Can GoldenEye 007 (Wii) Legally be Ported to the Xbox 360 and PS3?

Coffee Beans:
     GoldenEye 007 on the Wii was a huge surprise to many when Nintendo showed the debut trailer for it at E3 this year(though because of the idiocy at IGN, it was spoiled to many the day before, when they uploaded the trailer and left it public for a few hours).
     When the announcement was made, many people probably wondered like me, "Will this GoldenEye be just like the original?"
     Two questions that also seemed to surface quickly after GoldenEye 007 Wii's announcement was, "Why the Wii?", and whether or not it would stay a Wii exclusive.

     I have seen a few comments that GoldenEye on the Wii can't be ported to the other consoles, because of Nintendo holding the license to the original; and also because Nintendo helped Activision with this version of GoldenEye, by providing advice and working some with Eurocom during development.

     So, from the information that we know about GoldenEye on the Wii, and past GoldenEye video games, does evidence suggest it will remain a Wii exclusive, or will it be a timed "exclusive" like many other games in history?  Can GoldenEye 007 on the Wii legally be ported to the Xbox 360 and PS3?  Let's take a look...

Roasting - GoldenEye's Console Gaming History:
     GoldenEye 007 was originally released on August 25, 1997.  The game was developed by Rareware, and published by Nintendo, for the N64.  The game was based off of the James Bond movie of the same name, and had players playing through levels as James Bond, who was imaged after Pierce Brosnan from the movie.  The game received critical praise when it was released, and sat at the top of the Nintendo sales chart for months.

     With the release of the new consoles this generation, and services like Microsoft's XBLA and Nintendo's Virtual Console, many wondered if GoldenEye 007 would get re-released.  Rare developed GoldenEye, but was purchased by Microsoft; Nintendo published GoldenEye 007.  So, according to many reports, both Microsoft and Nintendo would have to agree on re-releasing the game, but that hasn't happened.

     Fast-forward to November 22, 2004, and gamers were given a new GoldenEye game.  The game was GoldenEye: Rogue Agent, and it was developed and published by Electronic Arts.  GoldenEye: Rogue Agent did not have players in the role of James Bond, but instead players were playing as a...you guessed it, a "Rogue Agent" who had a "golden eye" of sorts.
     While GoldenEye: Rogue Agent was released on all the consoles at that time, GameCube, PS2 and Xbox; it was not received as well critically, as the original GoldenEye 007 on the N64.
     Here are the review score averages for GoldenEye: Rogue Agent on each console:

     Fast-forward again, to Tuesday, November 2, 2010.  GoldenEye 007 for the Wii was released, and since the initial announcement at E3, we learned that GoldenEye 007 on the Wii isn't a direct port of the N64 version, but it is a remake/re-imagining of the original Nintendo 64's GoldenEye 007 and the GoldenEye movie.

     GoldenEye 007 for the Wii was developed by Eurocom, and published by Activision; and Activision holds the James Bond license for making any James Bond video games.

     While GoldenEye 007 Wii has only been out a week now, the game seems to have been received pretty well by the "professionals".  While the game isn't reviewing as well as the original did, it is reviewing better than GoldenEye: Rogue Agent did a few years back.

     While players play as James Bond, they aren't playing the Pierce Brosnan James Bond character, instead James Bond in GoldenEye 007 for the Wii is imaged/acted by Daniel Craig, the current actor filling the role of James Bond in the movies and games.

Brewing - What We Know:

     So, we have three video games set in the James Bond universe, that all have the name GoldenEye in their titles.  Two are console "exclusives", while one was a multi-console release.

     As soon as the new GoldenEye was announced at E3, it seemed every preview/hands-on with the game quickly adapted to calling the game just "GoldenEye".  With the initial trailer showing off footage from the dam level, and gamers repeatedly hearing/reading "GoldenEye", many thought it was going to be a direct port of the original.

     The levels in GoldenEye 007 Wii are not designed exactly the same as the N64's GoldenEye, and there are different levels in the single-player campaign, as well as the multiplayer.

     One of the regular readers here on CoffeewithGames said two of his friends purchased the new Wii GoldenEye, but are planning to return it.  Why were they planning to return(or trade-in) GoldenEye already?

     According to NicodemusatNite, when speaking about his friends that purchased and are planning to return GoldenEye, he said, "Yeah, they didn't like the controls, and the multiplayer levels...(the) multiplayer levels aren't the same, and that was the biggest reason they got the game."

     While it appears Nintendo gave advice to Eurocom, only a few Nintendo employees are given a "thank you" in GoldenEye 007's credits.

     I think this "Thanks" is a big key whether GoldenEye 007 can be ported to the PS3 and Xbox 360, as it's a "Thanks" and not an actual credit to Nintendo for anything specific on the development/publishing side.

The Cup of Coffee aka The Verdict:

     Here's the list of things that are different from GoldenEye 007 on the Wii, compared to the original GoldenEye 007 on the Nintendo 64:

• GoldenEye Wii has Daniel Craig as James Bond, not Pierce Brosnan
• GoldenEye Wii was developed by Eurocom, not Rareware
• GoldenEye Wii was published by Activision, not Nintendo
• GoldenEye Wii's levels are different, redesigned some from the original, while others are completely new

     As for Nintendo being mentioned in the credits, I researched a few of the names from the Nintendo "thank you" list in the credits, and most seem to be in management or licensing departments/positions at Nintendo.

     Based off of this information, I would say that GoldenEye 007 can be ported to the PS3 and Xbox 360.  I don't think it's a matter anymore of "IF", but perhaps now the question should be, "When will GoldenEye 007 be ported to the PS3 and Xbox 360?"

Questions:

     If you have purchased GoldenEye 007 on the Wii, what do you think of it?  If you are playing online, my friend code for the game is, 2043-7355-3797.
     Do any of you think, like myself, GoldenEye 007 on the Wii will be a timed exclusive only, based on the information I provided above?


If you are interested in GoldenEye 007 for the Wii, or GoldenEye 007: Reloaded for the PS3 and Xbox 360, you can see prices listed on Amazon.com linked below:
      

Should There Be Game Review Standards?

The Roast:
     If you are like myself, you have probably played and enjoyed a video game, then perhaps found a review that you didn't agree with on the game.

     When the original Mercenaries released in 2005, I purchased it day one for my Xbox.  I really enjoyed the game, and thought it was well worth the $50 I payed for it.  I had more than 40 hours of game-play on just the first play-through of the game.
     I remember getting my copy of GameInformer that had the review for Mercenaries in it.  I could not believe the game received a review score of 7.5 out 10!  I emailed the reviewer, asking why certain things were left out of the review about the game.  My biggest complaint about the "review" was the fact he did not mention how long he played the game, or if he even completed it.

     The second post I ever posted on the site, was titled, "An Open Letter to Adam Biessener of GameInformer".  I emailed Adam Biessener about his review for The Conduit, and how it lacked information.  As with my first email to Game Informer back in 2005, I still have not received a reply from Adam(or anybody at GameInformer).

     Those are just a few reviewers I have disagreed with, there are more.

The Grind:
     My biggest issue with reviewers on major sites is that I rarely know how long they played the game before "reviewing" it.  I think a good example of this was with The Conduit.  The Conduit's multi-player was plagued with glitches, and  I don't believe there was a single reviewer from any of the larger sites that addressed them in their reviews.

     Addressing the question, "Should there be game review standards?"  I believe that every review, especially from the major sites, should include one thing for the readers to know; and I believe every reviewer should do at least one thing before playing  a game and then writing a review.

The Brew:
     1.  The amount of time the game was played - If the game has single-player and multi-player, how many hours/minutes were spent with each should be included in the review.  If a game has a single-player campaign, it would be nice to know if the campaign was finished.
          IGN.com recently changed their review scale, but not really their review policy.  I found it interesting they bothered with changing the scale of reviews, but not the policy as to what information is provided to the readers of the reviews.

          In IGN.com's "Reviews Policy", they have a Q&A section for it, and one question is, "Do you 'complete' games before reviewing them?"  Well, the answer was, "Not always.  Keep in mind, that not every game can be 'beaten'...", as if this needs explaining, they mention puzzlers, sports games, and MMOs as games with "no real end".

         What I found really interesting about this Q&A, was when they said, "As a general rule, IGN's philosophy is that editors should play an assigned game as much as they need to in order to give a fair, in-depth review that can accurately represent the overall experience."

          So, currently at IGN(and many other sites it seems), if a reviewer plays a game for 1 hour or less, they can write a review and call it a day, and the readers have no idea how much the game was played.  Does that make any sense?
          There are very few reviewers that do provide the hours played, that I know of.
          Nintendo-Okie.com's Tony Miller provides how he obtained the game, as well as "Total Play Time".  He recently reviewed Madden NFL 11 for the Wii, and his "Total Play Time" for the review was 27 hours!

I wonder if Matt Casamassina finished this game
before he "reviewed" it, or was he busy applying for his Apple job instead?

     2.  Read the game's instruction manual & control options - This is what I believe every reviewer should do before playing a game.
          Since the Wii(and some PS3 games) introduced motion/gesture controls this generation, I think reviewers really need to read the instruction manuals and control options in games.  When The Conduit released on the Wii it wasn't perfect.  What it did get right though, and set the "standard" for Wii FPS games, was the customizable control options.
          I still have trouble understanding how reviewers complained about the controls in the game.  One "reviewer" for The Conduit said of the controls, "...after wrestling with the terrible controls...", then wrote an entire paragraph about what was wrong with the "motion controls".  Yet, he failed to mention the game had fully customizable controls and he could have switched the motion controls for button presses in some cases.
         I can only imagine what will happen with reviews when Sony's Move and Microsoft's Kinect release, and reviewers just hop into the game without knowing if calibration is an option.

Thoughts/Questions:
     While review scores are subjective, I do not think the lack of information, or misinformation in a review is subjective.
     These are just two things that I think would improve the "review" method for games, and give readers a better way to understand how much weight they should put into a review.
     Are there any "standards" you think would be beneficial to help make the game review process better?  Do you agree with my two points, and are there any sites that you know of that I didn't mention that put the "Total Play Time" in every review?