might share my thoughts on the idea of questionable content in games:
My main concern with R18+ games is that they contains buckets of blood and the type of sexual nature that would only appeal to gamers who can’t get it own and probably never will. No, I’m not some twerp who condemns the usage of gore on the screen. I’m actually someone who remembers what triggered this whole, long-lasting debate on violence in video games: It was in game called Mortal Kombat (anyone remember that?).
The thing with Mortal Kombat was that it came at a time when everyone was trying to capitalise on the one on one fighting formula that made Streetfighter 2 a big hit. I understand the notion that incorporating blood and gore was it’s method of standing out from the pack but looking back at the game now, it just seems tame: It hasn’t aged well, like other games from the era, and it’s flaws now seem glaringly obvious now the sensation of tearing people apart has since settled. Thankfully, the sequel, MK2 was an improvement on many levels – and it was indeed satisfying to hear, at the time, people talking abut MK2 as a great game, not just some gore-fest.
Looking at Mortal Kombat now it seems hard to believe that it started this ongoing debate about violence in videogames. Of course, since then games have incorporated violence and blood and have continually pushed the envelope on what players can do to their on-screen opponents.
And this is what I feel is the biggest problem with the violence in videogames debate: Violence has become too commonplace. Ten/Fifteen years ago, seeing a game bearing the M15+ label would’ve been an endorsement: This was a bad/naughty game that would make gamers buy it purely for the element of danger that continually drives thrillseekers onward. Nowadays, you see so many games bearing the M15+ and the MA15+ games that gamers just seem unfazed – even to the point where the games rated G and PG are laughed out of the room.
My point? Violence in videogames has evolved to a point where it’s no longer a constant: It’s now a dependant. Such is the gamer today that if a game doesn’t have lot’s guns and plenty of bad guys to mow down, then it has no hope of getting anywhere. Who cares about new ideas or getting a point across? All one needs to do is provide enough arms and ammunition for several Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and the player won’t think about anything else.
As stated above, I have a knowledge of what makes a good game, forged from many years playing them. I like games that present a degree of immersion, shows signs of intelligence, present a challenge and really establish a connection with the player. So in order to dispel some notion that I some lily-livered panzie who faints at the sight of blood, I do enjoy the game God of War. Sure it is a ridiculously violent game but it is a good way of reliving stress. More importantly however, it has some interesting tricks woven into the gameplay that give it long-lasting appeal and a compelling plot that adds depth to the protagonist Kratos that make him more than just some mindless mass-murderer. But what I find particularly interesting about God of War is that it reinvents Ancient Greek mythology by presenting a degree of brutality never seen before. All the legendary monsters, like the Minotaur, the centaur and the hydra, are in there but they look hideous and capable of breaking a neck like a twig.
Some may argue that violent games are a great way to relive stress. I can agree with that. Some also argue that violent games in no way provide a corrupt influence to socially-maladjusted teenagers and such a belief is ill-informed propaganda. That too has weight. But when it comes to the amount of violence in R18+ games, it is those gamers who are under 18 who will get the most out of it. Sure boasting about blowing foes away in a video game may be fun in High School but doing the same thing when you’re an adult just encourages everyone to keep their distance. That being said, it is strange to allow games bearing a R18+ when the type of things that gets done by its target audience isn’t anything worth bragging about.
Consider the game Grand Theft Auto 3. One of the most controversial games of all time it does succeed however by allowing the player to do whatever they want. It presents scenarios found in action movies, such as high speed car chases, punching people out and blowing things up with a variety of weapons.
There is no denying that escapism walks hand in hand with videogame. And therein lies the strength of GTA3: it allows players to do things that they will never do in real life. And that’s exactly why we play games. We want to escape the troubles of our own life and we want to do something that our mundane lives can’t provide. For this reason alone, the concept behind GTA3 has inspired other games.
But it strikes me that those trying to replicate the ‘do whatever you want’ concept of GTA3 missed the point completely: These clones seem more about blowing things up and creating a ruckus. This strikes me as an indication that game developers are getting lazy. I’m not denying that violence sells but if all there is to it then what are you doing? One of my favourite movies is the Wild Bunch. It is a violent film yes and focuses on violent men as it’s protagonists. But there is reasoning behind it and achieves the somewhat difficult task of introducing a lot of humanity to the murderous protagonists.
It strikes me that this continued presence of violence is really hurting the games industry in general. Consider Jack Thompson: Yes we all hate him and his arguments come across as ill-informed scare-mongering, but he’ll never stop. And even if he does shuffle off, some other nob will come and takes his place. In the case of Manhunt, it’s quite clear that it was intended as a huge smirking, kick in the balls to those who condemn videogames as too violent. It may work in theory but it seems to have backfired tremendously: It has instead given Jack Thompson and his ilk more ammunition. Nowadays gamers encompass people of all types and the idea of a socially inept with contempt for society is more inclined towards a cliché. However, clichés are harmful things and they can be easily utilised by the wrong people.
In the case of the hotly debated Left 4 Dead 2, I find interesting that there is a massive push to get in here uncensored that no one has bothered as to whether or not the game is actually any good. Indeed it is interesting to note that the censored L4D2 released here in Australia
People say that a large number of gamers are all adults when compared to the Golden Age of Gaming (the 16-bit era) but I don't buy that. I mean, if gaming has 'grown-up' as many claim then why is violence still the most powerful driving force? Anyone can make a game which can be addictive and fun without any violence – you only need to look at Tetris. And, in the case of Ico, concepts such as subtly and experimentation, end up being treated with confusion, being overlooked and ultimately disdain.
All of which is hindering gaming evolution.
So what would I like? Well, as mentioned above, violence is predominant in gaming that all designers are getting lazy and new ideas are being sneered upon. That being said, I would like to see game developers think beyond buckets of blood: It will prompt them to be adventurous, experimental and to try new things. It will encourage them to mess with established formulas and do something new with them and save them from being reduced to merely ripping off something else.
It will also force gamers to change their perception of games and look beyond the, somewhat juvenile, perception of buckets of blood. It will encourage thinking, emotion and imagination, elements that can have a place in gaming but are largely confined behind razor wire fencing.
Additionally, it will create a positive image of gamers. Yes we may have halted the cliché of being social freaks but that isn’t enough: The cliché is indeed a cliché and should be stamped out of existence. I would like to hear about gamers who are normal people who balance gaming with decent jobs and an active social life - Lord only knows why Pure Pwnage needs to exist.
In conclusion, I do indeed see the value of having an adult classification so people don't end up making the wrong choice. However, as a gamer, I would like to suggest the following:
We as gamers need to think beyond violence. We need to look to games that can be successful and fun without buckets of blood. We need to embrace any games that do things differently just for having the balls to do so. We need to understand subtly as not an alien concept. We need to take such steps to ensure gaming evolution and continued survival.
And while we're at it, I would also like a Ferrari.
My main concern with R18+ games is that they contains buckets of blood and the type of sexual nature that would only appeal to gamers who can’t get it own and probably never will. No, I’m not some twerp who condemns the usage of gore on the screen. I’m actually someone who remembers what triggered this whole, long-lasting debate on violence in video games: It was in game called Mortal Kombat (anyone remember that?).
The thing with Mortal Kombat was that it came at a time when everyone was trying to capitalise on the one on one fighting formula that made Streetfighter 2 a big hit. I understand the notion that incorporating blood and gore was it’s method of standing out from the pack but looking back at the game now, it just seems tame: It hasn’t aged well, like other games from the era, and it’s flaws now seem glaringly obvious now the sensation of tearing people apart has since settled. Thankfully, the sequel, MK2 was an improvement on many levels – and it was indeed satisfying to hear, at the time, people talking abut MK2 as a great game, not just some gore-fest.
Looking at Mortal Kombat now it seems hard to believe that it started this ongoing debate about violence in videogames. Of course, since then games have incorporated violence and blood and have continually pushed the envelope on what players can do to their on-screen opponents.
And this is what I feel is the biggest problem with the violence in videogames debate: Violence has become too commonplace. Ten/Fifteen years ago, seeing a game bearing the M15+ label would’ve been an endorsement: This was a bad/naughty game that would make gamers buy it purely for the element of danger that continually drives thrillseekers onward. Nowadays, you see so many games bearing the M15+ and the MA15+ games that gamers just seem unfazed – even to the point where the games rated G and PG are laughed out of the room.
My point? Violence in videogames has evolved to a point where it’s no longer a constant: It’s now a dependant. Such is the gamer today that if a game doesn’t have lot’s guns and plenty of bad guys to mow down, then it has no hope of getting anywhere. Who cares about new ideas or getting a point across? All one needs to do is provide enough arms and ammunition for several Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and the player won’t think about anything else.
As stated above, I have a knowledge of what makes a good game, forged from many years playing them. I like games that present a degree of immersion, shows signs of intelligence, present a challenge and really establish a connection with the player. So in order to dispel some notion that I some lily-livered panzie who faints at the sight of blood, I do enjoy the game God of War. Sure it is a ridiculously violent game but it is a good way of reliving stress. More importantly however, it has some interesting tricks woven into the gameplay that give it long-lasting appeal and a compelling plot that adds depth to the protagonist Kratos that make him more than just some mindless mass-murderer. But what I find particularly interesting about God of War is that it reinvents Ancient Greek mythology by presenting a degree of brutality never seen before. All the legendary monsters, like the Minotaur, the centaur and the hydra, are in there but they look hideous and capable of breaking a neck like a twig.
Some may argue that violent games are a great way to relive stress. I can agree with that. Some also argue that violent games in no way provide a corrupt influence to socially-maladjusted teenagers and such a belief is ill-informed propaganda. That too has weight. But when it comes to the amount of violence in R18+ games, it is those gamers who are under 18 who will get the most out of it. Sure boasting about blowing foes away in a video game may be fun in High School but doing the same thing when you’re an adult just encourages everyone to keep their distance. That being said, it is strange to allow games bearing a R18+ when the type of things that gets done by its target audience isn’t anything worth bragging about.
Consider the game Grand Theft Auto 3. One of the most controversial games of all time it does succeed however by allowing the player to do whatever they want. It presents scenarios found in action movies, such as high speed car chases, punching people out and blowing things up with a variety of weapons.
There is no denying that escapism walks hand in hand with videogame. And therein lies the strength of GTA3: it allows players to do things that they will never do in real life. And that’s exactly why we play games. We want to escape the troubles of our own life and we want to do something that our mundane lives can’t provide. For this reason alone, the concept behind GTA3 has inspired other games.
But it strikes me that those trying to replicate the ‘do whatever you want’ concept of GTA3 missed the point completely: These clones seem more about blowing things up and creating a ruckus. This strikes me as an indication that game developers are getting lazy. I’m not denying that violence sells but if all there is to it then what are you doing? One of my favourite movies is the Wild Bunch. It is a violent film yes and focuses on violent men as it’s protagonists. But there is reasoning behind it and achieves the somewhat difficult task of introducing a lot of humanity to the murderous protagonists.
It strikes me that this continued presence of violence is really hurting the games industry in general. Consider Jack Thompson: Yes we all hate him and his arguments come across as ill-informed scare-mongering, but he’ll never stop. And even if he does shuffle off, some other nob will come and takes his place. In the case of Manhunt, it’s quite clear that it was intended as a huge smirking, kick in the balls to those who condemn videogames as too violent. It may work in theory but it seems to have backfired tremendously: It has instead given Jack Thompson and his ilk more ammunition. Nowadays gamers encompass people of all types and the idea of a socially inept with contempt for society is more inclined towards a cliché. However, clichés are harmful things and they can be easily utilised by the wrong people.
In the case of the hotly debated Left 4 Dead 2, I find interesting that there is a massive push to get in here uncensored that no one has bothered as to whether or not the game is actually any good. Indeed it is interesting to note that the censored L4D2 released here in Australia
People say that a large number of gamers are all adults when compared to the Golden Age of Gaming (the 16-bit era) but I don't buy that. I mean, if gaming has 'grown-up' as many claim then why is violence still the most powerful driving force? Anyone can make a game which can be addictive and fun without any violence – you only need to look at Tetris. And, in the case of Ico, concepts such as subtly and experimentation, end up being treated with confusion, being overlooked and ultimately disdain.
All of which is hindering gaming evolution.
So what would I like? Well, as mentioned above, violence is predominant in gaming that all designers are getting lazy and new ideas are being sneered upon. That being said, I would like to see game developers think beyond buckets of blood: It will prompt them to be adventurous, experimental and to try new things. It will encourage them to mess with established formulas and do something new with them and save them from being reduced to merely ripping off something else.
It will also force gamers to change their perception of games and look beyond the, somewhat juvenile, perception of buckets of blood. It will encourage thinking, emotion and imagination, elements that can have a place in gaming but are largely confined behind razor wire fencing.
Additionally, it will create a positive image of gamers. Yes we may have halted the cliché of being social freaks but that isn’t enough: The cliché is indeed a cliché and should be stamped out of existence. I would like to hear about gamers who are normal people who balance gaming with decent jobs and an active social life - Lord only knows why Pure Pwnage needs to exist.
In conclusion, I do indeed see the value of having an adult classification so people don't end up making the wrong choice. However, as a gamer, I would like to suggest the following:
We as gamers need to think beyond violence. We need to look to games that can be successful and fun without buckets of blood. We need to embrace any games that do things differently just for having the balls to do so. We need to understand subtly as not an alien concept. We need to take such steps to ensure gaming evolution and continued survival.
And while we're at it, I would also like a Ferrari.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Metal Gears of War Solid
I've had Gears of War 2 lying around for awhile so I recently sat down and popped it into the Xbox 360 to have a bash. I've never played the GoW games before so I had no idea what to expect. The cynic in me suggested that it was yet another shooter with pretensions to realism and maturity - ho-hum in other words. Nevertheless, if GoW is a major force in the Xbox camp then it must have something going for it.
After playing for a little while, what struck me is that I really have no idea how I should be taking this. Everything seems so macho that I'm not sure if the game is trying to be serious. The male protagonists all have stupid names, speak in ridiculous voices, are in possession of absurdly muscular bodies and body armor that seems designed for anything but practicality. Everything seems overdone it's hilarious, with patriotic speeches, the sense of impending extinction against an unstoppable foe and Marcus Fenix being able to both absorb so many bullets and heal wounds without too much effort.
Again I reiterate: Is this a parody? It can't surely be serious. You can't have so many absurd elements and have it done with a straight face. But regardless of intention, the idea of a parody is enough to keep me going, so I will continue with this game and see how things turn out...
After playing for a little while, what struck me is that I really have no idea how I should be taking this. Everything seems so macho that I'm not sure if the game is trying to be serious. The male protagonists all have stupid names, speak in ridiculous voices, are in possession of absurdly muscular bodies and body armor that seems designed for anything but practicality. Everything seems overdone it's hilarious, with patriotic speeches, the sense of impending extinction against an unstoppable foe and Marcus Fenix being able to both absorb so many bullets and heal wounds without too much effort.
Again I reiterate: Is this a parody? It can't surely be serious. You can't have so many absurd elements and have it done with a straight face. But regardless of intention, the idea of a parody is enough to keep me going, so I will continue with this game and see how things turn out...
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Golden Goose
Last week I talked about remakes so today I’d talk about it some more.
Recently, Goldeneye 007 has touched down on the Wii. Billed as a remake of the classic Goldeneye 64 for the N64, this was indeed a surprise when it was originally announced and no doubt had more than a few Nintendo devotees both alarmed and angered. But on paper, the idea of remaking Goldeneye 64 has a lot going for it: 1) With Nintendo and Rare parted ways there’s no way we’ll ever see the original turn up on the Virtual Console, 2) there’s no denying that Goldeneye 64, despite its importance to console FPS’s, hasn’t aged too well and 3) the opportunity for online play would be welcome addition.
So in this case, a remake could be a good idea - But at the same time, any good idea/intent can fall flat on it’s face.
I was talking to a friend recently –he’d just picked up this remake and he seemed disappointed with the finished product. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the game as not being a patch on the original.
So is it impossible then? Impossible to recapture the spark that made the original work so well? Or isn’t it far more easier to dismiss a bold idea without giving it a chance?
Personally my money’s on the latter. But, I can’t draw my own conclusions about he remake without playing it– and that will have to wait until Christmas.
Stay tuned….
Recently, Goldeneye 007 has touched down on the Wii. Billed as a remake of the classic Goldeneye 64 for the N64, this was indeed a surprise when it was originally announced and no doubt had more than a few Nintendo devotees both alarmed and angered. But on paper, the idea of remaking Goldeneye 64 has a lot going for it: 1) With Nintendo and Rare parted ways there’s no way we’ll ever see the original turn up on the Virtual Console, 2) there’s no denying that Goldeneye 64, despite its importance to console FPS’s, hasn’t aged too well and 3) the opportunity for online play would be welcome addition.
So in this case, a remake could be a good idea - But at the same time, any good idea/intent can fall flat on it’s face.
I was talking to a friend recently –he’d just picked up this remake and he seemed disappointed with the finished product. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the game as not being a patch on the original.
So is it impossible then? Impossible to recapture the spark that made the original work so well? Or isn’t it far more easier to dismiss a bold idea without giving it a chance?
Personally my money’s on the latter. But, I can’t draw my own conclusions about he remake without playing it– and that will have to wait until Christmas.
Stay tuned….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)