News Article

Original GoldenEye Designer Suspicious of Wii Publisher's Eye for Gold

Posted by Trevor Chan

Though developer Eurocom is in his good books

Whether Activision is all about the money isn't really for us to say, but one thing most will agree on is that it has several franchises in its pockets into which at any given time the company can reach, pulling out a sequel or spin-off. So with the upcoming revival of the GoldenEye name, the publisher's motivation is being questioned by one of the original designers of the Nintendo 64 first-person shooter.

Talking to Official Nintendo Magazine, Martin Hollis, former designer at Rare, has spoken out about how he feels Activision is bringing Bond back on the Wii for profits rather than passion:

I imagine it is a business decision isn't it? 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.

On a more positive note, Hollis has more faith in the developer and says Eurocom is a company he knows and likes:

I think they are a good company. I'm confident they have done their very best.


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (44)



The_Fox said:

Well, duh. Activision has made numerous statements making it clear they're all about the money.



Corbs said:

Wow a company after money??? Who would have ever thought?



47drift said:

Implying Rare has never done something purely for money based on a franchise name instead of making something with quality and love.

>Perfect Dark Zero
>Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts
>Diddy Kong Racing DS



JebbyDeringer said:

Well it's obvious Hollis isn't in it for the money since his small development company doesn't make many games. There's always something lost when something is purely a money making machine.



rustythekid said:

But I believe he's talking about their lack of passion rather than their money hunger. All companies want money, what would be the point if it's the other way? But in order to achieve good things in this industry you need that passion, gamers making video games, not mercenaries, and I believe this was his point, that they are far more interest in milking the cow than releasing an epic game.



Philip_J_Reed said:

"I imagine it is a business decision isn't it? 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."

Absolutely 100% my impression exactly.



Corbs said:

I think most of the time this "passion" that people speak of is just the marketing tool that many developers use to make more money. After attending E3 and talking to many of these people, I feel now like I've been to the puppet show and have seen the strings, so-to-speak. There's a lot less passion than we like to think there is. A LOT less.



Oregano said:

@Corbie: Start dishing the dirt!

On topic: That's pretty obvious but the game does look good and Activision does know that quality is a good marketing point so it's a win-win situation for consumers AND Activision.



zionich said:

Im sure if they put the production value into it, it could be another long standing money maker.



ToastyYogurt said:

I wasn't really worried about this, but more worried that if this game gets popular, Activision will want to churn out a new game every year with only minor differences, even after everyone stops caring. Activision is pretty notorious for doing that (Call of Duty, Tony Hawk, anyone?)



Chris720 said:

Activision have always been about the money! Just look at Call of Doody, they pull out a new one every year... whether Infinity Ward like it or not. So even if GoldenEye goes bust they still got money to grab.



Hokori said:

Uhhh RARE...

Rare-Why Remake things? the cash... Greedy.
5years latter...
Rare- Were Remaking StarFox Adventures for 3DS



Chris720 said:

I would also like to add: if Activision starts making GoldenEye sequels (like CoD), won't that destroy the fame and reputation this game has?

Also, from what I know about Activision (just from CoD, Spider-man, Tony Hawk etc.), I have a really annoying thought that they will be making GoldenEye sequels... Urgh... is it too late to change companies Nintendo? :3



StarDust4Ever said:

I hate to say this, but all companies are all about making a profit. Nintendo doesn't make great games (Super Mario Galaxy 2, w00t!) because they love us gamers that much. They make them for MONEY, and gamers vote with their wallets. Activision is no different. They also want MONEY.

The difference is that Nintendo has a reputation to uphold at very high standards, and success of it's console depends on this. Most 3rd party developers, just want to see the minimal effort they can expend to make a buck on the Wii bandwagon.



Oregano said:

Activision will most likely make a 3DS version but I doubt we'll see Goldeneye 2(although more Bond games would be likely), you've got to keep in mind that the development team actually has a lot of people from EON so Activision probably can't do whatever they want.



WaveBoy said:

This game will most likely turn out decent at best. I have almost next to no faith in Activision.



V8_Ninja said:

Again, time is our enemy in this battle. I'm gonna wait and see before I decide anything.



SwerdMurd said:

the original game was kind of an akwardly-controlled mess....can't exactly say i have an open ear to bitter developers of the original.

I have a hard time imagining Activision cares about the original either. All 3 times it's been played semi-recently (over the last few years at a buddy's house) everyone in the room was shocked as to how much less they liked it, despite all being rabid fans back in the day.

Plus Rare isn't exactly the right company to make a negative statement about being all about the money, as they jumped ship to Xbox the second MS flashed a couple 20s.



Adam said:

I don't understand. Why do they want to make money? I mean, if you're going to state the obvious, go all the way, guys.



JimLad said:

For those who don't know: Martin Hollis hasn't been a member of Rare since 1998, so don't start calling him a hipocrite for what Rare has done in recent years.
That said he doesn't have much weight now with opinions either, since a handful of small puzzle games are all he's produced since then.
That said that said there is probably some truth in his words. The game doesn't look like it's going to break the mold in any way, the name holds more weight than anything else. The difference from other cash-ins is it's on the Wii, and the install base will lap it up.
If they don't at least try to push the boat out for this game in some way, I'm going to be very disappointed.



bestbuck said:

There seem to be a lot of blind so called Gamers on this page.
Duh Rare, Duh Money, Duh...
Facts are Activision are SCUM and I know the Game will be Crap and I hope it flops and they loose a fortune.



Collinhall said:

Activision displeases me... Sold me soo many crappy games when I was little, they can all burn.



FonistofCruxis said:

@xd375 Really? I heard that nintendo had nothing to do with it and that Microsoft just offered rare large sums of money to work for them and rare accepted.



XD375 said:

Nintendo made 375 million dollars off of the deal, and it has been said by some that they wouldn't had made it out of the GameCube generation and into the Wii generation without it.

(No connection to my username I can assure you. XD)



Objection said:

XD is right and quite frankly, it seems to have been a wise decision on Nintendo's part in hindsight. RARE has been fairly terrible to barely adequate in the last 8 years.



motang said:

Knowing how Acitivision does business, I don't think this guy is too far off.



Betagam7 said:

Eurocom have made some excellent games in the past; most notably the terrifically underrated Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy which really deserves far more praise than it gets. If they can do as good a job on Goldeneye then I'm sold.



WhiteTrashGuy said:

Hollis is a great designer. He was at RARE from the beginning and took off when everything went to $#!t. Even though I am pre-ordering this game, I alos have my reservations. I think what I am digging most about it is a new version of the story with Daniel Craig as Bond. It will be fun. Also, Eurocom developed THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH on N64 and NIGHTFIRE for all 3 last-gen systems. Both those games were pretty decent Bond affairs. Hell, it can't be worse than GOLDENEYE: ROGUE AGENT right? Right????



Objection said:

@WTG-from what i know, he left in 1998, before Banjo Tooie, COnker and Starfox Adventures were out. So the company had hardly yet "gone to s---."
As for there being no ay this is worse than Rogue Agent, I'd have to agree with you there. That's the only Bond game I've played from the last 8 years that I disliked.



Senri said:

Eurocom said the Wii GoldenEye will "blow away" all other Wii FPS games. Since most FPS games on the Wii are bad PC ports that's not saying much. And they also didn't say that it will be better than the other James Bond games on development for PS3/X360 (I just hope it's not Transformers all over again).

But I do like them to try at the very least be better than Metroid FPS games.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...