James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing Review
EA stops chasing GoldenEye.
Version tested: PlayStation 2
If nothing else, EA's latest Bond outing proves that there are some very brave marketing people working in Redwood Shores - creatively lobotomised marketing people, perhaps, but brave nonetheless - because following a couple of half-hearted 007 adventures since the turn of the century, the indomitable publisher has finally realised what everybody else already knows: that it will never produce a better Bond game than Rare's GoldenEye.
Fortunately for EA, big screen Bond has also been in decline since it took over the license (actually, GoldenEye itself was the last 007 caper this writer remembers truly enjoying) and given the state of Die Another Day, with its invisible cars, pointless CIA ladies and Korean planetary lasers, it should come as little surprise to learn that instead of scrapping the doubtlessly expensive license completely, EA has simply gone after a much easier target - the Bond films themselves.
From Redwood With Love

From the narrative structure and production values to the gadgetry and gorgeous gals throwing themselves at its protagonist, Everything or Nothing is a James Bond film in all but name. It doesn't even start like a conventional computer game - instead it takes you past a roaring MGM lion and deposits you in the shoes of a covert Bond as he prepares to disrupt an arms exchange, gradually introducing you to the third-person shoot-'em-up mechanics via on-screen prompts, before climaxing in suitably pyrotechnic fashion a couple of minutes later and diving into a computer generated title sequence - complete with its own theme song, breasts carved out of silk veils and phallic gun symbols all over the shop. DA-DA! Durrr. DA-DA! Durrr.
Thenceforth the 'movie' script dictates the sort of game you get to play, with various different engines and derivative elements called into action where necessary. Say Bond needs to shoot his way through a crowd - just throw in some Kill.switch peep-and-shoot-'em-up mechanics. Bond needs to catch up with a speeding train? Grab Need For Speed off the shelf. Bond needs to sneak to the front carriage and disable the weapon systems? Look to Splinter Cell. Bond needs to escape before the train explodes? Do something in a helicopter. Later on you'll go cliff-jumping, get involved in a few punch-ups, drive around an open-plan city for a while, race motorbikes at Extreme-G velocities whilst trying to blow up a lorry, sign up for a three-lap off-road race, and of course drive the odd tank through a procession of destructible environments and highly flammable adversaries.
In gameplay terms, EA has clearly decided not to bother innovating, preferring instead to concentrate on what it's good at: glitzy cut sequences, big name voice actors and the fruits of production facilities that no other publisher can offer. As such Bond himself is an almost perfect digital expression of Pierce Brosnan, who also lends his vocal talents to the role, and the rest of cast is a mixture of familiar characters - Judi Dench as M, John Cleese as Q, Richard Kiel as Jaws - and familiar names - Willem Dafoe as the bad guy, Shannon Elizabeth as the Bond girl, and musician Mya as theme songstress and bit part Bond ally. EA even signed Japanese actress and model Misaki Ito as Q's assistant, and elevated her to the front of the box in the Far East in an effort to break into the Japanese top ten. It worked.
Thunderbollocks!

Indeed, for a while the new Bond Of All Trades approach works just as well. Throughout the prologue and right up to the end of the Virtual Reality tutorial I was convinced this was going to be fun. It's predominantly a third-person action game, and given the vast range of options - peeping round corners to headshot enemies, sneaking up and choking guards, punching henchmen, rappelling off the side of buildings, using thermal imaging in the dark, etc - it has the potential to be really entertaining. Missions sometimes even have interesting or opportunistic sub-objectives, like taking out a radar dish, or offer a choice of paths or vehicles. It also has what EA calls "Bond Moments" - little pangs of intuition that allow our hero to spot potentially advantageous level gimmicks and exploit them to his advantage; using a chandelier to crush some guards, for example, pausing to massage a young lady during a nightclub break-in, or taking advantage of a particularly outrageous shortcut during a car chase.
Sadly though despite some fine visuals and the occasional entertaining level, EON quickly falls victim to EA's over-ambition. The developer has too many pans on the boil and the result is that most of the game types suffer from niggling flaws. Third-person sections suffer under the auspices of a severely dodgy camera, and an auto-targeting/peep-and-shoot system too choosy about its prey, further hamstrung by a fine-tuning control for headshots that needs a fine-tuning control. The motorbikes meanwhile are just crap. They look like they ought to be fun, tearing around and over jumps at high speed, flames and rockets flung out of every crevice, but they're too prone to over-steer, and thanks to frequent time limits the whole experience is rather like threading a needle with boxing gloves - right down to starting over every time you miss an opening.
As for the car chases, so often a total failure in previous outings (including the dedicated 007 Racing), not even regular use of the Need For Speed Underground engine can save them - they're crude, inconsistent and often tedious, gadgets like smokescreens and rocket launchers notwithstanding. A "smash the limo" mission is pretty typical - forcing you to back off every time you damage your enemy so you can't just mash it into a corner and Carmageddon it to death - and then there are issues like having to stand in a particular position to enter a vehicle, or getting caught on the edge of a ramp because the game engine can't comprehend overlapping pixels.
The game also seems to be labouring under the common misconception that having to memorise increasingly lengthy gameplay sequences in order to make progress constitutes a difficulty curve, aptly demonstrated by one extremely shiny NFSU-inspired New Orleans section. Having raced through the easy opening scenes for the umpteenth time, and realising that outrunning my enemies before being torn to shreds by rockets was virtually impossible, the only way I found I could make progress was to sneak my Aston Martin Vanquish into rocket range of stationary AI vehicles, squeeze off a few rounds and then hastily withdraw, repeating this right the way through the city and onto my destination. In other words, the car chases gradually degenerate from an initially soulless but unobjectionable arcade experience into the vehicular equivalent of that sniper level in Medal of Honour: Allied Assault...
You Only Live A Few Hundred Times

EON's flaws even conspire to obscure its best moments. A tanker chase on a bridge renders road and motorists a mere blur as Bond tears along at phenomenal speeds, only for the eventual pay-off to prove frantic and predictable as Q encourages Bond to take out the tanker's tyres, while henchmen wait to take pot shots every time he's knocked back towards them for his troubles. The third-person sections aren't safe either - inventory use is fiddly, potentially cool gadgets are either too clunky (like the remote control spider mines) or worn down through repetition (like the remote control laser/car toy), enemies are like time bombs on conveyor belts, waiting to explode out of the next spawn point, often unseen, or impossible to shoot because you're in peep-and-shoot mode and they've crept beyond the arc of your auto-target, and death is all too frequent.
In fact, after a certain point, cheap forms of death and having to start huge levels again right from the start are inevitabilities, whether you're in a car, sneaking through a Bayou mansion, or jumping off a cliff to try and rescue a plummeting heroine. The latter example actually broke my heart. After his girl is thrown off a cliff, Bond dives after her and has to slide left and right across banks of air to dodge rocks and platforms, occasionally shooting enemies below and often edging into clear air right at the last moment, all the while the stunning shoreline below races up to meet him at an alarming rate. It's probably the most exotic looking, groundbreaking and adrenalin stirring level in the whole game, but there's no clue as to how you can improve your chances of catching the wayward Ms. Elizabeth, and when I finally did manage it I had no idea how or why - an experience that epitomises all of the game's problems.
In the end I get the impression EA's designers don't know how games actually work any more. For me the carrot isn't the next cut sequence or Bond in-joke, it's whether I like what I'm doing with the pad in my hand. But after a while the only reason to continue playing this is to see what Willem Dafoe cooks up next, whether they can really justify hauling Jaws out of retirement, and whether Bond can actually get off with both Shannon Elizabeth and Misaki Ito. It's window dressing as a substitute for gameplay - there are actually three famous ladies involved who don't really serve any purpose whatsoever. Heidi Klum is just a plot device, Misaki Ito is a marketing tool, and Mya presumably got her cameo on the proviso she penned the game's rather boring theme song.
For Your Eyes Only

That said, as window dressing goes, EA puts on a fine display. Carriages rock along the tracks during an early train level, the ground visibly racing past beneath the mesh floor, and hanging cables and unsecured machinery wobbling this way and that with each clomp of a sleeper; whenever the game goes outside you're guaranteed a sprawling vista of fields, cliffs, oceans forests in every direction, intricately constructed temple ruins, old mineshafts and dazzling lighting effects; and the developer does a very good job for the most part of disguising gameplay gimmicks like spots of cover, rappel points and Bond moment triggers so that EON requires some degree of observation skills to play.
But even motion captured protagonists and painstakingly accurate models of Shannon Elizabeth and co. can't fill the gameplay void, and despite the lofty production values even the dialogue-driven cut sequences fail to evoke any emotion. Women seem to kiss Bond for no obvious reason - and by once again failing to deliver believable tonsil tennis surely EA proves that no amount of money can buy you love (not believable love, anyway). Even the dialogue is forced. Jokes about past bad guys like Max Zorin (Christopher Walken in A View To A Kill) ought to be funny, but don't really connect, and the score/save screens and "MI6 Interludes" don't exactly nurture a feeling of continuity. (And setting them all in that Highlands retreat from the start of The World Is Not Enough means we don't get any exotic facilities like that lopsided warship in Golden Gun's Hong Kong harbour. For shame.)
Still, if the goal was to produce something on a par with the current crop of Bond films, then EA has done a much better job than ever before. The narrative is disjointed and unremarkable and characters are seldom developed, but it certainly has all the hallmarks, from turncoats to mouthy villains and overly elaborate death plans, and fans of recognisable action sequences and gadgetry for the sake of it will probably lap it up. Despite my various misgivings it's also easy and palatable enough to persevere and finish, and if you pick it up for an hour or so every night you'll probably stave off some of the frustration our necessarily protracted sessions unfortunately induced.
The Dropping Framerates

In terms of which version is "best", I can only comment on the PS2 and Xbox incarnations as EA didn't send us a Cube review copy, but it's pretty much the usual trade-off - Xbox looks better and doesn't exhibit much slowdown, but PS2 has the Dual Shock, which I've always preferred to the Controller S. Your mileage may vary. Oh, and the Xbox version will slide smoothly into widescreen right from the get-go if you have the Dashboard toggle set up correctly - the PS2 version does have a widescreen mode, but starts you off in 4:3 and for reasons unknown won't let you switch to 16:9 for games already in progress, even if you reset the game and load your progress from a save file...
All three versions offer the same amount of replay value for the dedicated double-oh agent, including a co-operative multiplayer mode with its own levels, but the endless pursuit of a "perfect" score and the concept artwork at the end of the road isn't worth the bother and regular cases of death-by-design-quirk, while the co-op mode feels rushed and misses out on the PS2 Online features found in its American counterpart. Xbox Live is of course completely off the menu due to EA's continued spat with Microsoft.
A Licence to Kill
Overall James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing represents progress, and proves that the abysmal Nightfire was a genuine blip rather than a sign of things to come, but the more discerning gamer will still come away nonplussed. EA is sometimes guilty of trying to polish its way out of a hole in order to hit a ship date or justify a license, but here it's as if it started with the polish and laminated fact sheets and worried about the game once the script was in the can. It's a new approach to licensed games, a sort of component project wrapped up in silk and platinum, and if given the right development resources in the future and a few more creative types at the controls, it could bode well for EA's next few Bond games. It hasn't got there yet though, and judging by EA's apparent desire to exploit the GoldenEye name in its next project, I probably won't get my wish. Still, never say never, eh?
6 / 10
You may also like...
-
Mass Effect 3 Demo: The First 20 Minutes
-
Retrospective: Star Wars Episode I Racer
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
Game of the Week: Catherine
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
App of the Day: Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
-
Face-Off: The Darkness 2
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
Epic's Sweeney on graphics tech: "the limit really is in sight"
-
EA evaluating FIFA Street features for FIFA 13
-
Grand Slam Tennis 2 Review
-
The Darkness 2 Review
-
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Vita Review
-
One Piece: Unlimited Cruise SP Review
-
Catherine Review
-
App of the Day: Sir Benfro's Brilliant Balloon
-
Sony admits "dropping the ball" with Demon's Souls
-
King Arthur 2 Review
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 now live for Xbox 360
-
Metal Gear Solid: The "Lost" HD Remasters
-
Mass Effect 3 FemShep trailer debuts
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 performance tip: make a new manual save









Comments (87) Latest comment 7 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I love you, Tom - really!
/hugs Tom
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Hey, made me smile, that one.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Come on chicken - stop hiding behind the 'Blerk Basher' moniker. Who are you really?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The last film was absolutely awful, pathetic.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's me, Blerk, it was me all along!* Mwuahahahaha!
/bashes Blerk
/dons "generic unregistered user" mask
*might actually not be true
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Of course! Doesn't everyone?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Gee, you sound like a fucking authority on it!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Heidi Klum is ape shocker!
She must have Orang-Utang arms to get her hand behind his head but keep the limb itself out of shot!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
He's onto us! Burn the files! The FILES!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Arsebags. Unregistered users, honestly.
Good review Tom. Welcome back...but just keep those damned lurgies to yourself!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's quite clearly an average game. Not a bad game, but not a great game. Pretty much the same story as every other Bond title since Rare's Goldeneye.
If you like it – that's fine. Play it, enjoy it and be happy.
If you don't like it, don't play it, save your £40 for something else.
Simple, no?
/passes down judgment from atop the mountain of moral superiority.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If I see it cheap (yeah right), I might get it. Otherwise BGE is working out OK for me at the moment.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Bless 'em!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Can we copy and paste yesterdays comments in here yet?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
//remembers
o yeh.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That is all.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Hey, so did I, then I couldn't take it any longer.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The point was that, despite your and others' use of exaggeration to dismiss EA (EON may not be an amazing game, but is clearly not 'pap' either), it's possible that those who review games 'professionally' - and I use that term in its loosest possible sense - may be losing focus on what makes a successful game.
But hey, name calling works too. "
Sure does...!
Of course, if you love it that much you could actually bother to try telling people why instead of just sitting there talking bollocks...!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
JEEBUS!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Bring on the flames!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I did pick up EON yesterday, and I was bowled over by the presentation and the graphics. The game was pretty fun too. It's earned it's 6/10.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Add another if you know how to use a basic games controller.
Most, if not all the faults in that review, pointed to personal taste. How the hell is using the Bond spider clunky FFS? The inventory offers both quick selection and menu selection, again, how can this possibly be described as fiddly?
The aiming system offers lock on, which with a simple flick of the analogue stick; will switch to the next target. The manual aim is there to score headshots where possible, and is a neat addition, and not intended to be the only way to play the game.
To each of course their own, but much of this review seemed to be languishing in it's own cyinicism, rather than trying to offer any sort of objective view of the game. No attempt of any sort was made to actually describe the play mechanic, without drowning the precious few facts you've shared about the game with vitriolic prose.
You chose to play the New Orleans chase section of the game, with some bizarre shoot and sneak method. If you used the weapons and gadgets in a different manner, you could have easily stormed the level. Marking the game down because you chose to play this part of the game in such an odd way, as opposed to trying fresh tactics is bizarre, and flat out unfair. Again, you chose to ignore the acid slick gadget for smashing up the limo, and then make a big issue out of how silly this part of the game is. You do however, totally fail to mention the fast paced Rally race level, and the innovative truck stealing section. If you manage to drive the truck to the destination in time, you can store the Vanquish inside the truck, for use in the next level.
It's little touches like this, and the Platinum challenges, which make the game shine.
Some people obviously don't enjoy this game, and that's fine. Each to their own etc. However, I do object to a game I've personally enjoyed being reviewed in a manner which seems to care more about firing off critical quips, than actually giving people enough facts about the game to make up their own mind.
Your final, "discerning gamers" section is both patronising, elitist and pointless. Your review awards the game a 6. Fair enough, but slyly calling people who have enjoyed the game more, "DE ST00PID CASULZ" is to be quite honest, rather sad.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
a) does anyone remember James Pond on Megadrive?
b) does Shannon Elizabeth get her kit off in EON?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
B) Course she doesn't but if you ask the developers very nicely they'll let you see her wireframe.
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yeeees, funny that.
"How the hell is using the Bond spider clunky FFS?"
Because I found the reactions of the spider to be laboured and that it tends to stick on occasion. Plus, despite having all those legs it can't actually strafe, which is a bit silly.
"The inventory offers both quick selection and menu selection, again, how can this possibly be described as fiddly?"
Well it's all relative isn't it? I've seen better inventory systems, and I'm sure they could have come up with something a bit more intuitive. I felt like I was being forced to clunk around to do simple things.
"The aiming system offers lock on, which with a simple flick of the analogue stick; will switch to the next target."
I know. My point was that it doesn't behave like that all the time. At the beginning of the Bayou mansion mission, for example, sometimes I would try to take out the two guys in the hall with my gun, and the sniper up above, but after taking one shot at the sniper, the lock on would refuse to lock onto him again - even when he was sitting right in the middle of my view - until I literally went up there via the rappel.
"The manual aim is there to score headshots where possible, and is a neat addition, and not intended to be the only way to play the game."
No, but the way it adjusts itself is unintuitive. You want to be able to point the dot where the guy's head is going to appear, not to have to adjust it while he's behind cover and you can't see him. If you do point it where he's going to appear, it just matches his body movement and squirms off-target when he does pop up. Kill.switch did it much better from memory.
"To each of course their own, but much of this review seemed to be languishing in it's own cyinicism, rather than trying to offer any sort of objective view of the game."
I'm not keen on getting drawn into the objectivity/subjectivity debate again, but I will say this: There is no more important issue than whether the game is worth buying, and I don't understand how you assess something like that objectively when it comes to a complex experience like a videogame.
"No attempt of any sort was made to actually describe the play mechanic, without drowning the precious few facts you've shared about the game with vitriolic prose.
The only thing the game did that I hadn't personally seen done before - the cliff-jumping bit - was described in detail. Otherwise I likened things to the games they were clearly derived from. Going over play mechanics in agonising detail is only worth it in specialised cases - would this review have been any better in your view if I explained that you crouch with L2 and shoot your gun with R1?
"You chose to play the New Orleans chase section of the game, with some bizarre shoot and sneak method. If you used the weapons and gadgets in a different manner, you could have easily stormed the level. Marking the game down because you chose to play this part of the game in such an odd way, as opposed to trying fresh tactics is bizarre, and flat out unfair."
Again it all comes back to my experience playing it, doesn't it? I wasn't playing some special reviewer version with no graphics or manual or anything - I just kept going at the mission until I found a technique that worked. In any event, marking a game down because it's incapable of teaching the player how the developers want him to play it seems entirely fair to me.
"Again, you chose to ignore the acid slick gadget for smashing up the limo, and then make a big issue out of how silly this part of the game is."
I'm a guy with a pad in my hand trying to play the game. I didn't set out to "play it the wrong way," I just set out to play it, and then related my experience. If you'd rather read a regurgitated press release or player's guide then I can suggest a few other sites you might like to read. They generally sit on the fence right up to the whopping score at the end.
"You do however, totally fail to mention the fast paced Rally race level"
I did mention the race briefly, but since it was a wholly boring experience anyway and virtually impossible to lose for anybody with even a basic mastery of racing game controls (I think I was in first place from pretty much the third corner?), I didn't waste any time elaborating.
"and the section where you have to steal a truck, and if you manage to get to the destination in time, you can store the Vanquish inside the truck, for use in the next level"
You can't mention every minute detail or nobody will read it. That one made it into my notes, but I decided it wasn't worth mentioning in the final text of the review. I did however point out that some levels can be played multiple ways or offer different modes of transportation, etc, which pretty much covers it.
"It's little touches like this, and the Platinum challenges, which make the game shine."
I just lost interest in pursuing the platinum stuff because I was so regularly beaten out of contention by a quirk of the design. The reason GoldenEye worked so well in this regard and various other games do is that they don't have the sort of daft technical issues that EON suffers from.
"Some people obviously don't enjoy this game, and that's fine. Each to their own etc. However, I do object to a game I've personally enjoyed being reviewed in a manner which seems to care more about firing off critical quips, than actually giving people enough facts about the game to make up their own mind."
Actually I generally write a fairly boring stock text and then add the critical quips later. I'm no fan of stupid elaborate metaphors for the sake of it, and I never try and shape my opinion in words so it can match some pathetic pun (well, I do in What's New, but that's an irreverent weekly column, not a review).
As for giving people enough facts about the game to make up their own mind - I explained how the game was structured, which bits worked in my opinion and which bits didn't, and elaborated in detail on some of the best and worst things I experienced. That's how reviews generally work on EG, and I can see you're going to be continually disappointed if you come here expecting something else.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Can I carry on tard baiting now?
Cheers.
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
/tosses scarf over shoulder
Comment below viewing threshold Show
How nice of people to spend their working day pulling our reviews to shreds. Nothing changes, then!
But, big up to the Mugs for fighting his corner. One day people might understand that the concept of a review is to present an informative opinion, and that it might not tally with your own. Surely that's part of the fun?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Sorry Mugs, could you explain how it works on the PS2, the Xbox version just allows you to press left on the D-pad and the game freezes and you can shift around the inventory or you can press up for weapons cycle or down for the gadgets cycle.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
How does the tagline for those new Peugeot 307 ads go?
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Guess again..
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yeah, it's the same, and I didn't much like it. I don't know what I would have preferred exactly, but then I'm a player rather than a developer. All I can say is I honestly found it a bit fiddly, which is hardly Holocaust denial in the grand scheme of commentary.
On the subject of the "freeze the game" bit though, I'm still not sure I was overly happy with the way the Bond moments worked. I can appreciate the difficulty in implementing something like that in a game based around an auto-targeting system - you either have a special way of looking for triggers, or you run the risk of players just hammering L1 on every screen to sniff out the triggers without trying - but in the end being able to walk into a room, bring up the freeze screen and see your options highlighted didn't seem entirely optimal. Surely Bond moments ought to require Bond-like instincts?
Probably just me though I guess...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It was just from the original text I thought you had a complicated system on the PS2.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yeeees, funny that."
But you're review was positively overflowing with it, to the point where you brush the facts away to compensate.
"How the hell is using the Bond spider clunky FFS?
Because I found the reactions of the spider to be laboured and that it tends to stick on occasion. Plus, despite having all those legs it can't actually strafe, which is a bit silly."
Adding details like this to your review would help the reader at least understand what your objections were. The one analogue stick control of the spider was there (I assume) to keep the control of any extra objects basic. In my experience, it at no point compromises the functionality of the spider.
"The inventory offers both quick selection and menu selection, again, how can this possibly be described as fiddly?
Well it's all relative isn't it? I've seen better inventory systems, and I'm sure they could have come up with something a bit more intuitive. I felt like I was being forced to clunk around to do simple things."
That's a bit of a cop out. Why not just describe the inventory selection and let readers make up there own mind. I can't see how much more intuitive they could have got, than having a specific quick select for weapons and gadgets, and offering a menu option.
"The aiming system offers lock on, which with a simple flick of the analogue stick; will switch to the next target.
I know. My point was that it doesn't behave like that all the time. At the beginning of the Bayou mansion mission, for example, sometimes I would try to take out the two guys in the hall with my gun, and the sniper up above, but after taking one shot at the sniper, the lock on would refuse to lock onto him again - even when he was sitting right in the middle of my view - until I literally went up there via the rappel."
That's odd. I personally have not had this happen to me. I know the bit you're talking about. I just hid behind the wall and took him out. Even then you could go into Bond sense and lock onto him that way.
"The manual aim is there to score headshots where possible, and is a neat addition, and not intended to be the only way to play the game.
No, but the way it adjusts itself is unintuitive. You want to be able to point the dot where the guy's head is going to appear, not to have to adjust it while he's behind cover and you can't see him. If you do point it where he's going to appear, it just matches his body movement and squirms off-target when he does pop up. Kill.switch did it much better from memory"
I imagine it would be extremely tough to specifically alter the aim whilst the enemy is moving. If the default aim was the head shot, then I imagine the game would become ridiculously easy. The basic aiming system is intuitive, and I find the extra aiming feature a nice way of rewarding those who want to do precision aiming, rather than just running in guns blazing. It's not supposed to be an easy thing, it's tough, but the result is instant death for the enemy. I'm happier the game makes you work for this result.
"To each of course their own, but much of this review seemed to be languishing in it's own cyinicism, rather than trying to offer any sort of objective view of the game."
I'm not keen on getting drawn into the objectivity/subjectivity debate again, but I will say this: There is no more important issue than whether the game is worth buying, and I don't understand how you assess something like that objectively when it comes to a complex experience like a videogame"
Fill the review with as much info as possible. Instead of wasting lines on saying the driving is lame/boring etc, use specific examples. At least that is what I'd rather read.
"No attempt of any sort was made to actually describe the play mechanic, without drowning the precious few facts you've shared about the game with vitriolic prose.
The only thing the game did that I hadn't personally seen done before - the cliff-jumping bit - was described in detail. Otherwise I likened things to the games they were clearly derived from. Going over play mechanics in agonising detail is only worth it in specialised cases - would this review have been any better in your view if I explained that you crouch with L2 and shoot your gun with R1?"
No of course not, but telling me how the car handles, and giving comparable examples to how EoN's take on one idea over another games version on it, would help me out a lot. Simply name checking Splinter Cell and NFS/UG tells me very little. I'd rather know what it does better or worse than that game. That for me is where the real crunch of a review is. Is it a better game than what's currently on offer. I can get opinions on the game from anyone, what I look for in a review is information.
"You chose to play the New Orleans chase section of the game, with some bizarre shoot and sneak method. If you used the weapons and gadgets in a different manner, you could have easily stormed the level. Marking the game down because you chose to play this part of the game in such an odd way, as opposed to trying fresh tactics is bizarre, and flat out unfair.
Again it all comes back to my experience playing it, doesn't it? I wasn't playing some special reviewer version with no graphics or manual or anything - I just kept going at the mission until I found a technique that worked. In any event, marking a game down because it's incapable of teaching the player how the developers want him to play it seems entirely fair to me."
Again, we maybe differ on a reviewers role. I want the reviewer to have given time enough to the game he's reviewing, so that he knows a level well enough to know the optimum route through it. As I say, opinions I can get from Amazons reader reviews section, from reviewers I expect at least a look at both sides of the coin, and not just the opinions of a quick run through.
"Again, you chose to ignore the acid slick gadget for smashing up the limo, and then make a big issue out of how silly this part of the game is.
I'm a guy with a pad in my hand trying to play the game. I didn't set out to "play it the wrong way," I just set out to play it, and then related my experience. If you'd rather read a regurgitated press release or player's guide then I can suggest a few other sites you might like to read. They generally sit on the fence right up to the whopping score at the end."
So what you're telling me, is that you missed the Q hint which quite clearly and vocally said "Bond, try using your acid slick". Again, in my opinion reviewers should notice these things, and know the game well enough to judge the game on what is actually presented to them, and not just speed through the games, so they can offer a brief overview, which in all honesty is how your review came across. Other sites; I read every site review I can to get a balanced opinion of the game. Of course it would be nicer if one review presented a balanced argument, to save the trawl.
"and the section where you have to steal a truck, and if you manage to get to the destination in time, you can store the Vanquish inside the truck, for use in the next level"
You can't mention every minute detail or nobody will read it. That one made it into my notes, but I decided it wasn't worth mentioning in the final text of the review. I did however point out that some levels can be played multiple ways or offer different modes of transportation, etc, which pretty much covers it."
But you spend so much time gauging the crap out of the driving sections, yet fail to mention in any detail, bits the game does well. It just doesn't present a balanced view of the game, and smacks of bias.
"It's little touches like this, and the Platinum challenges, which make the game shine
I just lost interest in pursuing the platinum stuff because I was so regularly beaten out of contention by a quirk of the design. The reason GoldenEye worked so well in this regard and various other games do is that they don't have the sort of daft technical issues that EON suffers from."
But again, you just wash away such a great incentive for replay, in favour of giving the bits you didn't like a further kicking. For many (simply check the Game rankings user rating), these technical issues were not noticeable, and failing to give the platinum challenges due credit is yet another example of drowning out the facts in place of your own opinion.
"As for giving people enough facts about the game to make up their own mind - I explained how the game was structured, which bits worked in my opinion and which bits didn't, and elaborated in detail on some of the best and worst things I experienced. That's how reviews generally work on EG, and I can see you're going to be continually disappointed if you come here expecting something else."
Oh whatever comes of this thread, there is no doubt we disagree on the reviewers role. However, the above eloquent description of your reviewing structure, bears little resemblance to your actual review, or if it does then the proportions are so obviously stacked in favour of the negative, that it's difficult to see the review as anything other than an opinionated rant.
The fact that you dwell so heavily on the minus points, and skip over the positive aspects is what I object to. It's simply an unbalanced and thusly an unfair review. As I say, I can ask anyone for an opinion, I read proper reviews to get a informed and fair review of the game.
I know I must be coming across as a right shit at the moment, but when a reviewer can quite happily dismiss two years and a team of thirty peoples work in a few paragraphs, I see no harm in making sure that the reviewer is at lest giving that game a fair review.
I'm a nice guy really : )
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You have got to be kidding, right?
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As people who spend all day pulling other peoples games to shreds, it's piss poor show to cry foul if someone offers feed back on your reviews.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
He didn't tear it to shreds. He didn't dismiss it either. He just said it wasn't that good. 6 is above average. As for being patronising and elitist I didn't get that impression at all. I read the review and came away with the impression that its a fun well presented game with some gameplay flaws. Whats the problem? What score would you have given it? You're obviously not stupid, if you're that annoyed write your own review and post it in the forum.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Rather than just criticising the review why not point out the 'good points'?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Stick the 300 word limit back on first though, please..!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Funny that, me too! Commenting on this game is the new crack cocaine!
Oh shit, now what will we do?
/resurrects Driv3r thread
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm not saying you're a "right shit" at all. I've stood up for games that I love in the past, it's what these comments threads are for, and I'm happy for people to do it! But as far as I can see you're rejecting my experience of playing the game because you're upset that I didn't seize on options it obviously didn't do a very good job of signposting for me. Or, in other words, I didn't play it the way you played it.
In general, if a game were to put me through as much pain as Bond did, I would make no apologies if I couldn't be arsed to replay some of the levels later on. In this case however I didn't have much choice but to play most levels 5 to 10 times due to repeated and cheap deaths, particularly in the latter stages. In replaying the same sections so much, you generally try various different things, and if I finally made progress "the wrong way" then I hardly think it's my fault if the optimal route wasn't obvious - perhaps it's EA's balancing you ought to be criticising?
For the record I also read a lot of other reviews, previews, fact sheets, the manual, etc, and watch a lot of videos, examine screenshots, etc, and in this case when I picked up on things they mentioned that I hadn't seen, I would go and try and put them to use, and then try and work out how I missed them and why. But you can't expect the average gamer to do things like that, and if my experience went this way then I'm willing to bet other folks' will too. Even so, I was careful to make it plain that there were multiple ways to play it. Otherwise the gist of it was that it's a game with some good ideas marred by poor implementation, cheap death, and flaws that shouldn't have made it into the final version of a game that EA was under very little commercial pressure to release when it did. For all your bluster about my failing to give enough airtime to the game's plus points, you haven't actually given any decent examples yourself, other than the ones I dealt with in my first response. As for your concern that I didn't go into enough detail about some of the individual mechanics, I shall take it on board and next time I'll make doubly sure I'm explicit in justifying any criticism of them.
So, while I don't think you're a "right shit", I am upset that you seem to think I came into this trying to bash it. I stated pretty plainly that for quite a while this felt like it was going to be good, only for it to slide off into the land of mediocrity a few levels later. The good bits thereafter were few and far between in my opinion, and the bad bits frustrating and frequent - I don't think there was a single aspect of the game I'd describe as "excellent". But then I play a lot of games, and it gives me a wider appreciation of things - to someone coming at this without as much experience of games in the same genre (or in this case genres), perhaps the experience would be more pleasurable. But then I'm pretty sure I clarified that in the final paragraphs anyway...
Anyway - you seem to have a pretty firm conviction about what constitutes a good review, so why not give us an example and submit something on this for our reader reviews page?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Oh I wasn't directing that comment at Tom. He didn't do a hatchet job on it, I just felt the review was focussing more on the negative than was doing the game justice.
"As for being patronising and elitist I didn't get that impression at all."
From his review text, no, but the final "discerning gamers" bit, not needed and I did feel it quite patronising. I own Rez on the DC ya know ; )
Look, I don't want to start a flame war, and I have gone OTT on poor Tom, who is obviously an accomplished writer. I should by rights now write up a review, and leave that open to the same criticisms I've poored onto his review.
I am sorry for labouring the point a bit to much, and whilst I still stand by pretty much everything I said, in the end I suppose reviews like games are subject to taste and preference.
So anyway, to Tom I apologise for going all OTT (though not for the "discerning gamers" comment ; ).
Look at it like this though, if someone cares enough about the game to defend it to the hilt, then it's certainly worth the fence sitters giving it a rent.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
One of the first truly good points you've made
No hard feelings here either, as I said.
I wonder if we'll have to do this all again for Whiplash? Probably NOT, I'm guessing.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Right, I'd better get started on that review then : )
Comment below viewing threshold Show
yeah, but Halo's crap...
/runs
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You're not an idiot! probably.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
/looks around for EA staff
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Then again, I ran into a number of pretty blatant bugs while playing the Xbox version, so failure to activate a speech clip isn't that surprising...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll get me coat.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
6/10 is average... I expected much worse. MUCH worse... EA are going in the right direction for once. Can they keep it up?
...
That ****ing Zurich advert always kicks in when I talk about EA getting better...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Oh and for the record I generally hate EA
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Aren't you paying attention, they make games for the common folk!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Thanks for the Red Alert Raping there EA.
"In GoldenEye 2, players will explore the dark side of the Bond underworld, playing an agent who was a candidate for 00 status before being dismissed from MI6 for reckless brutality. Players will join ranks with the legendary super-villain Auric Goldfinger, fighting for control of the world's greatest criminal organization."
Where is the goldeneye connection?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I SMELL MONEY!!!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Can I just say one thing?
F***king invisible nano troopers!
You spend the entire game mastering the annoying targeting system, only to get a bunch of little shites at the end who can't be locked onto except when they're not invisible (even though you can plainly see they're there)... And here's the good bit - there's no other way to target them! (AFAIK - haven't tried thermo vision yet...) Well done EA - f***king brilliant bit of game design there, boys, makes the game much more fun - not!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
*cough* MONEY *cough*
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think in the UK media, there is a embarassment about James Bond, because of what he represents. I think the US enjoys that extravagant behaviour.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm off home now bye
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think in the UK media, there is a embarassment about James Bond, because of what he represents. I think the US enjoys that extravagant behaviour. "
I'd be inclined to agree. Bond in its present-day form is the epitome of a hollywood franchise. Large budgets, opulent effects and sets, more product placement than you can wave a cup of starbucks at, and a plot thinner than the string on Heidi Klum's thong...
C'mon, the Americans pound that stuff down...!
Peej
Comment below viewing threshold Show
http:/ /www.spong.com/detail/news.asp?prid=6465
Ha ha ha! Poor ol' EA.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I actually was rather shocked during that helicopter chase in Egypt when the 'boss' rose up from the lake with some sort of silly shield generator device. I immediately thought of Panzer Dragoon for some reason. Is this the best EA has to offer? Did their testers honestly have fun with this?
The game is probably great for big Bond fans, which I am not (I don't own the films on DVD or VHS for one thing and very few of the games, but I certainly go see every movie). This game doesn't manage to catch the atmosphere and it's lacking in every single department:
- The CGI sequences, while technically nice, often lack detail
- The third person missions feature some of the worst AI and enemy spawn scripting I've seen for quite a while
- The driving missions (Along with the other action-specific short sequences) are confusing and not really all that fun, aside from the frantic driving
- I rarely ever used the melee combat and never once experienced this supposed 'Power Mode' that Bond can enter
- Stealth? The controls are so clumsy that I had a really hard time sneaking around and catching guards, and in any case random shooting was far more efficient
Haven't tried Rogue Agent yet, but having looked through all the reviews around I'm pretty sure it's even worse than this lacklustre game. EA, when will you learn? This franchise is screaming for more freedom-based gameplay... it would be cool to infiltrate mansions and bases in multiple ways, choosing missions from around the globe and all that. But sadly EA refuse to deliver a game like that.