It's the fifth installment! Hooray! This calls for a Milestone Celebration
even though it's not that great a milestone! Anyways the subject for today is Goldeneye
for the Wii
. What many people don't seem to understand is that this game is most definitely NOT a remake. Updated Re-release
, maybe, but not a remake. It isn't the same as the Nintendo64 game and isn't meant to be. Oh, but not to Bimmyand Jimmy
! (Good lord why a Double Dragon
3 reference) What especially grinds my gears is that this guy's review is at the top of the page and has a star next to it for whatever reason. I would HOPE it doesn't mean anything positive.
By the way, even the forum users were not amused by this review. It's that bad.
This game also marks the first time in YEARS that I have ever rented a NEW game. I'm dead serious, and it is just goes to show how distant new video games are to me nowadays ever since it seems the business became more fascinated with money than developing creative, original and just plain kick ass games.
Not far into the review we find our reviewer suffers from a Nostalgia Filter
I couldn't wait to get back and do everything that I could have done in the original... BUT, unfortunately, it wasn't the true remake of the game like we so desperately wanted. Worse of all, ITS ON THE WII, they last console you would EVER expect a First Person Shooter game to ever be on. Really, go ahead, name one great, or even good FPS game on the Wii. It just isn't possible since the controllers themselves aren't FPS compatible...at ALL.
Well gee, I dunno, people seem to like the Call of Duty
series, The Conduit
, and oh yeah, Metroid Prime
. Didn't Game Spot
say the Metroid Prime
3 controls were good? (Well, too good
In the original game, to ensure a fun and challenging game, each level was design to ensure the use of stealth as well as to showcase the many of items, CPU characters and their attributes and ability's, perfect in every way imaginable.
Of course double-oh-sucker's precious, precious G64 couldn't possibly be flawed in any way...yeah, I got two words for you: Protect Natalya.
For most of the game, all I did was shoot mindless and uninteresting enemies, occasionally broken by performing some lame action move. There was hardly any fast, intense action or objectives to complete. Worse, there was hardly any interesting details or Easter eggs to be found anywhere. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Everything just felt concrete and hardly a joy to experience.
Good lord, this is worse than Gaming In The Clinton Years
. This guy should start a review show called "Gaming In The Obama Years". It would totally work.
The enemies are just pathetic and nonsensical. Gone are the realistic AI and complex decision making.
Yeah. Realistic. It's totally realistic for enemies to not notice their hats being shot off, or to somehow suffer damage when a bullet hits their GUN.
This game, however, felt that cheapening out and having enemies spawn out no were and running in to a new room that you haven't explored would have been a great idea. Is it? OF COURSE IT ISN'T! Not only does it feel rather insulting, it just isn't fair that enemies can just come out of nowhere and ambush you without reacting fast enough to kill them in time before you loose a truckload of health.
So It's Hard, so It Sucks
? I didn't even find the game that difficult...well, on the easiest setting, that is.
Still, don't panic to much though, because the game designers gave you some mercy by allowing you to fill your life bar just as long as you don't get hit for a period of time, you know, the same tiresome, old feature just about every single other FPS game made to date seems has. By the way if you can't tell from my tone, this is absolute bulls***. You know you've got a poorly created level design and game play when the only way you can survive is by having you life refill for you. Its garbage like this that just make FPS games these days the numbingly dull and easy to beat crap it is today, and me begging the question why a lot of people prefer FPS games these days over the ones made in the 90's. God damn, at least back then when producers of FPS game gave a crap, they made games not only challenging, but kick ass at the same time.
Ooh, the regenerating life argument. For the unaware (the reviewer included) yes, your health DOES regenerate, but not when you're in the thick of battle and getting hit several times! I've died plenty of times even WITH regenerating health, and for the people who are still sore about their obviously-flawless G64, Activision
included a difficulty level in which health does NOT regenerate, as a throwback to the "good" old days. Of course, everyone ignores it so they have a chance to complain and get more attention! ARGH
Artistically, there isn't much that can be said. Everything is, to put it in like terms, pretty much the same shade of color through the whole game, making for a rather boring, and in some way, nauseating color pallet. Seriously, after sometimes playing this game for a couple hours upon end, it actually gave me numerous headaches and pains in my body. Trust me; I'm not an unhealthy person who sits in front of his TV screen all day, oh by the way, before you start labeling me, NO, I'm not at all one to bash on the Wii's technical limitations, because there really are game on this console that actually look wonderful.
Even if you weren't biased against the Wii you shouldn't announce yourself like that. How the hell can anyone even get sick from the graphics? I've heard of epilepsy but this is just retarded.
I cant count how many times I spent just blindly shoot everywhere without hitting anyone, while they, on the other hand, could take easy pop shots at you without error. To reference an old saying that I've used before: THAT IS JUST LAZY PROGRAMING.
You seriously couldn't see anything in the game? Turn up the brightness and try again. On second thought, don't bother, you've lost your credibility as it is already.
As for the Multiplayer, seeing as how I didn't find anyone to play with (since I don't have on-line for my Wii and were to lazy to invite people to play it), I guess I can't really complain about this, nor can I give any credit…BUT I know I disappointed SOME users that I didn't include a full multiplayer section in this so called “awful” review, so I'll try to elaborate a bit more.
Yes, you assume correctly: He did not, at first, say anything about the multiplayer at all, claiming that it must suck because the rest of the game does even though he never tried it himself.
I don't see any need to go on. You know what, Bimmyand Jimmy
? Your review is, in fact, horrible. Even by GameFAQs
standards. I can't even believe this shit was allowed on the site, let alone get a fucking star next to it! Who the hell greenlit this?! He outright states that he only RENTED the game, didn't try the multiplayer at all, and probably didn't finish the game because he's so bad at it. If you've only rented it and have not finished it, you should not be reviewing it!
Even the forum users knew you were spouting Blatant Lies
, and when the GameFAQs
forum users agree that your review sucks, THAT is saying something.