Talk:GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)

"All Bonds" cheat

Per the WP:VG guidelines and Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and attribution, the "All Bonds" cheat is not covered in reliable secondary sources, nor is it notable in a general video gaming context. The ambiguities and speculation involved make it difficult to cover, but I also don't see the argument for including it at all. Unlike the Konami Code or Hot Coffee, this cheat/feature did not really have a media or popular culture impact. Additionally, this article needs to reduce primary source game citations and make sure to express content from a layman's perspective (ie, not tied to game worlds or mechanics). Andre (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree on the reliable sources part, as everything needs a good source, I disagree with the lack of notability. This cheat was supposedly widely published, and there was supposedly a fan outrage. If we can find a reliable source for that information, I think a mention of the cheat should be added back in. — trlkly 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not a cheat. The All Bonds option was in the game as a default thing. Also on the select screen of the game where you choose a file; you

could highlight Brosnan's picture and by hitting the "d-pad" switch to pictures of different bonds. This feature was re-added in the Never Say Never Again mod on http://www.goldeneyevault.com , There have been many attempts at returning the "All Bonds" feature to the game; however with the lack of the original head models in the game's coding; many new face textures have been made to accompany to certain UV Coordinates on other character models so their heads can be replaced to use in the All Bond mods; these can also be found at goldeneyevault.com 71.234.96.237 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-apply for GA status

I think that the article is worthy of good article staus application again. I cannot apply it, as I am not a significgant contributar to the article, but someone who has made a decent amount of contributions to the page, should, in my eyes, put it up for nomination. It has been fixed up since it was rejected earlier. De Mattia (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Geddan

What about Geddan (Get Down), the meme started by a glitch in this game where the characters suddenly, and at random times, start spazzing out in seizures because the cartridge was tilted? TheGreenMartian (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What about it? I am slightly confused. Lots42 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The glitch can be seen in this video when people start spinning and bouncing around randomly. Later on someone added music with the words "Get Down" (sounds like "geddan") to it and a meme was born. Hellbus (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Remake Arriving This November

Pre-release trailer here.

And so it begins. 69.120.147.64 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we gonna make a new page for it or is it gona be here on this page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and get an image and maybe we could set up an info table on the same page rather than do another page! --Nick 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs)

I have a question: GoldenEye was a film, starring Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. GoldenEye 007 was a Nintendo 64 game based on that movie (and also starred Brosnan, as Bond -- because it was based on the movie).

Now they're creating a remake of GoldenEye, and, even though Brosnan starred in the original film, Daniel Craig is the main Bond. Am I the ONLY one who thinks this is blasphemy to a classic?

I just hope they have the All Bonds 'cheat' included with the game, and you can still choose to be Pierce Bondsnan. :/ -Kizul Emeraldfire (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing is, the original GoldenEye 007 game never had Pierce Brosnan's likeness or his voice. It was just a generic template Bond. I'm guessing that was because video games were in their infancy at this point, and it wasn't considered important for an actor to offer his own voice in a video game. If I'm not mistaken, I think Brosnan only voiced Bond in one game, Everything or Nothing in 2004. In a sense that game was like his 5th Bond movie. Anyway, back to the point: yes I do think it's a sort of blasphemy for them to have used Craig's likeness and voice in this game. Especially with Judy Dench still being in the game as M, it just feels wrong. If you check out the trailer you even see Craig do the infamous bungee jump off the dam. I think that if they couldn't get Brosnan (or didn't want to), they should have either used just a generic Bond template as with the earlier Bond games, or allow the player to select his own "Bond". — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actualy the character select screen had a picture of Brosnan and I would argue the "generic" looking character model looked more like Brosnan than any actor to take the role prior or since. Anon 02:17, 12 October 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.247.150 (talk)

Boxart

Someone mention the goddamn error in this boxart. His mouth stretches past the gun. MaraquanWocky (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's part of his hand, holding the gun. Even if it was an error, it would be trivial, unless it attracted significant attention in reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dedicated Modding Community

While this was briefly touched upon within the Citadel section, GoldenEye Forever's message boards have expanded on to making levels from scratch and doing mods for the game's coding as well as Perfect Dark.

All of this can be viewed at "GoldeneyeVault.com"

Would this be article worthy or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.96.237 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Alec Trevelyan

I know Kevin Bayliss was the voice of James Bond in the video game, but who was the voice of Alec Trevelyan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.108.6 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no speech in the game, unless you count grunts of pain as speech. All dialogue is in text form.--Drat (Talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah ! I did not remember that ! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.108.6 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The guard grunts are actually generic sound effects. I'm sure everyone has heard the funny overused-but-classic "UNHHHHH!!!" sound from either Whacked Out Sports or Smash Cuts. I'm sure Kevin Bayliss did the coughing sound in the Facility, when the gas starts to fill the bottling room. RadiumMetal (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GoldenEye X Mod

There is currently a mod going on at the moment, porting GoldenEye over onto it's updated engine (which Rare used for Perfect Dark)

all information on it can be found here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.96.237 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New Image Proposal

I'd like to propose the use of an image I have just uploaded, along with my suggestions for the accompanying text. thumb|left|The popular Facility level has seen numerous redesigns in GoldenEye's spiritual and commercial successors. Appearances clockwise from top left: GoldenEye 007, Quantum of Solace, Perfect Dark, and GoldenEye: Source.

I believe these screenshots are helpful in illustrating GoldenEye's influence and legacy, by showing elements of its design appearing in games over a decade later. I'm not terribly experienced in these matters so I'd like to receive input here first. Are there any issues with this that need to be addressed? DarkGreen (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd change it from PD on XLA to PD on N64, but otherwise seems like a decent idea. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The main difference between the two versions of Perfect Dark is texture resolution, so I don't think it will make a significant difference. In any case, I'm going to add the image now, though any objections should still be raised of course. DarkGreen (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Demonstration Image appears incorrect

It appears that the man's mouth extends beyond what would be ordinary or even possible for any human. I believe that the demonstration image has been doctored. We need a higher quality version of the original to show that the correct image does not depict a deformed person and is not doctored.

I am appalled that the high quality scholars at wikipedia were unable to pick this up. Perhaps my faith in articles such as Jew were unfounded. 130.56.80.185 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This has already been addressed on this talk page. It's his hand holding the gun.--Drat (Talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I've taken a really good look at it, it does look very weird. But have a look at the poster for the film. It seems in creating the game boxart, Rare brightened the images of Bond and Xenia's faces greatly, but decreased the detail as a result, inadvertently creating the appearance of a distortion of his face. They also moved the explosion, covering up part of his hands, and adding to the illusion.--Drat (Talk) 18:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GoldenEye 007/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Scampioen (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks great, but got a few comments. On hold till they are adressed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• "The multiplayer mode features all of the characters in the game, including enemies and civilians. At first, only 8 characters are available, with 25 more becoming available as progress is made through the game"

Perhaps "singleplayer campaign" is better than "game"? It was confusing the first time I read it.

• "Also, when a player slaps, it's only viewable from the first person perspective. When viewed through the third person, the other player would seem not to be throwing a punch."

I don't really understand what you mean here. The sentence seems a bit out of place to me (is this relevant to multiplayer gameplay?). Also, it's the first time you talk about switching perspectives. If the player is able to do so, wouldn't it be better to mention it up higher?

• Made a minor edit myself, if you disagree please tell me

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• Ref. 28 gives a cite error to me (appearing in red).
• Ref. 21 is missing page numbers
• Ref. 22 is missing a publisher
• Ref. 30 is a dead link it seems
• Ref. 29 doesn't seems to be leading to the correct information (it should mention the Virtual Boy Goldeneye Racing game, but can't see it)
• ref. 35 publisher?
• ref. 37 author, publisher?
• ref 46-52 publisher?

1. C. No original research:

• "It also topped their most recent list of the top 10 multiplayer games." is unsourced. Can you find the a/the source?

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Just a quick comment: are there really no negative reviews or points of critique you can mention? (don't go digging one up from an obscure magazine, it's ok for me if there are none in the major publications).

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are tagged, both are fair use but doesn't seem a problem to me (as far as i know).

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Relevant

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great article, i'll give you some time to adress the issues raised. If anyone else has comments, feel free to add them! Also, other editors seem to have contributed significantly to this article. Are they aware of this GAN?

I'm going to comment here that the user which nominated the article essentially did so as a driveby nomination, along with a number of other articles. Suggest quick-failing until main contributors are ready to take to GA. --Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statement. Besides, I think there are a lot of issues with this article, and I don't see this passing GAN in a week's time. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Quick Fail untill it's improved/the main editors take it to GAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampioen (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

I suggest we move this article to GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) and redirect GoldenEye 007 to Goldeneye (disambiguation). Reasons:

• There are more than one game titled GoldenEye 007. There's even an upcoming game titled GoldenEye 007: Reloaded.
• Some use GoldenEye 007 for the film.
• GoldenEye 007 (1997 video games) is more persistent for possible future new titles.

Thoughs? --Niwi3 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the move was done by User:Gorrrillla5. In any case, I've fixed every and each dablink of every and each (content) article that linked to GoldenEye 007. It was a long shot but it's finally done. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've just finished to upload a full rewrite for the article. The crufty subsections have been entirely thrown out. All the sections have been redone, and referenced as best I can for the moment. I will give it another go-through to make sure that it's up to snuff when I have time. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Check the Alts I suggest you put some in prior to the review. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done a quick spell check for you and made a couple of changes. The only other suggestion I'd make is around the dates used (largely in the references) which are in DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY format. As per WP:DATESNO, these should really be written in full to get you through the review. Good luck! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I had some spare time, so I've done the dates for you.- SchroCat (^ • @) 08:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article today and tomorrow. Please be patient. Quick question: do the article's main contributors agree that this should be up for GA review? I note that there was disagreement about this recently. AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but those issues have already been adressed as far as I know. The article seems basically done in my eyes and I agree it should be up for a GAR. In any case, I'm going to ask Nick R and see if he has any more objections, just to make sure everything is good to go. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I compared versions from the last GA review to now and there has been significant change, much of it for the better. I think it's a pretty good looking article. One thing that does concern me is that some language occasionally seems too informal (a systematic problem among video game articles). It's not too bad here, and I can give specific examples in the review, but you and the other editors might want to reread it with an eye toward making sure all the language is formal. AstroCog (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned about is that the article currently emphasises how influential the game was. IMO influence is a very difficult thing to measure, and other than the points about the sniper rifle and stealth elements, the cited sources are pretty vague and don't really say exactly which aspects of it were influential. I think that if the article is going to make big claims like "one of the most influential ever", it would really need a couple of very specific examples of how GoldenEye's innovations fed back into the design of PC FPSs, but the cited sources don't support this.

For example, the prominently-cited GamaSutra page makes the vague claims "Today's FPS games are still based on styles that came from GoldenEye" and "started the influx of console-based shooters we see nowadays".

However, something more specific is mentioned several times on that page:

• "proved that it was possible to create a fun FPS experience on a console"
• "the first big console FPS that truly got it right"
• "the first viable and well done console FPS"
• "The command system took great advantage of the N64 controller, and with something very different from a mouse and a keyboard, suited the genre's requirements".

So I think that emphasis tone of the lead and Reception/Impact section should shift to how it was the first notable, well-received console-exclusive FPS, developed with a console control scheme in mind, and with an extremely popular multiplayer mode. These are much easier claims to support, because pretty much every retrospective article about the game says something along those lines, but not many of them give specific examples of how it was influential. --Nick R^Talk 13:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

These are good points and good ideas that I think should be incorporated into the article. AstroCog (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   In the plot section, I am confused about the part near the end saying "An original mission shows..." I don't know what that means. Does it mean that there was an original plot point that was not added to the movie or video game, or that this part of the game's plot is original and not from the film? In any case, it should be clarified or removed.

It means that this part of the game is original and not from the film. I've clarified it. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a very basic copy-edit of the article for grammar and spelling. AstroCog (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Per discussion above, statements about the game being "widely considered one of the most influential" games of all time could be OR without a consensus of reliable sources.

Something should be done with reliable sources to support the juxtaposition of the four "spiritual successors" in the final image. Fix the fair-use rationales to say the mosaic images are altered from the originals.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Pretty good here.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm concerned that the vast majority of sources used in the article are from websites or magazines that only write about video games. While it's good to have these sources, I think there should be some sources that are neutral to video games in general. If sources like these have written about the game, then there should be a good effort put into finding them and using them here.

   * This is an issue for promotions beyond GA status. I suggest using doing library research for articles with databases.AstroCog (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image of the game box needs appropriate alt-text. Also, I'm concerned that the images that show screenshot comparisons don't state in their fair-use rationales that the images were originally presented separately. The final image, with four screenshots, borders on WP:OR because the text in that section doesn't talk about how the screens looked similar for all those games...just that their designs were related.

I was thinking about removing the final image, the one with the four screenshots, as I can't find anything to support it. Besides, I think it can be excessive fair use. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove it, you've got my blessing! AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall: Article is improved since GA review started. Good job, editors. AstroCog (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

I've improved the impact section with these points. If it still needs more work, please let me know. I also think we should remove the "one of the most influential games of all time" line from the lead and summarize the changes. As for finding sources that are neutral to video games in general, they will be very hard to find. Frankly, I don't even know how to start. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Genre innovations?

Is there a citable source for the claims that this game introduced a zoomable sniper rifle and stealth elements to fps gameplay? I remember using both of those thing in Team Fortress before Goldeneye came out (see http://www.moddb.com/mods/team-fortress). unless (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

see this --Niwi3 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And also the quote from Steven Poole's Trigger Happy. --Nick R^Talk 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The way you've rephrased it is much better, kudos. unless (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A rare Rare developer interview

http://mundorare.com/features/the-men-who-knew-too-much Enjoy, Axem Titanium (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Release date

An anon. IP has edited the page to alter the release date:

Despite common misconception, the game was NOT released in all territories simultaneously, and it came out in November, not August. I have no idea why everybody thinks it was August. I'm looking at a copy of Dec 97 N64 Mag right now - it was Nov.

GameSpot's review is dated August 1997, and when Edge recently put their original review online, they said it was originally printed in the July 1997 issue. (Edge is a UK publication, but its reviews usually reflect a game's earliest worldwide release - or at least its earliest English language release.)

To the anon editor: a magazine with a different release date might prove your assertion that the game was not a simultaneous worldwide release. So what country is your copy of that magazine from?

Does anyone else have copies of magazines from the game's launch that could be cited as references for its release date? --Nick R^Talk 23:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Any other reviews that say this game doesn't age well?

If Destructoid review is unreliable, where are any other recent reviews that say how this game is right now? --George Ho (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This review comes from Nintendo Life, but it doesn't look affiliated with Nintendo or any other site than Eurogamer. Is this reliable? --George Ho (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to this list, yes it is. If you are going to say that this game has not aged well, please detail and explain why. Use the last paragraph of the reception section of the Perfect Dark article as an example. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added this source, so I hope I've made a good edit. --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Reception and Legacy section is becoming too big

Any ideas on how to split it into smaller subsections? I was thinking something like this.--Niwi3 (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about Goldeneye features.

Here are some quotes that are in the article: "GoldenEye 007 is considered an important game in the history of first-person shooters for demonstrating the viability of game consoles as platforms for the genre, and for signalling a transition from the then-standard Doom-like approach to a more realistic style. It pioneered features that have since become common in first-person shooters, such as varied mission objectives, a zoomable sniper rifle, stealth elements, and a console multiplayer deathmatch mode."

Almost everything about this is a lie. not one any of this is true. Noe of it. zero. And there is no source, because it's bullshit. GE is a good game but it did no such thing and I will be deleting this. off.

Next up: "The game's use of context-sensitive hit locations on the enemies added a realism that was previously unseen in video games."

While this is sourced, it's still bullshit. It has been in games before. I have never seen such a favorism ridden article like this one in a long time and am wondering if anyone even noticed any of this was here.Leeroyhim (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See this --Niwi3 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"While this is sourced, it's still bullshit." See WP:original research. Wikipedia reports what RS say; there is no favoritism involved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah the Dreamcast man is here! Yeah, where is your proof that Goldeneye did all the above? While you try to find a made up source I will nicely point you out to this game called Quake and its mods. Both of which containted more realistic graphics, both of which, have mission objective, both of which have a sniper rifle (and even in the article it has MDK in the reception section for popularizing the sniper rifle and that came out before GE.) it had a death match mode. then there are many games before that have that stuff as well, but i suppose I got to work one at a time for Goldeneye as i usually do.

Here are some numerous sources you can look, You can look at the Quake wikipedia page, watch a quake video, go through the Team Fortress update LIST RIGHT HERE: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3fSC-kfDRYJ:www.planetfortress.com/fort/text/versions.txt+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

(From bottom to top since it's in order that way) and realize that you are incorrect good sir. I also like how you pretend that wikipedia sources are never wrong, and looking through a couple pages of your edits, only when it benefits you but i am not going to jump to conclusions, maybe you actually believe what's on the page.Leeroyhim (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope so.

I changed the media in gameplay, if I did, tell me what I did wrong. Jct400thz (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)