Wii GoldenEye motivated by money - Hollis

By Robert Purchese Published 3 September, 2010

Activision won't do original "justice".

Martin Hollis, he who made the original GoldenEye for N64, thinks there may be a strong whiff of money up Activision's nostrils when it comes to the new GoldenEye 007 Wii remake.

Speaking to Official Nintendo Magazine, Hollis said he'd be surprised if anyone at the publisher was bothered about doing the original game "justice".

"I imagine it is a business decision, isn't it?" he opened. "This name is valuable, let's use it.

"I find it hard to picture Activision's top management being excited about the original and wanting to do it justice. In fact, I find it hard to imagine them being excited about any game. It's my perception that they are trying to be EA, only more so. I think they are doing a fine job at that."

Nevertheless, Hollis knows developer Eurocom and "likes" them. "They are a good company," he declared. "I'm confident they have done their very best."

GoldenEye 007 will be released on Wii this November. Controversially, the game will star Daniel Craig instead of Pierce Brosnan, but otherwise the key ingredients of the original are back in full swing, with split-screen and online multiplayer taking top billing.

Christian Donlan cast his golden eye over the game in July.

Must be an Odd Job recreating these hallowed multiplayer halls.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (42) 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Toothball #1 1 year ago

    Not really surprising, it's not the first time they've tried to make another game with the Goldeneye name.

  • Serai #2 1 year ago

    Online multiplayer on the WII.. I'm totally enthusiastic! Yup yup

  • LowEnergyCycle #3 1 year ago

    I like this guy already.

  • JoeGBallad #4 1 year ago

    I think, secretly, we all knew this anyway... I don't know, I just think from the moment it was unveiled it looked a bit naff. Maybe 'charmless' is the word. Goldeneye is a classic and always will be if left exactly the way it is. Adding 'melee' attacks and the aggressive style of modern fps games just makes it cheaper in a way. Just my ramblings...

  • RobotRocker #5 1 year ago

    I wonder what Hollis thought of GoldenEye: Rogue Agent then.

    Actually, don't, it probably took years of counselling to suppress that disaster.

  • BabyJesus #6 1 year ago

    Wait, wait!

    He's saying everything Activison does is for max money destroying IPs in the process!?

    That doesn't sound like poor ol'Bobby atall.

    /plays TH RIDE with Guitar Hero controller

  • Trigga_Tybalt #7 1 year ago

    Martin's not bonding too well with activision is he?

  • Alf-Life #8 1 year ago

    Well put.

  • oceanmotion #9 1 year ago

    I think they did it because of the uproar when Microsoft and Rare were denied doing the HD version. People were foaming at the mouths. Pity they have completely missed the target audience with the Wii.

  • FenderMaster #10 1 year ago

    obvious statement is obvious...

    if they cared about making a game, they'd base it on a newer film or create a new story, the only reason why Activision is revisiting the 1995 movie, hardly the franchises best film, is to cash in on the legacy of it's most loved game.

    People love Goldeneye. People see Goldeneye on shelves. Blurb states; "Classic maps like Facility".... "4 player split screen multiplayer". Nostalgic 20-30 something buys said game thinking they're getting a remake of Goldeneye.

    instead they get a solid, competant, but unspectacular 2010 fps game that has none of the old levels or maps they remember, outside what was shown in the film, since they can legally use that stuff...

  • Markitron #11 1 year ago

    Im usually the first person to defend remakes/sequels for films and games, on the grounds that they dont make the original cease to exist. But this is just so shameless. Goldeneye is hands down my favourite game of all time and I have no interest in this whatsoever

  • JoeGBallad #12 1 year ago

    @Raining_Upwards I think you're right. They should be left alone. You can get an n64 and goldeneye for a tenner with enough change to get a carry out in the way home anyway, nowadays.

    Although, I still think it plays well. Not in a deluded way or anything. I just went off fps games after goldeneye/perfect dark. Nothing ever seemed as good to be honest. Well, timesplitters 2 was good, but we all know the reason for that!

  • darkmorgado #13 1 year ago

    I'm guessing that by "top management" he actually means Bobby Kotick.

    Does ANYONE in gaming, whether it be consumers or developers, like this c*nt?

  • simplerotation #14 1 year ago

    Wait, wait!

    He's saying everything Activison does is for max money destroying IPs in the process!?

    That doesn't sound like poor ol'Bobby atall.

    How is the IP destroyed? Surely EA did that with the devastatingly bad EA rogue agent?! I never understand that attitude no matter how bad the new game is (and it looks great to me) it doesn't alter or affect your memories of the original.

    Also, that's every freaking publisher, every freaking business in the entire world. EA is introducing paid cheats and short cuts and insidious $10 project which could change the industry forever and open a floodgate of ways to monetise pre-owned sales.

  • coolbeans #15 1 year ago

    I'm glad they have kept the same blurry textures and low frame rate from the original game. So they have done it some justice. :D

    (I kid I kid) :p

  • superted1974 #16 1 year ago

    It is a shame Piers Brosnan is not still in it.

    We could have had an Abba soundtrack to go with it!

  • peterfll #17 1 year ago

    In no defence of Activision, but... I'm sure when Rare and Nintendo sat down and made the original there was an element of making money involved?! Could Mr Hollis have made the original without the backing of a company with money to invest, earnt from the sales of games?

  • BabyJesus #18 1 year ago

    Um I said 'destroying the ip in the process' and specifically referenced GH and Tony Hawk as examples, nice job cutting that bit out of the quote though :)

  • Mkwone #19 1 year ago

    Eurocom aren't exactly known for their high standard games though are they?

  • Gambit1977 #20 1 year ago

    So Halo 2,3, Reach isn't?
    Or any sequel/remake come to think of it!

    I hate Acti as much as the next, but it's funny everyone jumping on this yet applauding the next halo sequel, or..XBLA version of Perfect Dark.

  • coolbritannia #21 1 year ago

    Is this state the obvious week?

  • SleepyDeathFred #22 1 year ago

    @Gambit1977

    The difference is that the examples you mention are original IPs being developed by the studio that created them, or they are a totally (in my opinion too) faithful updating of a classic game.

    Activision's Goldeneye looks to be a weird remake/original hybrid whose success, if any, will be based entirely on the goodwill and nostalgia generated by a name/brand built up by a different studio.

  • Golgo #23 1 year ago

    rare developed the game originally, of course, to alleviate the plight of dolphins and orphans.

  • Gambit1977 #24 1 year ago

    True enough, but it's a cheap and provocative shot...and judging by the comments it's worked.

  • RodHull #25 1 year ago

    Never mind all of that, I've just realised Trap Door is on Virgin Media's on demand service! Huzzah!

  • Gambit1977 #26 1 year ago

    Burk!!!!!! Where's my dinner???

  • X3Entente #27 1 year ago

    just make timesplitters 4 already

  • JoeGBallad #28 1 year ago

    Right, to all that are flippantly following the 'activision are like all companies: out to get money/isn't money behind the original goldeneye and all sequels anyway' line of thought: fair enough. Yous are right to an extent. But there's more to it than that. Yes, making money was part of why the team made the original goldeneye, but it's a career for them. Making money for being creative isn't exclusive of integrity.

    Take the 'infernal affairs' remake, 'the departed' as an example. Love it or hate it (I know plenty of people in both camps) what propelled that above the criticism that it was 'just a cynical remake to make money' was the fact that it had some integrity to it. It was a martin Scorsese film first, and a remake second, and it took the central idea of the hong kong original and gave it some meaning and grounding in western cinema, and a western setting.

    It has been obvious from the unveiling of this new goldeneye game that it was just an exercise in money-making (the hired actors in that first video presentation set the tone to follow) but it also could have been more than that. It could have been a chance to realise the potential that our collective nostalgia for that game holds, but instead it cheapens it.

  • JetSetWilly #29 1 year ago

    If they were motivated by money they wouldn't be releasing it on Wii.

  • MrsPacMan #30 1 year ago

    @jetsetwilly

    Yea that's right, the wii only has the biggest user base of any console.

  • tachometer #31 1 year ago

    4/10

  • Phantom_Dynamite #32 1 year ago

    Such a shame that XBLA remake got canned.

  • Pirotic #33 1 year ago

    motivated by money? Is this the same Hollis who had his (admittedly large) house renamed 'Hollis Mansion' and always parks the 3 sports cars out front despite the garage being at the back?

    They already raped the Golden Eye name once before with a fake sequel everybody soon forgot all about, so relax! Plus I can't imagine anybody would want to make a bonsai barber sequel.

  • malloc #34 1 year ago

    He speaks well. Would love to see him work on a higher profile game, a lot of talent with that chap and from a gamers perspective I think it could be put to better use, but fair play to him for doing what he enjoys.

  • trip919 #35 1 year ago

    How depressingly true.

  • Xboxfanuk #36 1 year ago

    Activion motivated by money? no never...lol

  • Number1Laing #37 1 year ago

    Yes, making money was part of why the team made the original goldeneye, but it's a career for them.

    Umm, I'm pretty sure it's a career for the people working on this version too.

  • Phishfood #38 1 year ago

    I can't see how this GoldenEye is motivated by money considering that it doesn't really have mass market appeal.

  • rascoj64 #39 1 year ago

    Can't we have a decent Bond game made from another bond movie please! One based on a classic bond such as 'You Only Live Twice' would be an excellent game!

  • dragonjim87 #40 1 year ago

    and the original one wasn't?

  • Creasy #41 1 year ago

    Could we finally admit that the original Goldeneye wasn't/isn't as good itself anyway?
    It was my favorite game back then, sure. But it doesn't hold up at all (And I'm not talking about graphics).
    It was great for its time, but please, there is no need to do it justice. Any modern game is way better made.
    Ah well, it's for Wii, so who gives a crap anyway.

    Oh and yeah. Damn, for money? OMG! That's.. just.. disgusting!
    Edited by 1 at 06/09/10 @ 08:35

  • ColdShoulder #42 1 year ago

    Nob heads. There's not been a bad word said about this game by the people who've actually played it. Who gives a shit why activision published it, just wait and see what it's like when it's out and stop whining about the original.