Topic: Goldeneye 64

I am not denying the fact that they did have a good relationship with good games but to say that those games help made Nintendo who they are just doesn't make sense.

Every company that makes a game for a system helps define that system. Most of Rare's work went to Nintendo.

So than according to your logic the Kinetic games that Rare now makes for Xbox 360 is helping define the Xbox 360.

Hahaha don't provoke that guy any further, he sounds crazy enough as is!

From my understanding, based on what I have read about the Nintendo/Rare "breakup", Nintendo was the one that initiated it. Some long time employees had left Rare around that time and maybe the writing was on the wall for Nintendo that the company was on the decline. Either way, the past decade has shown that Nintendo was right in their prediction, as Rare hasn't produced a noteworthy game since the N64.

Yeah... I suppose I am crazy.

Who are these long time employees that you're talking about? I've checked my facts. Have you?

Rare hasn't made anything noteworthy because they're owned by Microsoft now and they can't do anything unless M$ tells them to. That's why they've been doing Kinect Sports and stuff. I think Starfox Adventures was a really good game which was after the n64. But I honestly believe that if Rare were with Nintendo, they could've still been making good games because they would have been working with Nintendo. All of Rare's really good games were games where Rare and Nintendo collaborated.

But it was Nintendo's decision to cut ties with the company which allowed Microsoft to step in. If Nintendo had felt that Rare was still a valuable asset to them, they would have extended their partnership. Either way, if Rare went back to Nintendo next week, I don't think they would ever recapture any of the glory they had during the period from 1993-2001.

You've really watered down your original claim. Logic says that even shovelware like fireplace simulator helps define a system; if the team at Rare deserve mention as the founding fathers at the cusp of Nintendo's success, we can look into our campfire simulator with equal reverence.

Well we should stop asking if the original Goldeneye will ever come to the VC. First off, Rare approached Microsoft and actually prepped the N64 classic by updating the graphics and adding online multiplayer. Why Microsoft decided AGAINST releasing it onto their Live Arcade service is anyone's guess. Then, there is the licensing issue with it since originally came out on a Nintendo console.

But at the same time, Rare was able to release Diddy Kong Racing for the DS and the DKC series on Game Boy Advance. Rare is not the same company anymore; most of the original staff from the N64 days have left so the group itself is just a shell of what they used to be.

Besides, the Wii remake is pretty damn good and there is still an active community of online players. I'll keep playing it until Activision shuts down the servers

No. The Stamper bros. sold 51% of their shares to Microsoft and then Nintendo sold their shares. But I think they kept like 5% of the shares or something. I'm having trouble finding the exact number right now. But that would explain why Rare still made handheld games for Nintendo. If Rare went back to Nintendo, a boatload of games would be available on the Wii Virtual Console making the Virtual Console a hundred times better. I mean, c'mon, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the VC. That would sell like crazy. As for Rare not being as good as they once were, it's not like Rare was doing so great before their partnership with Nintendo, either. I think Battletoads was the only game they really had going for them. All of Rare's great games were made while they were with Nintendo. And now they're not with Nintendo anymore and they're not making great games anymore. See a pattern there?

Seriously? You're comparing the "remake" to the n64 original? You might as well be comparing Nightfire or 007 Legends, since they have just as much in common. The only thing linking the "remake" and the original is the movie that it's based on. And the beginning of the first level. Why on earth did they only remake like 1% of the original game? Ugh... who knows...

I always thought that the reason MS allowed Rare to make games for the GBA and DS is because MS doesn't have a handheld console of their own to compete with Nintendo and Sony.

The last game i know Rare did for a Nintendo system was Diddy Kong Racing DS.

But I think they kept like 5% of the shares or something

not true. think about it: it doesnt make any sense for Nintendo to have a share in a Microsoft subsidiary and it would create all sorts of conflicts of interest. No, they sold all their shares to MS, that was part of the deal. And rumour has it they made an awful lot of money

Ummm....what are you talking about? The ENTIRE game was remade. If you're one of those people who didn't like it because of the "changes" Activision made, then go play the original on the N64. I actually liked how it turned out and it was MUCH better than Nightfire or 007 Legends.

I do play the original on the n64. But do you think it was anywhere near as good as the original? How about the lack of grenades in single player? How about the fact that completing time trials do absolutely nothing? When I said that only 1% was remade, I'm referring to the first part of the first level. It's the only part of the game that's remade from the n64 original. I wouldn't call any of the rest a "remake," because it's not a remake of the n64 game. A remake would imply that they made the same game again, which they did not, except for the first part of the first level. Other than that, it was all totally different. No longer making it a remake. The "changes" that were made, was the entire game. If the entire game is changed and different from the original, how on earth is it a remake? It's based on the same movie, that's it.

It's a remake because it uses the same title, the same characters (plus some new ones), the same locations that appeared in the original game, retained the same core gameplay plus included some new additions. That, my friend, is a remake. A "remake" doesn't have to be a shot for shot to be considered as such. Have you ever seen a movie that's a 'remake' of an older one? Are those 'remakes' exactly identical to the originals? No. However, they are still referred to and considered to be a remake.

Also, why are you obsessing over a dead company (Rare) and a sixteen year old game (Goldeneye) to the point where you are being so argumentative? Let it go man, you are living in the past.... Nothing you can say or do will change what happened or bring them back, so stop dwelling on it.

Whatever, man. You wanna call it a remake, go ahead. But I'm not going to consider it one just because you do.

Rare is not a dead company. They're just owned by someone who doesn't care about them. The only reason Microsoft owns Rare in the first place is to screw over Nintendo fans. I don't care how old a game is, if a game is good then it is good. If it's so pointless, why are people arguing against me? I can't just argue with myself. I would think that if enough people gave a crap, then perhaps something could be done. But everyone is too full of nonsense. "Everyone at Rare is gone." "Rare can't make good games anymore." etc. etc. You guys are lying to yourselves. I'm being honest.

well people did gave a crap about it, look where that got them, it may be worth it to us, but its too much of a hassle between the three to fight over so i just accept anything regarding goldeneye64 isnt going to happen.

they can try again in 5 years or so if they still care by then or see what happens to whoever gets the bond game license which might give some extra poll but im not getting my hopes up though

Actually, I disagree. The core events from the original (and the movie itself) were kept in the game. If you played through the single player mode, you'd recognize that from the get go. While I cannot explain why you weren't allowed to use grenades during the single player mode, it's more obvious as to why in multiplayer: to prevent gamers from lobbing grenades at everyone else for a long time. The game is a remake because it took the majority of the levels from the original N64 title, updated everything and made it feel as it took place during modern times. There was a reason why a lot of people were worried about it because remakes can go wrong. If you didn't like how it turned out, it's because you just wanted the version Rare worked on before Microsoft canned it.
So what if not all of the characters made it into this version or if levels were added, redone or taken out entirely. Activision and Eurocom both said changes were going to be made.

The results could have been worse and be just as bad as 007 Legends. If you didn't like it, that's your opinion and you can stick to it. I liked it more than expected. Like I said before, if you like the original better, then by all means....go play it on the N64. It's a classic for so many reasons and the remake should not be crapped on just because some people deem it as crap.

Calling Goldeneye (Wii) a remake of the n64 version is like saying that Ubisoft's version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a remake of Taito's version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. They are two separate games which happened to be based on the same movie. That is why you have the same characters, locations, story, etc. Not because it's a remake of the old game, but because it's based on the same movie. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Yes, the original game inspired some parts of the wii version, but inspiration is not enough for something to be a remake, either.

The version that Rare was working on for the xbox 360, that was a remake. I'm glad that version didn't get released, because microsoft just wanted to release it as a big middle finger to all the nintendo fans. Well, it looks like microsoft got the middle finger in that case, which brings a smile to my face.

You say that it's obvious as to why grenades aren't in multiplayer, but grenades are in multiplayer and if you've ever played multiplayer online, you would know that people do in fact lob grenades at each other the entire time. I played the crap out of Goldeneye Wii when it came out. I don't think it's a bad game. Well, the single player is terrible, but the multiplayer is not bad.

Also, I noticed you're staying off topic and not addressing the fact that it would actually be nice for Nintendo fans if Rare were still with Nintendo. Instead, like everyone else, you just beat around the bush and pretend like it's not a problem.