Talk:James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Move to 007: Everything or Nothing

I would like to suggest a move to 007: Everything or Nothing as that seems to be the official title. There is no James Bond in the official title. Suggestions or opinions?--analoguedragon 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Vagon?

"The two fight, and Bond wins. Arriving at an helipad-vagon, Bond sees Nadanova trapped with handcuffs at this vagon."

What's a helipad-vagon? I googled and found only this page. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 14:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case,a heliped-vagon is the part of the train where helicopters can land on.

You mean wagon?

No,a wagon is an acient kind of locomotion vehicle,as you can see by cliking in wagon.,when i say vagon i mean a part of the train.And in that case,the part of the train where helicopters can land on.

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and vagon is not a word in the English language. As such, I would recommend that "helipad-vagon" be changed to "train car with a helipad on it". -- Random Guy Without An Account

Information on the Game Engine

I'm not sure how to cite myself properly. I was the gameplay lead engineer at EA Redwood Shores for this title (Louis Gascoigne) so I know about the engine technology. The fact that I am credited in the game as an engineer makes me an expert when it comes to the program code however I'm afraid this might be considered original research. Unfortunately with the exception of 'Agent Under Fire' all of the magazine published information is factually incorrect which is why I made the edits in the first place.

Lgascoig 15:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original research#The role of expert editors. Technically, it looks like you can't use it, though unless it's contested, I don't see the trouble. What magazine published information is incorrect? The previous entry that said the Everything of Nothing game engine was upgraded for use in From Russia with Love? And there's no interview or published statement that mentions EoN's game engine evolution from Agent Under Fire, except for the driving sections? --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I received a question about sources and I wasn't able to provide external sources to cite for the EoN 3rd person engine coming from the AUF engine. In the From Russia With Love article I posted that the engine was in fact a new engine and not an improved version of the EoN engine. The sources here are mixed, for example Gamespot Review claims, "...it's running on an engine that seems very similar to its predecessor's." whereas CheatCC Preview states, "...the game will run on only one game engine, unlike the Bond Game "Everything or Nothing" which ran on two engines, one for shooting, and one for driving." The preview is correct. I can't find the article I am thinking of which spawned the original trivia point in the From Russia With Love article. I am going to try and get someone at Electronic Arts to fill in the credit information on MobyGames so that there will be a good start to recording the true development history of these titles. Each of these titles has hundreds of people who worked on them and trying to enter the credits for a single game will probably take several hours (I tried this morning when I had the original game data in text form and timed out on it). Lgascoig 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I found an interview where Glen Schofield says "From Russia With Love is being built using a brand new engine" [1] and footnoted it into From Russia with Love (video game)#Trivia so that's part of it. The credit info you mentioned would definitely be good though. He isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Lgascoig 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nothing on AUF engine -> EoN 3rd person engine on a quick google. I did find "Many of us were shocked and amazed to find out that the always-sucky and dreaded action-game-driving-missions were actually pretty fun in EoN (rather than waste time making a half-baked driving engine for one or two levels, EA just borrowed Need for Speed’s engine from themselves) and they should be even better in FRWL." James Bond 007: From Russia With Love Preview for PlayStation 2 at Gaming Horizon Is this incorrect? --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 20:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That statement is somewhat correct. EoN did use a variant of the Need for Speed engine with some of the team who originally worked on that game but so did all of the other PS2 SKUs as well. The main difference for EoN was that the racing engine underwent a major overhaul to add geometry/texture streaming during the level instead of being stuck with what could be pulled in during the initial level load. These changes improved the overall quality of the title both visually and gameplay-wise. The action engine for EoN did not stream. Note that at the time there was a major push across many of the EA Games (and SSX) titles to upgrade their engines with support for environment streaming based on the success of Grand Theft Auto III which used this technology to great effect.

It was not until From Russia With Love with its single engine that the technology for the PS2-generation Bond games was mature. Note that the driving in From Russia with Love is not built on the Need For Speed engine. The code was used as a reference for the camera algorithms for driving as well as some of the enemy car AI but no code was taken directly, it's all new. The vehicle physics in From Russia with Love are largely unmodified from the Havok (software) version 2.3.1. Lgascoig 17:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Undocumented Feature

I was playing the level Diavolo's Plan, and noticed that the Q-Spider apparently has the ability to launch missiles, as well as the cloaking, exploding, and sleeper dart abilities. Unless I missed something, there's no mention of this ability anywhere in the game's manual or in the game itself. Is this worth adding to the article? (Note: I had already completed the game when I noticed this, if it matters.) -- Guy Without An Account 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's weird, but this is the only mention of it on the net, so it might not be worth including.

Course List

I don't know that the course list is necessary. The Goldeneye article had one, but it was dismissed as mere strategy guide material. It seems to me that the same can be said of this article's list. I think it should be removed, but thought I should mention it here, lest anyone get angry that I deleted the list first and asked questions later. SpinyMcSpleen 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with the course list, as long as nobody tries to provide descriptions or walkthroughs for each of the courses. In my opinion, we should just leave it there, it's not disturbing anyone.Victao lopes 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Shouldn't this be moved back to James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing? That's what Agent Under Fire and Nightfire are at. So the James Bond isn't on the box. Isn't it in the end credits? Besides, I've always seen the title of anything James Bond as James Bond 007: Name of book/film/game. That's why most of the movies say James Bond 007 in blah. Emperor001 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds to this move soon, I will move this game to James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing to make it consistent with the other games. Emperor001 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ground Zero

During the opening cinematic in the level 'Ground Zero', 007 is disguised as one of the Egyptian soldiers. After he shoots the missile rack, he abandons his headdress (reveling himself as James Bond). What would you call the turban/scarf thingy he wore?- 216.209.175.138 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section is still listed as "too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article." Is that tag really still needed? Or is this a case of someone not checking back at a page? The summary is actually pretty short compared to some other plot summaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.199.160 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Mississippi Flood of 1927

Should the line "(for the second time since the Great 1927 Flood of the Mississippi River)" appear after the plans to Flood New Orleans are mentioned? For starters this flood was not isolated to New Orleans, it was a much larger flood from natural causes. Every part of the earth has probably been flooded at some point throughout history. Considering the 1927 flood was not mentioned in the game (as far as I can remember) is this trivia notable enough to warrant inclusion? I think not. Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So you protest a small bit of extra knowledge placed into your article to enrich it? It seems you care much more about this little incident than any one viewer of your article might. -Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.247.35 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Using your logic we could add trivia not relevant to the game in everywhere. Bond visits moscow "(Just like he did in the film ...)" Dr. Nadanova is using nanobots "(insert random comment about nanobots that some people might find interesting but still isn't relevant to this video game) etcetera. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed said trivia considering the only argument supporting its inclusion is that one person finds it interesting. And as most experienced editors will know, simply being interesting is not grounds for inclusion. Trivia such as this needs a reliable secondary source connecting the two subjects. Anyone who wants to feel bitter about me adhering to wiki's guidelines is free to do so. Freikorp (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)