28th July 2004
Activision is releasing two new Bond games -- "GoldenEye 007 " for the Nintendo Wii and "James Bond 007: Blood Stone" for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC -- and the voice and image of current Bond star Daniel Craig appears in both.
Activision's Kyle Walker boldly declares: "This is the Bond event of 2010."
So, I've put it out of my mind until now, but upon seeing this article, it reminds me that I don't want this game, simply because Daniel Craig is replacing Pierce Brosnan in a legendary role (which despite being silent, effects the appearance and feel) while other cast members as far as I can tell remain the same! Pet peeve about this, it's like green screening an actor over another one in a classic.
This remake kind of makes me sad to be honest. Input on the game to possibly boost spirits surrounding it's release? :naughty:
1st January 2005
I can't believe how many people dislike the latest Bond stuff merely because Daniel Craig is playing the main role. The guy's a decent actor and they've made the Bond movies if anything more realistic and gritty rather than cheeky and silly since Craig's been in them. I've yet to see one person give a credible reason why they don't like him. Pierce Brosnan is an OK actor, but he's the typical poser Bond compared to Craig. It was time for a change and if you look at a lot of the reviews, most seem to think it was a positive one.
24th October 2007
I didn't really care for Goldeneye back then, and it doesn't look any better this time around.
22nd September 2005
Infact, the "updated" GoldenEye looks worse in some places than it's N64 counterpart.
Bloodstone doesn't look very appealing either. Doesn't help that I'm not much of a Bond fan anyway.
Trust me, I'm a Doctor
25th November 2003
Goldeneye was awesome of the N64. The best bond game, or at least the one i've had the most fun with since was Rogue Agent.
As for the movies, i like Craig's bond. He is pretty badass without having to resort to the cheesy one-liners every 15 seconds. Brosnan was good, but i think Craig is better.
5th August 2003
Daniel Craig > Pierce Brosnan, that simple. The Pierce Brosnan Bond films were either goofy or just plain stupid (especially his last one). Craig's films are a lot more modern and gritty, while the older films were goofy with stupid Q inventions. That said, some of them were pretty good, I always liked Thunderball and Connery as Bond, but the pre-Craig Bond films are pretty much a completely different kind of film compared to the new ones.
I've heard Blood Stone is garbage, I didn't even know that they were making a new Bond game until I read a review of the game. GoldenEye was fun all those years ago, but this is a weak attempt by Nintendo to recapture some old praise.
28th July 2004
Yeah, N64 one was best, I didn't make the thread to compare the two actors, just to say that it's weird for that particular game which originally had a different face, and that the graphics hardly had an update.
Honestly I liked the kinda goofy tongue-in-cheek feel of old, also the Q inventions were awesome! Some were stupid, but in order to get genius out, you must first purge the stupid *shrug*.
17th June 2002
Edge magazine gave the two games a sweeping, multi-page analysis prior to their launch, and both games were promising great things.
Reviews on multiple sites give a different view from the promises, though GoldenEye may well be the best shooter to grace the Wii so far. Not that the bar was set particularly high, mind.
I'm still not buying a Wii though.
1st January 2005
I've been playing Blood Stone on PC and while the graphics are not top notch, they're far better than those of Quantum of Solace and the gameplay is also better. The chase scenes are very good, the melee combat stylish but gritty, and the stealth moves add a nice challenge. IMO the GameSpot staff and user ratings which are 7.5/10 and 7.8/10 respectively, are pretty accurate.
There have been some quirks, mostly in lack of graphic setting retention, poor optimization and a few no clip and AI corpse oddities. I've heard they're working on a graphics patch though. Lately I've been able to get the graphics to stay set though and as a result, it's running with little lag compared to what I was initially experiencing.
The main thing it seems to try and do is reset Motion Blur to on vs off and the res to that of your desktop, which for me is higher than I game at if it's a modern gen high resource game. What's weird is now the graphics in some ways look better without the resetting. The colors look richer and there's more contrast. It's like the game was trying to employ some sort of ambient occlusion lighting or something, and the lighting actually looks a bit better now with a tad more HDR and change of lighting going from one area to another. It's not a super high res texture game though, but the water scenes do look pretty nice. IMHO this game is more worthwhile than Alpha Protocol, both of which I've played extensively.