Quantum of Solace: The Video Game Comments by Alec Meer

Oh Alec - Daniel Craig emerging from the water, AND a Phantom of the Opera reference?

The signs are there if you know where to look...

"Beyond that, it was tough to identify a definable personality"

Sums up Craig as bond more than the game.

This should be worth a look, bonds games have always been a bit poo anyway (except the god Goldeneye of course). Once that music kicks in though you tend to forgive the flaws.

As long as it's a lot better than Rogue Agent I'm cool.

This looks great, I like good AI in games.
It uses the COD4 engine, which was out a few months ago, so this should look better and play better than COD4.
Plus it's got Bond!
A day one purchase for me :)

It could be brown pants on a stick and it will still sell millions... Much like the Bond films themselves.

There was a worrying number of 'this feature is promised by the developer' mentions in that preview, but there can be massive changes in the last few months of a game, and the basics look very solid in the video they released; this could yet be a reasonably decent shooter.

Deary me, I'm not sure I've ever read such a negative preview.

One to add to the pile on top of Nightfire and Goldeneye:Rogue Agent, then. Assuming Eurogamer hasn't had its bins emptied for the past decade.

The signs are there if you know where to look...

^_^

I lold.

That preview came across as pretty negative - not that I've had particularly high expectations of any Bond game since... well, ever.

What is it with the Bond licence? Do developers have lower standards because they rely on the licence to carry sales, or is it the problem of so much money being blown on securing the licence that the investment in development isn't there? I suppose timing (having to release the game at roughly the same time as the film) might be an issue, but surely it shouldn't be hard to make a decent Bond shooter and crowbar a few minigame puzzles in there.

Clearly someone shat in his cornflakes recently.......

Honestly leave the child like huff and puff at home, just do your job mate, i think if we all approached our jobs with the same level of enthusiasm as you then we'd be in a right mess.

Ive seen bigger piles of shite on this website get the gold treatment only for it to be a waste of money come release day. Judging from the videos ive seen of this game it looks not bad.

A) Will it break any FPS moulds? No probs not, it looks like a solid FPS experience using Bond.

B) Is it gonna be another Goldeneye? No it wont. Im really tired of the comparison. Goldeneye came out at a time when we didnt have any FPS worth mentioning on a console. Thats why it was so popular. Today we're ten a penny knee deep in them, for arguments sake the last FPS that came out that was great was COD 4, again not breaking many moulds but it done its job well.


P.S The Average game reviewed by Mr Meer only got 6.76 out of 10. Sheer coincidence or someone who has his harsh hat on all day long?

Do you work for Treyarch, Farstarbuck?

The videos I've seen of this look absoloutely atrocious -- every bit the lazy movie tie-in gamers have come to expect.

[Embarrassing admission] I quite enjoyed Nightfire. [/Embarrassing admission]

Do you work for Treyarch, Farstarbuck?

The videos I've seen of this look absoloutely atrocious -- every bit the lazy movie tie-in gamers have come to expect.

Yes i work for Treyarch, i regularly troll the boards of gaming websites who frown on our hard work.

Moving on....my point was there has been worse released with less scrutiny on this website, and for a game which still has a while to go and IMO does not look that bad it was a bit harsh to say the least.

Interestingly enough he also previewed COD World at War, having saw this play we're getting another COD 3, how they have managed to take the COD 4 engine and still ended up with COD 3 is beyond me.

But, cant very well give a negative review for a game which is so blatantly advertised all over the website you work for can you?

Farstarbuck, I've seen both CoD5 and Quantum of Solace. CoD5 may be another WW2 FPS game, but it looks as though the devs have taken notice of what worked in CoD4 and are building a solid action game. Derivative perhaps, but what I saw was fun and the visuals are lovely.

Bond, on the other hand, is bland and soulless. This preview wasn't as harsh as it could have been.

An example as to why I don't trust Tryarch with anything.

Looks quite good graphically in the screenshots revealed so far but... but... but... this a movie-licensed game so there's a high likelihood of it being mediocre at best so I'm personally finding it very hard to even get remotely enthusiastic nevermind excited about it. That comes from experience of these games, although I accept that every now and then you get the odd rare gem like GoldenEye 64 (for its time) and The Chronicles of Riddick. I'm happy to wait and see what the reviews make of it before even contemplating buying it but something deep down inside me tells me this will be another disappointment pushed out to cash in on the Christmas market.

And this game uses the COD4 engine does it... so it's likely to be sub-720p then, i.e. not an HD game?

"Moving on....my point was there has been worse released with less scrutiny on this website, and for a game which still has a while to go and IMO does not look that bad it was a bit harsh to say the least."

Right, so you're saying that if you, personally think a game "does not look that bad", nobody else is allowed to have a negative opinion of it? Glad we've got that cleared up. I'm sure if you pass along an email address to Eurogamer they'll be happy to run their copy by you first to make sure it's acceptable.

Bond, on the other hand, is bland and soulless. This preview wasn't as harsh as it could have been.

I guess it depends on what your expectation level of a James Bond should be.

Those who come expecting Goldeneye had best stay away.

Those who enjoyed Agent Under Fire and Nightfire apply here........

I enjoyed AUF and NF on the Gamecube. Im not looking for the next James Bond game to reinvent the FPS genre or be the best game in the world. But considering we have been subjected to some pretty pants Bond games lately, this looks like a swing back in the right direction for Bond.

Right, so you're saying that if you, personally think a game "does not look that bad", nobody else is allowed to have a negative opinion of it?

I think i said IMO which last time i checked meant In My Opinion.

He had his opinion of the game, Ive had mine.

You see how it works?

"Looks quite good graphically in the screenshots revealed so far"

Doesn't look as good in motion. You'd never know it was the CoD4 engine if they hadn't told us.

"I guess it depends on what your expectation level of a James Bond should be. "

So you'll play a crap game just as long as it's James Bond? You're the target audience for Quantum of Solace, then.

>"But considering we have been subjected to some pretty pants Bond games lately, this looks like a swing back in the right direction for Bond. "

Erm the point of the preview is that IT ISN'T A SWING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. If anything, it may be worse than the others.

So you'll play a crap game just as long as it's James Bond? You're the target audience for Quantum of Solace, then.

No......actually Rouge Agent was mince and Everything or Nothing was pretty dull. Oh, and that Tomorrow Never Dies was pretty lame too on the PS1.

I just dont expect Goldeneye like everyone else does as soon as they hear a James Bond game is being made. Then as soon as it doesnt live up they wade in like a kid on free smarties day.

It's not about 'expecting a Goldeneye', it's about expecting a good game, Bond or not.

And I always preferred Perfect Dark.

"but it's hard to shake the worry that Bond without car chases is like Christmas without presents."

Oh yeah, Goldeneye was shit without those car chases. Car chases in games that aren't racing or GTA generally suck balls anyway as the developers can't seem to get the car physics to work. Two recent examples: Alone In The Dark, where the car seemed to pivot somewhere under the rear passenger seats and The Bourne Conspiracy, where you could turn the car around on a ha'penny.

This game will be better than Rogue Agent but worse than Everything or Nothing.

I'm sorry to say that without cars this is a no sale. There are enough shooters out at the moment that will trample all over this so I dont know the logic made them make this decision.

Oh well, not that i was holding my breath anyway

Farstarbuck: "I think i said IMO which last time i checked meant In My Opinion.

He had his opinion of the game, Ive had mine.

You see how it works?"

Yes, but the difference is that your "opinion of the game" comes complete with crude insinuations that those who disagree with you are insecure, posturing and corrupt.

You see how that doesn't work?

P.S The Average game reviewed by Mr Meer only got 6.76 out of 10. Sheer coincidence or someone who has his harsh hat on all day long?

Isn't a 6 or 7 the very definition of an average game?

Yes, but the difference is that your "opinion of the game" comes complete with crude insinuations that those who disagree with you are insecure, posturing and corrupt.

You see how that doesn't work?

Not true.....my problem was the previewer obviously went in with a pre conception of what the game should be or allowed outside influences to tarnish his report. There seemed to be malice in his writing to suggest that regardless of how good or bad this game might be, it was gonna get shit on by this reporter.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but his opinion didnt include giving the game a fair chance.

There seemed to be malice in his writing to suggest that regardless of how good or bad this game might be, it was gonna get shit on by this reporter.

No there didn't. His writting clearly suggets the game, in the state that he viewed "there were apparently some three or four months' of work left to go on the game when we saw it running back in June, which may be enough time to shed the worrying tang of insert licence" indicates that the game is somewhat generic and only the license would indicate otherwise.

You seem to be implying that it is a good game pulled down by the Bond name. I'd say that it is a game that is getting far more attention than it would be without the connection.

Most of the astute readers on here will make their own judgments. Currently we have not played it and only have the images and videos to go on. Neither of those indicate great things (lighting seems noticably worse than CoD 4 IMO).

However, if a great game is the end product, it will no doubt recieve glowing reviews as well as very strong sales.

The reason people are so critical is most agree it would be a fantastic world to build a game in - but peoples imagintion is far more powerful than implemntation. Clearly striking a happy balance between the two is quite difficult - but not impossible.

As for preconvcieved ideas or prejudice - I think you will find most of the entire audience will have that - so get used to it fast would be my advice.

Farstarbuck: That's a more reasonable (if slightly presumptuous) point, but if that's what you were trying to say in the first place, then you did a pretty poor job of expressing it. You didn't say a thing about preconceptions or fair chances in your first couple of posts, and instead resorted to accusing the writer of "child-like" posturing, and insinuating that he'd been bought off by advertising money.

Like you said, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to argue your case, but resorting to daft and vaguely libelous ad hominem attacks does your argument no favours at all. Just saying.

No there didn't. His writting clearly suggets the game, in the state that he viewed "there were apparently some three or four months' of work left to go on the game when we saw it running back in June, which may be enough time to shed the worrying tang of insert licence" indicates that the game is somewhat generic and only the license would indicate otherwise.

You seem to be implying that it is a good game pulled down by the Bond name. I'd say that it is a game that is getting far more attention than it would be without the connection.

Most of the astute readers on here will make their own judgments. Currently we have not played it and only have the images and videos to go on. Neither of those indicate great things (lighting seems noticably worse than CoD 4 IMO).

However, if a great game is the end product, it will no doubt recieve glowing reviews as well as very strong sales.

The reason people are so critical is most agree it would be a fantastic world to build a game in - but peoples imagintion is far more powerful than implemntation. Clearly striking a happy balance between the two is quite difficult - but not impossible.

As for preconvcieved ideas or prejudice - I think you will find most of the entire audience will have that - so get used to it fast would be my advice.


I dont think im the only one who picked up on his negative tone throughout. I dont think he had one positive thing to say about the game in that entire preview. There will always be bad points to a game, however, dont think i have ever read a preview for a game where the reporter cant choose one thing about it that is in some way positive?

He sounded like he hated it.
I'm glad he told us, he's warning us, doing his job.

I remember View to a Kill on the Amiga being pretty good. Especially the tense top-down shooting section, sneaking between cover and lining up shots on unsuspecting opponents.

I'm glad the preview is honest for once. After a while you get tired of sycophantic overly optimistic previews. People say this is because journos don't like being negative about a WIP, but really it's because a preview is just a glorified advertisement. Previews tend to describe games, rather than analyse or critique them.
This is the first I've read in a fair while which doesn't feel like an advert.

If anything it seemed more apathetic than negative.

if someone disagree with a preview/review then its always teh BIASED (as they say on eurogamer) same sort of comments on the bourne game review comments.

The previewer did have negative view but its his view and there is no evidence he is being biased unless you think its a mass conspiracy going to highest level of the tinfoil hat people

Farstarbuck

If your not actually using my previous comments to state anything, it's much better for all concerned for you to simply start with my name/tag in your comment.

dont think i have ever read a preview for a game where the reporter cant choose one thing about it that is in some way positive

Well perhaps you could suggest some - I'd struggle to be positive about a generic shooter that is seemingly misusing the Bond license - of course you could just lie to the readers and paint a rosie picture.

You seem overly sensitive to the criticism. Alec had an opinion - it was based on what he played - he wasn't overly impressed - he let the readers know this - that's what he gets paid to do - what's the problem?

another great bond serie

I find myself wishing our Angry Internet Man here really was involved with the game in some way, as then I could at least understand his outrage. But an independent observer claiming that my expressing concern about the quality of a videogame exceeds the remit of my job is bewildering even by Angry Internet Man standards.
- Alec

@BadBoyBonner
"You seem overly sensitive to the criticism. Alec had an opinion - it was based on what he played - he wasn't overly impressed - he let the readers know this - that's what he gets paid to do - what's the problem?"

Agreed, I'd much prefer that they (Eurogamer) don't pull their punches and continue like this, there's no need to add a positive spin to a mediocre game for the sake of having added a positive spin. In a Bond game I expect laser watches, exploding grapnel bow-ties that kind of thing, I'm glad to be warned that this bond game doesn't feature those elements.

For the record, I didn't detect any childishness in Alec's preview just disappointment and a general air of disbelief (at the lack of traditional Bond elements in a Bond game). It doesn't sound like an exciting title, it's just a standard issue movie shooter.