Well, I enjoyed Dead Space: Extraction, and Eurocom also has a little added credibility due to ex-Rare members.
However, from an impressions article,
The health system has changed, now using the same regenerative system seen in most shooters.
Dangit!
I agree, regenerating health is stupid. See, it's this sort of thing that makes me not want to buy it. It's not going to be a true remake. It's going to be a lame generic FPS with absolutely nothing to do with the original. I may just be am an old stick in the mud, but I don't really like most FPS games nowadays. Between dual analog and the insane complicatedness previously debated, they're just impossible to get into. I would appreciate the return to a simpler time a Goldeneye remake would represent. If it doesn't do anything new and groundbreaking for the genre, and it doesn't maintain the mechanics and simple charm of Goldeneye of yore, then it's just a crappy cookie cutter shooter hoping to sell on a name.
I am way too lazy to think of something clever. My Backloggery
I still don't get it why did they use Daniel Craig as Bond. It's like making a game about The Terminator and putting Sylvester Stallone on a lead role. Doesn't make any sense.
So for those who don't like the regenerating health system, you'd prefer a return to the days of health camping? People just literally hiding around the health spawns, dragging the game to a crawl? It became (and still is, in some cases) even worse on the P.C, which allowed you to use "helpful" timers to tell you exactly when everything, from guns to health, were going to respawn.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Did the health even respawn on Goldeneye multiplayer? I don't think it did. Once it was gone it was gone (it's been like ten years since I've played it, so I could be wrong). It was never an issue when I played back in the day, because, you know, you had to actually find other people and shoot at them to win. None of us were really hardcore about it though.
I am way too lazy to think of something clever. My Backloggery
There was no health to pick up on the original game, just the armor, and that gave you a little boost but wasn't at all the same as healing yourself, because your underlying health would still keep going down through battles, explosions, etc, so even if you managed to keep getting the armor, that would only prolong your death. Also, we always played with the health down to the lowest setting anyway, which made the armor basically just let you get one more pistol shot before dying, if I recall correctly.
I'm with Token Girl on the fact that modern FPS games aren't really any fun for multiplayer, because they've just overcomplicated matters to a ridiculous degree. I don't want to see who can out-FPS-nerd the other players, I want a fun battle where anyone, even a newcomer, has at least some chance of winning if they can just master the basics and trick their opponents a few times. I want less weapons, less complicated levels that require intimate knowledge to compete, and less health with no regen.
Twitter is a good place to throw your nonsense. Wii FC: 8378 9716 1696 8633 || "How can mushrooms give you extra life? Get the green ones." -
. My whole point is that health packs in any game (respawning or not)=campers. Playing a game like Quake III on the P.C was enough to prove that it almost always winds up being exploited.
Health packs in the single player mode I see no problem with.
In the original there were two sets of armor in each level, I believe. Or at least, there were two in the Facility, which is the Two Fort of Goldeneye, so what's in the other levels hardly matters. So if someone does just hang around one all day, you can load up on the other armor before attacking.
If I recall correctly, it did not respawn fast enough to warrant "camping," at least not in four-player. Armor only accounts for half of your health, anyway, and unless the other players suck, you'll be worn down quickly to the point of having no more health than when you started. It was never a problem for any of my games.
I'm not ready to dismiss the whole game yet just because of regenerative health, though. If it's anything like the original, it'll have tons of options. This could include non-regenerative health, double damage, low-health, golden gun mode (I think this was already confirmed?), or whatever -- anything to lessen its effect. But even if not, it does look like it'll be a simple, fast-paced shooter with a lot of the same charm.
"Multiplayer will consist of 40 total characters, 8 classic Bond characters, 5 maps, 3 standard modes and 16 special modifiers" 5 Maps? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? If i remember correctly, the original Goldeneye had 20 maps. What the hell?!
Team Fortress 2 launched with about 5 maps, didn't it? When you consider that favorite maps will quickly be established, especially online, I think there is value in concentrating all design efforts on a handful of maps instead of a bunch of maps that'll hardly get played.
Of course, it could well be that these are all terrible maps and they were just being lazy, but I remain optimistic in the face of all reason not to.
I don't usually establish a favorite map when playing FPS games, instead i try to play them all as much so i wouldn't get bored to one so easily. If there's only five maps in this game, they'd better be the best maps in FPS history - otherwise this is ridiculous. Were living in 2010 now, and they serve us a game which have less content than it's N64 predecessor? It's just unexcusable.
Forums
Topic: GoldenEye Discussion Thread (OMG OMG OMG)
Posts 141 to 160 of 1,080
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.