Let's talk about what I see as hypocrisy in the FPS genre.

[Ambient_Malice]

What we are claiming is that you can't rip out the heart and soul of a series just to make it into an FPS. That's like turning Shadowrun into a ridiculous multiplayer only arena shooter game.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about that game.



Wait, why would anyone make a multiplayer shadowrun shooter?

Who thought that was a good idea?

Syndicate is like Mario Kart. Or Pokemon Snap. Or Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus. It takes existing characters/groups/settings and places them in a whole new gameplay framework. It's like taking the Legacy of Kain IP away from Denis Dyack and turning it into a game like Soul Reaver.

Except for the fact that those games are all clearly supposed to be unrelated spinoffs, AND the series they spun off from are still going today in the case of the Nintendo games.

Your analogy would be accurate if as a kid in the 90s, you saw a new Mario game on the shelf and bought it, expecting it to be like Super Mario World. And why wouldn't it be like that? It's called 'Super Mario 64.' So you grab it, pop it into your console, and surprise surprise, it's a racing game.

Or if Hyrule Warriors was announced as 'The Legend of Zelda: The Dark Army' or something, and Nintendo said "This is the direction we will be taking with the series from now on."

And if you still think your analogy is accurate, I have only one thing to ask.

Where the hell is my Syndicate strategy game?

Starbreeze felt the world doesn't need any new Syndicate strategy games because they'd just detract from the old games.

 

[Irick]

Starbreeze felt the world doesn't need any new Syndicate strategy games because they'd just detract from the old games.

Source?
That seems a really dumb thing to say, but hey, PR reps aren't known for being entirely logical.

 

[O maestre]

Also Transformers doesn't have shit on Pacific Rim. Both are dumb action movies, but Pacific Rim is fun to watch, where Transformers looks like two junkyards having sex. While spouting racial and sexual epithets.

I'd like to point out that Transformers 4 was a significant shift in tone away from . But I also find it amusing how Michael Bay movies are often deemed racist, while Pacific Rim gets away with...

>Japanese girl who is REALLY GOOD AT MARTIAL ARTS.
>ANGRY AUSTRALIAN WHO IS DEFINED BY HIS ANGRY.
>African-American guy who is harsh, but gentle on the inside, and DIES SO THE WHITE PEOPLE CAN LIVE.

Okay a few things.
1. that Japanese girl had training from her father figure who was also a martial artist himself. So it's not just a case of Oh yeah the Japanese girl is obviously good at fighting.

2. Is the angry Australian thing actually a stereotype of Australian people? Because I have never heard that.

3. What?! When has that ever been a racist or stereotypical archetype for an African American?

The noble black dude who sacrifices himself is a very old trope. Even South Park made fun of it in the episode where Cartman tries to get Chef to nobly sacrifice himself to stop the hippies. It's not necessarily racist, but neither is half the supposedly racist stuff in the Transformers films, IMO. I'm not bashing Pacific Rim. I'm just noting that many criticisms can be applied equally, but fans are blind to it.

C'mon dude. A trope isn't the same as racism. Comparing Idris Elba to the two gangsta-bots from Michael Bay is really inaccurate and stretching it. Those two characters belonged more to the blaxploitation genre.
Your comment about the Australian guy doesn't even make any sense, the Australian character's father wasn't angry, so not all Australians were negatively portrayed. If anything the young Australian pilot's character was a riff of Top Gun, in the sense of an angry young fighter jock with daddy issues. An offensive parody would have been if the Australian was represented by a mullet wearing Bogan.

There is a line between narrative tropes and offensive racism, taken out of context, Pacific Rim might graze that line with Mako's character, but Michael Bay's movies go miles and miles beyond that line. I get that some people feel the two movies were just as dumb, but Bay's movies were dumb and offensive.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Also Transformers doesn't have shit on Pacific Rim. Both are dumb action movies, but Pacific Rim is fun to watch, where Transformers looks like two junkyards having sex. While spouting racial and sexual epithets.

I'd like to point out that Transformers 4 was a significant shift in tone away from . But I also find it amusing how Michael Bay movies are often deemed racist, while Pacific Rim gets away with...

>Japanese girl who is REALLY GOOD AT MARTIAL ARTS.
>ANGRY AUSTRALIAN WHO IS DEFINED BY HIS ANGRY.
>African-American guy who is harsh, but gentle on the inside, and DIES SO THE WHITE PEOPLE CAN LIVE.

Okay a few things.
1. that Japanese girl had training from her father figure who was also a martial artist himself. So it's not just a case of Oh yeah the Japanese girl is obviously good at fighting.

2. Is the angry Australian thing actually a stereotype of Australian people? Because I have never heard that.

3. What?! When has that ever been a racist or stereotypical archetype for an African American?

The noble black dude who sacrifices himself is a very old trope. Even South Park made fun of it in the episode where Cartman tries to get Chef to nobly sacrifice himself to stop the hippies. It's not necessarily racist, but neither is half the supposedly racist stuff in the Transformers films, IMO. I'm not bashing Pacific Rim. I'm just noting that many criticisms can be applied equally, but fans are blind to it.

C'mon dude. A trope isn't the same as racism. Comparing Idris Elba to the two gangsta-bots from Michael Bay is really inaccurate and stretching it. Those two characters belonged more to the blaxploitation genre.
Your comment about the Australian guy doesn't even make any sense, the Australian character's father wasn't angry, so not all Australians were negatively portrayed. If anything the young Australian pilot's character was a riff of Top Gun, in the sense of an angry young fighter jock with daddy issues. An offensive parody would have been if the Australian was represented by a mullet wearing Bogan.

There is a line between narrative tropes and offensive racism, taken out of context, Pacific Rim might graze that line with Mako's character, but Michael Bay's movies go miles and miles beyond that line. I get that some people feel the two movies were just as dumb, but Bay's movies were dumb and offensive.

Points duly noted.

edit:
I must emphasise that I didn't start this thread just to share my DEEP and TOTALLY MEANINGFUL thoughts. I am genuinely interested in the opinions of others, so that I might understand the situation better and even, as the phrase goes, "Learn something."

 

[Vigormortis]

So basically...

We should consider only specific opinions on entertainment valid and chastise anyone who doesn't adhere to those standards?

Because that's pretty much the takeaway I'm getting from this thread. That takeaway being, that all opinions are stupid unless they're your own.

People have different opinions. And, being opinions, they're not always logical. Even so, it doesn't matter. Opinions are the very definition of subjective. Arguing over them is as pointless as it is ridiculous.

Just learn to love what you love and let the rest be. Don't think someone gave your favorite whatever a fair shake? Well, that's on them. It's not up to you to convince them of anything.

I learned a long time ago that pointing out flaws in ones opinions, even if they're blatantly hypocritical, is a fruitless endeavor.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

So basically...

We should consider only specific opinions on entertainment valid and chastise anyone who doesn't adhere to those standards?

Because that's pretty much the takeaway I'm getting from this thread. That takeaway being, that all opinions are stupid unless they're your own.

People have different opinions. And, being opinions, they're not always logical. Even so, it doesn't matter. Opinions are the very definition of subjective. Arguing over them is as pointless as it is ridiculous.

Just learn to love what you love and let the rest be. Don't think someone gave your favorite whatever a fair shake? Well, that's on them. It's not up to you to convince them of anything.

I learned a long time ago that pointing out flaws in ones opinions, even if they're blatantly hypocritical, is a fruitless endeavor.

I'm trying to better understand the culture which skips right over "this game isn't my cup of tea" to "this game is an abomination which shouldn't be allowed to exist and nobody should like it and any game which I arbitrarily declare to be like it is also terrible."

I try not to have strong opinions on games I haven't played, and I try to play them extensively. But I notice a rise of people who just parrot things they heard on the internet.

I initially played Black Ops 2 until the first Strike Force mission, and then I gave up. I wasn't enjoying the game. I went and played other games for a while.

But then I went back and replayed the game. I pushed past the annoying RTS nonsense. And I discovered that I'd been very wrong about the game. I'd missed its depth because I wasn't paying attention.

I used to HATE Crysis 2. But I forced myself past my preconceptions. Past the flippant "dumbed down for consoles" rhetoric I'd allowed myself to get caught up in. I came to appreciate the game's good points.

Only 200k people bought Syndicate 2012. Piracy aside, a vast majority of people who bash the game have never completed it. A game can be forever tarnished by reputation. Just like how The Lone Ranger is often seen as a terrible film because American critics were displeased with it, despite its positive reception globally and acclaim from people such as Quentin Tarantino.

Or a game can be tarnished because one of its ports was awful. This was fairly common with terrible PS2/PS3 ports of games. Games such as Turok: Evolution, Sonic Heroes, Tomb Raider: Underworld, and so on. (Anything based on Unreal 3 suffered on PS3. Take Silent Hill: Downpour's awful PS3 performance.)

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm trying to better understand the culture which skips right over "this game isn't my cup of tea" to "this game is an abomination which shouldn't be allowed to exist and nobody should like it and any game which I arbitrarily declare to be like it is also terrible."

People will always do this. Even posters on this very forum are guilty of this.

You can't stop them from feeling that way, and you shouldn't try to. The best course is to either accept the difference in opinions or just ignore them.

I try not to have strong opinions on games I haven't played, and I try to play them extensively. But I notice a rise of people who just parrot things they heard on the internet.

It's good that you're trying not to have strong opinions on things you're not familiar with. That's the correct course to take on the matter. At least, if you're attempting to approach the matter rationally.

As for people parroting others, this is something people will always do, just as the example above. It's especially common when they don't know how to feel about something or are ignorant to the specifics. Parroting what others are saying makes them seem like they're part of that "crowd", that they're knowledgeable on the matter, or that they're somehow "superior" to those who don't share that opinion.

As before, the best thing to do is just ignore them. Let them wallow in their own smugness, if this be the case.

I initially played Black Ops 2 until the first Strike Force mission, and then I gave up. I wasn't enjoying the game. I went and played other games for a while.

But then I went back and replayed the game. I pushed past the annoying RTS nonsense. And I discovered that I'd been very wrong about the game. I'd missed its depth because I wasn't paying attention.

I used to HATE Crysis 2. But I forced myself past my preconceptions. Past the flippant "dumbed down for consoles" rhetoric I'd allowed myself to get caught up in. I came to appreciate the game's good points.

Only 200k people bought Syndicate 2012. Piracy aside, a vast majority of people who bash the game have never completed it. A game can be forever tarnished by reputation. Just like how The Lone Ranger is often seen as a terrible film because American critics were displeased with it, despite its positive reception globally and acclaim from people such as Quentin Tarantino.

Or a game can be tarnished because one of its ports was awful. This was fairly common with terrible PS2/PS3 ports of games. Games such as Turok: Evolution, Sonic Heroes, Tomb Raider: Underworld, and so on. (Anything based on Unreal 3 suffered on PS3. Take Silent Hill: Downpour's awful PS3 performance.)

Acclaim, no matter the source, is not a gauge of a things level of quality. At least, it shouldn't be when analyzing the piece personally.

I'm happy for you that you "toughed out" those games and films "rough spots" and ended up finding things you loved about them. That's honestly fantastic, and I hope you continue to enjoy them.

However, this doesn't mean that those who didn't enjoy them, nor those who didn't "tough it out", are invalid in their own personal opinions of the games or films.

Again: Opinions will differ. Most opinions won't even makes sense, unless they match yours in it's entirety. People will be irrational about them as well, from either stance.

The best option, as always, is either to accept that you and they don't see eye-to-eye, or just ignore them. There really is no point in trying to understand a thing that is entirely subject and prone to irrationality.

Trust me, do yourself the favor and don't worry about it. It'll save a lot of headaches.

 

[Artaneius]

My problem with the FPS genre is a snobbishness which reminds me of the attitude of hardcore Pacific Rim fans who insist that Michael Bay Transformers movies are stupid, but Pacific Rim is super smart and totally not at all like Transformers, despite the fact Pacific Rim is cut from the exact same cloth. (Many story-driven FPS games are described as being like Michael Bay movies, often by people who are less than fans of Bay's oeuvre.)

Goldeneye Wii was bashed for having "Call of Duty-like" game mechanics which were actually almost identical to praised games such as Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

Battlefield 3 was bashed for its story and gameplay. Both are remarkably similar to the game BLACK, a game which is not painted with the same brush.

Battlefield 4 was bashed for its characters, story, and ending. (Penned by the guy who wrote Modern Warfare 2) I thought the characters were interesting and the ending was powerful.

Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.

Call of Duty: Ghosts was heavily bashed for its story, graphics, and game mechanics. In my view, while inferior to Black Ops 2, Ghosts improved heavily upon the older Infinity Ward titles by removing the "follow the waypoint" mission design and replacing it with something more organic. Ghosts may not be the best looking game, but it has extremely high resolution textures compared to previous entries, and the engine received some major DX11 visual upgrades. The game even has Nvidia fur effects for animals, something which Witcher 3 fans seemed to think was something never before seen when shown in Witcher 3 previews. As for the story, I think it had some flaws, but it was reasonably well written, took us interesting places, and Rorke was a compelling villain.

Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 were, in my view, unfairly bashed. They adapted the Crytek formula to an urban setting, which meant a shift away from lots of jungle towards more constrained environments. This was partially due to console limitations, sure, but also because urban environments lend themselves to being constrained by tall buildings and such. The two games explore some very interesting themes around warriors abandoning their humanity and Psycho's angst over his own human frailty after he loses the suit. Crysis 3 also includes the line "IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SUIT!" which almost seems like a challenge to the people who grumbled about the nanosuits being altered in C2 and C3, plus the use of your suit malfunctioning as a story point.

All in all, I think that many linear, story-driven FPS games get unfairly treated. Their stories are often not given the attention or respect they deserve, and it saddens me. And there are many strange double standards where Game A does the EXACT SAME THINGS as Game B, but game B is seen as "stupid", but Game A is seen as "smart". And a series like Crysis, which dared to experiment with later titles, is bashed by the same people who bash Call of Duty for not being experimental enough.

I probably should've tidied and rewritten this a few times, but I hope I got my message across. As the release date for Advanced Warfare approaches, I see more and more flippant attacks on CoD: Ghosts as being a "trash" game "everybody" hated, and I see people who hated Crysis 2 all of sudden excited about Advanced Warfare, which seems heavily influenced by Crysis 2, right down to oddly similar set pieces in the trailers. I feel as if people are caught up in a snobbish hatred for "dumb pleb" FPS and a snobbish like for the "smart" FPS games which are usually bizarrely similar to the "dumb" ones if you scratch the surface.

If you played the original Goldeneye, you would of expected the new one to be the same. That's the whole point of buying a sequel.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

If you played the original Goldeneye, you would of expected the new one to be the same. That's the whole point of buying a sequel.

Not personally. Eurocom were making licensed James Bond games before Rareware. I expected an FPS based on the film, but playing like a Eurocom Bond game. (World is not Enough, Nightfire, Quantum of Solace PS2, etc.)

GoldenEye N64 was an adaptation of the excellent film. GoldenEye Wii is a new adaptation of the film (with some architecture borrowed from Rareware's game) which unfortunately discards just about everything which made the film a masterpiece. Just about every good line of dialogue was replaced. Even GE N64 has more faithful dialogue.

The new script was by Tomorrow Never Dies writer Bruce Feirstein. (What was Bond's key gadget in TND? A mobile phone. It's no wonder that all his Bond games heavily feature Bond doing stuff with a mobile phone. It's his fetish.)

GoldenEye Wii is a solid Eurocom Bond game. I'd rank it just below Nightfire. I absolutely hate the alterations to the storyline because they defang the narrative of all its punch and gravity. But the gameplay is stellar, building upon the foundation of earlier Eurocom games, combining stealth, gadgets, great gunplay, and, crap changes aside, decent storytelling.

GE Wii was basically a remake in the same way movies get slick remakes which miss what made the original story great.

Worth noting that GE Wii gets hate for having regen health, despite it being completely optional.

 

[C. Cain]

Sorry for digging this up again. I haven't seen Transformers 4 in its entirety, but just now I saw one particular (allegedly largely extraneous) scene which reminded me of this statement:

(...)

Even Transformers 4 is filled with subtext. (...) Sex jokes are replaced with sober reflection.

These works of art have meaningful things to say. But they just don't pretentiously preach at the audience.

<spoiler=Scene in question><youtube=r8Z8WMeyrwE>

So, this happened. Just to make things perfectly clear this needs to be articulated. It's a scene showing a caged vagina dentata literally squirting slime all over the face of one of the protagonists. He collapses to the ground and thinks he's melting before he realises it's just "shizzle". Then he proclaims the vagina-alien to be "too disturbing to live" and proceeds to shoot it dead... while calling it a *****. Sober reflection, indeed.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Sorry for digging this up again. I haven't seen Transformers 4 in its entirety, but just now I saw one particular (allegedly largely extraneous) scene which reminded me of this statement:

(...)

Even Transformers 4 is filled with subtext. (...) Sex jokes are replaced with sober reflection.

These works of art have meaningful things to say. But they just don't pretentiously preach at the audience.

<spoiler=Scene in question><youtube=r8Z8WMeyrwE>

So, this happened. Just to make things perfectly clear this needs to be articulated. It's a scene showing a caged vagina dentata literally squirting slime all over the face of one of the protagonists. He collapses to the ground and thinks he's melting before he realises it's just "shizzle". Then he proclaims the vagina-alien to be "too disturbing to live" and proceeds to shoot it dead... while calling it a *****. Sober reflection, indeed.

While you raise a valid point, I meant that when compared to previous films, Transformers 4 has significantly less sex jokes. The film is overall the least jokey, period. (The primary comedy relief character, Lucas Flannery, is killed a quarter of the way into the film. Transformers 3 killed Jerry Wang early on, too.) The humour in Transformers started to shift when Ehren Kruger took over as lead writer with Transformers 3, and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman departed. (Bear in mind those two were the most likely culprits for the slightly odd sexual stuff in the Star Trek reboots.) Transformers 4 is almost 3 hours long, and during that whole running time, not a single supermodel gets humped for comedy value.

 

[C. Cain]

While you raise a valid point, I meant that when compared to previous films, Transformers 4 has significantly less sex jokes.

That may well be the case. Now keep in mind that I'm essentially appealing to authority here. I acknowledge that I may be wrong and if you think that's enough to dismiss my opinion then that's alright.

Anyway, from what I was told there's a certain Father-Daughter-Dynamic in this film that comes with all sorts of horrible implications. Then there's the symbolism from that scene.

Now, that means we essentially kept all the problematic subtext and made it even more insidious by presenting it with either a straight face, or thinly veiling it with perplexingly overt symbolism.

The film is overall the least jokey, period. (The primary comedy relief character, Lucas Flannery, is killed a quarter of the way into the film. Transformers 3 killed Jerry Wang early on, too.)

Being less jokey is not necessarily a good thing. The jokes in the Transformers movies were evidently terrible, and there was a host of unfortunate implications. However, removing the bad jokes and keeping all the unfortunate implications and woeful storytelling doesn't make the films any better. That the jokes were not working was merely something everybody noticed immediately.

The humour in Transformers started to shift when Ehren Kruger took over as lead writer with Transformers 3, and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman departed. (Bear in mind those two were the most likely culprits for the slightly odd sexual stuff in the Star Trek reboots.)

Possibly.

Transformers 4 is almost 3 hours long, and during that whole running time, not a single supermodel gets humped for comedy value.

Instead we get, well, that scene. It is played for laughs, after all.

 

[Goliath100]

Define the difference between having a theme and exploring a theme.

Exploring a theme is going in depth, trying to tackle it from many different angles. Normally you use everything in the work to explore it.

Having a theme is just that, having it. It's just there, maybe with an overly simplistic answer like "trees are good" or "corporations are evil", without ever going in to why "trees are good" or "corporations are evil".

How was the GoldenEye remake not well designed?

Didn't I already tackle this one? Because it's a bland corridor/cover shooter. The pacing is terrible. Set scene, than nothing but shooting generic guards in bland corridors and set pieces. There is rarely enough room for anything but guns blazing. The guns feels lightweight. The level design is uninspired with nothing but chest high walls and the occasional set piece. It's just bad.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Exploring a theme is going in depth, trying to tackle it from many different angles. Normally you use everything in the work to explore it.

Having a theme is just that, having it. It's just there, maybe with an overly simplistic answer like "trees are good" or "corporations are evil", without ever going in to why "trees are good" or "corporations are evil".

In Black Ops 2's case, the game explores the dangers of automating the military using tech which requires rare earth elements. This is explicit. Woods gives speeches on how basing their entire military on a resource controlled by China is going to backfire on America. Then it proceeds to backfire horribly when Menendez takes control.
But then Menendez destroys the drones, which is a way of saying "I'm better than you."

Black Ops 2's big theme is the dangers of drones and the repercussions of America tyrannising other countries. Also, that you should never trust your allies. (You get betrayed by those you trust the most.)

Black Ops 1's big theme is also about not trusting your allies, nor your own government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kWgGtBk_7o

So in the case of the Black Ops games, the overarching themes are:

Insanity.
If you trust ANY government, you're going to end up burnt. Or gassed with experimental nerve gas. Or betrayed just after you took down an entire fleet of tanks and helicopters with a horse.
Drones are bad.

edit:

As Reznov puts it:

"Mason listen to me. We are running of the time my friend...Can you trust your leaders to destroy it... or you think they will use it? The flag may be different but the methods are the same. They will use you, as they used me...You must decide... decide what do you think is worth fighting for... Dragovich... Kravchenko... Steiner... These... 'men' ... must die."

How was the GoldenEye remake not well designed?

Didn't I already tackle this one? Because it's a bland corridor/cover shooter. The pacing is terrible. Set scene, than nothing but shooting generic guards in bland corridors and set pieces. There is rarely enough room for anything but guns blazing. The guns feels lightweight. The level design is uninspired with nothing but chest high walls and the occasional set piece. It's just bad.

But GoldenEye Wii has a heavy stealth emphasis. Many of the levels are designed around sneaking, with enemy patrols and methods for creating distractions and such. Knocking out enemies is an effective tactic. The Reloaded version broke the AI and along with it dumbed the game down significantly, but that's another kettle of fish. As for the guns having no weight, this is just like the Rareware GE game. Remember holding dual assault rifles in GoldenEye N64 and them having zero recoil?

edit:
Also, let's not forget Nightfire. A Eurocom GoldenEye was always going to be like Nightfire, not Rareware's GoldenEye. And I think that GoldenEye Wii managed to build upon Nightfire's base. If the writing had been better, GE Wii would've surpassed Nightfire, IMO.

 

[Goliath100]

Black Ops 1's big theme is also about not trusting your allies, nor your own government.

In other words: "The all governments are evil." Question: Why?

Oh look, an overly simplistic answer:

If you trust ANY government, you're going to end up burnt. Or gassed with experimental nerve gas. Or betrayed just after you took down an entire fleet of tanks and helicopters with a horse.

Why would any "government" do any of that?

But GoldenEye Wii has a heavy stealth emphasis. Many of the levels are designed around sneaking, with enemy patrols and methods for creating distractions and such. Knocking out enemies is an effective tactic.

The stealth sucks. Almost all good stealth games has open level design, see Hitman: Blood Money & Thief 2. Goldeneye is a corridor shooter were just shooting people is faster.

As for the guns having no weight, this is just like the Rareware GE game. Remember holding dual assault rifles in GoldenEye N64 and them having zero recoil?

Don't even try to compare a game from 2010 to one in 1997, must less excuse it. You have already compared it to Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order, so that's the standard here. Got that?

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Black Ops 1's big theme is also about not trusting your allies, nor your own government.

In other words: "The all governments are evil." Question: Why?

Oh look, an overly simplistic answer:

If you trust ANY government, you're going to end up burnt. Or gassed with experimental nerve gas. Or betrayed just after you took down an entire fleet of tanks and helicopters with a horse.

Why would any "government" do any of that?

But GoldenEye Wii has a heavy stealth emphasis. Many of the levels are designed around sneaking, with enemy patrols and methods for creating distractions and such. Knocking out enemies is an effective tactic.

The stealth sucks. Almost all good stealth games has open level design, see Hitman: Blood Money & Thief 2. Goldeneye is a corridor shooter were just shooting people is faster.

As for the guns having no weight, this is just like the Rareware GE game. Remember holding dual assault rifles in GoldenEye N64 and them having zero recoil?

Don't even try to compare a game from 2010 to one in 1997, must less excuse it. You have already compared it to Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order, so that's the standard here. Got that?

I'm simply noting that Rareware/Eurocom games have a history of weapons which lack significant recoil. IIRC, Nightfire's weapons handled a lot like GE Wii's. You say GoldenEye Wii is a corridor shooter, but so are Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

GE: Wii is mostly built around a series of semi-open areas where raising the alarm will bring reinforcements. The ideal way to proceed is to avoid being spotted. The game also has pure run-n-gun sections, but even these benefit from stealthly play. Especially if you're not using regen health. Some missions have vents you can crawl though, or hide in. A key game mechanic is melee attacks, which are silent and non-lethal, and these are almost identical to the attacks in Metro: Last Light.

It's weird how GE: Wii and 007: Legends openly punishes players for being spotted by triggering reinforcements, yet so many players refuse to master the stealth mechanics and instead keep firing away like crazy.

 

[Goliath100]

GE: Wii is mostly built around a series of semi-open areas...

No, it's not. It's go from Objective Marker 1 to Objective Marker 2 to Objective Marker 3.

You say GoldenEye Wii is a corridor shooter, but so are Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

1: Neither of them has Objective Markers.
2: Both of them has bigger combat areas with alot of room for stealth.
3: Both of them are pased properly.
4: Both of them has a lot more atmosfar than Goldeneye (with Metro being in the top tier).

 

[Evonisia]

I'm simply noting that Rareware/Eurocom games have a history of weapons which lack significant recoil. IIRC, Nightfire's weapons handled a lot like GE Wii's. You say GoldenEye Wii is a corridor shooter, but so are Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

Somebody didn't play Wolfenstein: The New Order, clearly.

The singleplayer of the Battlefield games are corridor shooters, Wolfenstein: TNO is a linear game with open ended levels. This is a bit like when Diesel- called BioShock and Halo corridor shooters when trying to call Half-Life this grand FPS in terms of level design.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

GE: Wii is mostly built around a series of semi-open areas...

No, it's not. It's go from Objective Marker 1 to Objective Marker 2 to Objective Marker 3.

You say GoldenEye Wii is a corridor shooter, but so are Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

1: Neither of them has Objective Markers.
2: Both of them has bigger combat areas with alot of room for stealth.
3: Both of them are pased properly.
4: Both of them has a lot more atmosfar than Goldeneye (with Metro being in the top tier).

This is somewhat incorrect. Metro: Last Light has a compass and map telling you where to go. Also, GoldenEye Wii's objective markers only mark primary objectives. Secondary objectives require exploration. (There are lots of side areas to explore.)

I respect your right to not like GoldenEye Wii, but your criticisms don't all add up. GoldenEye Wii was built for a machine with 80MB of RAM. It's going to be a bit cramped. But by your logic, Metal Gear Solid 3 is a terrible stealth game because it has cramped map designs.

I'm not saying GoldenEye Wii has world class stealth mechanics, but I would suggest the AI is a lot better than Wolfenstein's, since it doesn't struggle to spot you on the other side of a table.

I understand that you might consider objective markers to be a sin, but look at it this way - Call of Duty: Ghosts has almost no objective markers. But this doesn't make it better than FPS games which have objective markers.

edit:

I'm simply noting that Rareware/Eurocom games have a history of weapons which lack significant recoil. IIRC, Nightfire's weapons handled a lot like GE Wii's. You say GoldenEye Wii is a corridor shooter, but so are Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

Somebody didn't play Wolfenstein: The New Order, clearly.

The singleplayer of the Battlefield games are corridor shooters, Wolfenstein: TNO is a linear game with open ended levels. This is bit like when Diesel- called BioShock and Halo corridor shooters when trying to call Half-Life this grand FPS in terms of level design.

Wolfenstein: TNO isn't THAT open-ended.

Early in the game, Battlefield 4 presents you with a massive street area with some buildings. You're then told to destroy tanks patrolling the area. The game is filled with wide open areas where you can proceed however you wish.

Wolfenstein: TNO is a very constrained game. ID Tech 5 sucks at handling wide open spaces. Frostbite does not. Wolfenstein compensates by having lots of winding corridors which give an illusion of freedom while still bringing you to the exact same linear place. It frequently blocks your progress backwards.

Maybe our definition of corridor shooter differs.