GoldenEye 007 Designer Says Remake Motivated By Money

[Tom Goldman]

GoldenEye 007 Designer Says Remake Motivated By Money

The original designer for the N64's GoldenEye 007 has bashed Activision's motivation for remaking the game.

GoldenEye 007 was originally released for the N64 and is fondly remembered as both a great single-player and multiplayer game. Though it always seemed like a natural for re-release, it was only rumored until Activision's recent announcement [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101368-E3-2010-James-Bond-Is-Back-In-GoldenEye-007-Wii-Remake] of a remake for the Wii that replaces Pierce Brosnan with current Bond Daniel Craig. Martin Hollis, the designer for the original GoldenEye 007, seems a little salty about what he thinks is the motivation behind the remake.

Speaking to Official Nintendo Magazine, Hollis alleged that Activision only wants to use the GoldenEye name to earn a buck. "I imagine it is a business decision isn't it," he said. "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," Hollis continued. "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."

However, Hollis isn't mad at Eurocom, the developer working on the GoldenEye 007 remake for the Wii (a DS version is also under development by N-Space). "I know and like Eurocom," he said. "I think they are a good company. I'm confident they have done their very best."

I don't know if Hollis has something against Activision management, or if these quotes are out of context, but if he doesn't think they get excited about anything it certainly seems like he has an axe to grind with them. I'm not the type to defend upper management, but the development of just about any game that isn't freeware, especially one coming out of a company like Activision, should be motivated by business at least partially. A game should be fun, but it has to sell enough to make money too. Maybe Hollis is upset that he didn't get a crack at putting together the remake?

Source: ONM [http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=19667]

Permalink

 

[dududf]

...

This is a business. If you aren't being motivated by money in some shape or form, you're doing it wrong.

That being said, they should know that making a good sequel will yield more money, then a shit sequel.

 

[Irridium]

Activision remaking this just for the money?

Perish the thought!

 

[Booze Zombie]

I think he's trying to get at the age old idea that true art isn't motivated by money, it's motivated by the desire to create true art.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

Activision remaking this just for the money?

Perish the thought!

Ninja'd. It'll work, too. Shame they're using the wrong Bond though.

 

[Larsirius]

From the second I knew that Activision were the one publishing this game, I lost all interest.

 

[McFleischwurst]

I totally agree with the man. The only thing I can imagine activision to get excited about is making money. They probably don't give a shit about the games themselves

 

[The Journey]

the point about this being a business or not is irrelevant really, that's not the point he's making and if you don't get that, look harder.

I can hear the cogs grinding from lack of use.

what he's getting at is that Activision is what EA used to be. You know all those EA Sports titles that had/have no soul and are just one bland mess with almost no redeeming qualities? They make money or they wouldn't exist. Do you buy them? I hope not. I don't, and I'd like to see them die a quick, efficient demise.

They aren't made for the sake of making a good game which would hopefully turn a profit by, oh I don't know, being a good game. They are made for the sake of exploiting idiots everywhere with more money than sense.

I can understand his consternation, ego driven or not.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Remakes are genuinely made because the company wants to make the money, and the fanbase wants it.

It gives the fanbase what they want (Half will like the game, the other half will ***** about how the original was better... while playing the remake...), it makes money for the company.

And it doesnt require a single new thought. Copy, paste, update. Its usually harder then that, but, you get the point. They dont have to worry about what weapons, designs, levels, mechanics, story, etc. they will have to use, its already all there.

I dont like Activision, but I wouldnt scold them for doing something people have wanted them to.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Oh my... A product that is made because of money... No, that just can't be.

Seriously, I don't like Activision myself, but you can't be such a baby face. Really, I don't care whether you made GoldenEye or Halo, you don't get to make such ridiculous comments.

 

[Fasckira]

Im sure this has nothing to do with Martin Hollis not getting a penny from the remake.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Meh it's a shooter for the wii so it's not like it's going to be good anyway.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

It's not as bad as that other GoldenEye game that had nothin to do with goldeneye, but was trading on the good will attached to the title.I was really disappointed with it.

 

[HK_01]

No shit, Sherlock. Everything else would be really surprising.

 

[Alandoril]

He makes a good point.

 

[Dr Bob]

The name's Kotick.

Bobby Kotick.

 

[JaredXE]

It could be he's pissed about using the lesser Bond. Kinda like when Lucas added in Hayden Christensen at the end of his horrible Special Editions.

However, yeah, it IS motivated by money, but WHY do a remake? I mean, it's the WII. Wii's can't do shooters.

 

[RichardThompson]

Well at least this is one game I'm certain I will not invest in. I still have a fully functioning N64, thankyou very much.