cool ea no longer has the 007 license

gamedudex2 · Post by **gamedudex2** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:36 pm

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148896.html

DuffMan · Post by **DuffMan** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:42 pm

Maybe now we can have a good 007 game. Though I doubt that anyone could surpass Goldeye.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Wed May 03, 2006 4:25 pm

Yeah.
Because Activisions track record of licenced games is soooooooo much better than EAs.

ace · Post by **ace** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:47 pm

Do you derive pleasure from constantly being negative?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:06 pm

ace wrote:Do you derive pleasure from constantly being negative?

dood ea is gay go play jump super stars 4 teh DS instead!!1

DuffMan · Post by **DuffMan** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:18 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:Yeah.
Because Activisions track record of licenced games is soooooooo much better than EAs.

Any company can make better games then EA. So yes, i'm sure it will be better.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:20 pm

Rare needs to acquire the license and make more oo7 games. I hated the ones that ea did and still think goldeneye for the n64 was the best. Then again, I'mnot a fan of any of ea's games and their apparent dictarship of some good licenses...

I'm still mad that they snaked the nascar license from atari and whatever sports license from sega.

Number Six · Post by **Number Six** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:31 pm

Smiley wrote:Rare needs to acquire the license and make more oo7 games.

Or give it to Eidos and let the Free Radical guys do it. Since when has Rare been a player?

gamedudex2 · Post by **gamedudex2** » Wed May 03, 2006 11:11 pm

why not have it go to nintendo not only would they get some great devs to make a game but 007 would be wii exclusive

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:20 am

Activision did alright with Spiderman and Tony Hawk (granted that was the Neversoft studio) and the X-Men Legends franchise is more than decent.

But yeah, Free Radical should do a new Bond game. Or you could just buy Time Splitters.

Post by **melancholy** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:57 am

ace wrote:Do you derive pleasure from constantly being negative?

Is that a rhetorical question?

ace · Post by **ace** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:25 am

Well, it was... But come to think of it, I would like to know

Lunchbox · Post by **Lunchbox** » Thu May 04, 2006 2:14 am

Come on now, Agent Under Fire and Nightfire were good for what they were. Not Goldeneye 64 brilliance, but still good.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu May 04, 2006 2:31 am

DuffMan wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Yeah.
Because Activisions track record of licenced games is soooooooo much better than EAs.
Any company can make better games then EA. So yes, i'm sure it will be better.

I don't know, Criterion seemed to do a pretty good job with Black, and Free Radical seemed to do a pretty good job with Time Splitters.

Either of those companies could very well do a decent Bond FPS.

Better yet would be to not actually make another Bond game as an FPS - just because Goldeneye did it so well is no reason for every other Bond game to try and emulate that success; in fact its probably better to not try and rip off Goldeneye as it set the benchmark so high.

A Splinter Cell type game starring Bond would be cool. How obvious is that?

not just souLLy now · Post by **not just souLLy now** » Thu May 04, 2006 4:47 am

it was the gameplay that made goldeneye good, not the licence. who cares who owns the rights to 007.

Prophet][ · Post by **Prophet][** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:02 am

gamedudex2 wrote:why not have it go to nintendo not only would they get some great devs to make a game but 007 would be wii exclusive

Nentindo probably didn't want to pay for it and they would need to pay a lot for an exclusive as money would be lost from games not being on other systems.

ace · Post by **ace** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:51 am

Nyarlathotep wrote:A Splinter Cell type game starring Bond would be cool. How obvious is that?

You're right, it is pretty obvious, but when you think about it... Does Bond really need to be that stealthy? More often that not, he doesn't.

butters · Post by **butters** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:23 am

Bond...stealth...?

Bond enters room.

"I'm Bond. James Bond. Shoot me if you can!"

Bond then clears the entire room with a single shot from his gun. Then he screws the bad guy's girl. Kind of like a Chuck Norris joke huh?

ace · Post by **ace** » Thu May 04, 2006 11:08 am

Exactly. Once in a while he'll creep through some heating vents, but he is usually content with simply walking into a room weapon drawn. I think an FPS or third person shoot (read: not third person stealth) fit the bond mold quite well.

DuffMan · Post by **DuffMan** » Thu May 04, 2006 4:53 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:
DuffMan wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Yeah.
Because Activisions track record of licenced games is soooooooo much better than EAs.
Any company can make better games then EA. So yes, i'm sure it will be better.
I don't know, Criterion seemed to do a pretty good job with Black, and Free Radical seemed to do a pretty good job with Time Splitters.

Either of those companies could very well do a decent Bond FPS.

Better yet would be to not actually make another Bond game as an FPS - just because Goldeneye did it so well is no reason for every other Bond game to try and emulate that success; in fact its probably better to not try and rip off Goldeneye as it set the benchmark so high.

A Splinter Cell type game starring Bond would be cool. How obvious is that?

EA had nothing to do with development of the games, they were only the publisher, thats why they are good games. EA developed all of their 007 games, which is why they sucked.