Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[Mop it up]

PD64>GE64

No doubt, but it also came out three years later! Though I think Goldeneye has better single player levels than Perfect Dark does.

[Oblivion]

I don't think he means visual polish.

Not talking about that either. The gameplay is boring, the multiplayer levels were bland, and even for the time, the framerate was ****.


 

Oh, definitely. GoldenEye is a very well-polished game. Still has great gameplay, solid play-control, a decent soundtrack, awesome multiplayer... yeah, it's still a great game.

How can one not see that? o_O

Like I said, nostalgia. Sorry to say, but it doesn't hold up today. Perfect Dark, like I said, is very good. I refuse to accept that Goldeneye holds up today. Hell, I don't think it held up well at the time.

[Tamazoid]

Goldeneye had polish? lol


If that isn't the very definition of being "blinded by nostalgia" I don't know what is. I'll give you Perfect Dark, but not Goldeneye at all.

So your saying that in 1997 when Goldeneye came out you thought it was a godawful game with unbearable graphics and gameplay? Polished doesn't necessarily mean that the game will hold up for most people anymore


Wow

[bustin98]

I don't believe Oblivion is old enough to make that judgement.

At the very least, Goldeneye needs to be compared to Turok, Quake I, Duke Nukem, and Doom64. GE made distinctions in the FPS genre that even today are not implemented in many FPS games, if at all.

[Oblivion]

I don't care if you don't think I'm old enough. I played both Quake and Goldeneye just four months ago, and I feel like GE praise is overblown. id's shooters are much better in every way and still hold up today. In my very humble opinion, GE doesn't.

Please, don't pull the "I'm older than you so I know better than you" argument. I didn't come to these forums to be treated like I'm your child that just doesn't know any better. The great thing about video games is that I can still play them today, no matter how old I am. 

Might I clarify that while it did pursue things that pushed the FPS forward and introduced different modes still used today, that doesn't make it the best. Things can be innovated and improved on things. Just because Martin Cooper created the first cellphone, does that make his creation good compared to the cellphones today? No, not at all. GE is the same way. Sure, it was good for it's time (so you say, I wouldn't know) but I feel like it didn't age well compared to other FPS's of its time and FPS's today.

But I'm too young so my argument is instantly invalid right?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Retro in trouble??? 

I'm on my cell so I can't post much but I ran into this story in gonintendo and I hope its not true.  The article seems in depth but I've never heard of this site or if the info is accurate. 

 http://emilyrogersblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/trouble-brewing-at-retro-studios-rocky-development-for-wii-u-project/

http://nintendoconnect.com/2012/06/14/all-is-well-at-retro-studios-after-all/

“A complete fabrication. All is very well at Retro Studios.�

[Retro Deckades]

Not talking about that either. The gameplay is boring, the multiplayer levels were bland, and even for the time, the framerate was ****.

Well, I have to disagree with this statement. I spent hours upon hours playing the game in both the single and multiplayer modes, and I wouldn't have done so if it weren't fun, interesting, and engaging. Goldeneye was not a simple run and gun shooter like many FPSes today. The ability to sneak up on enemies and strategically eliminate them added a ton of depth to the game, and I wish more FPSes would utilize the same mechanic today. As for the multiplayer levels, there were one or two that were bland, sure, but the majority of them kept me and my friends playing this game until only a couple years ago.

It certainly could have used a better frame rate, but other than that, I have to think it is one of the most polished games on the N64. They went the extra mile in many areas including multiple enemy reactions to where they were hit (something I am not sure all FPSes even do today), as well as including excellent soundtracks and level designs that really use the 007 license to its full extent.

[Scatt-Man]

Quake and Goldeneye really shouldn't be compared with each other. One's an arcadey twitch shooter, while the other is Goldeneye. Go and play the original Deus Ex and tell us you also hate that game. I know I definitely couldn't get into it after playing it two years ago, and it's the same reason you can't play Goldeneye.

No one's bloody patient enough to figure **** out for themselves these days. End! We've all been babied through incredibly pretty-yet incredibly non-interactive FPS games for the past decade and it's sent the genre way back. But that's my opinion, and obviously sales for those select few explosive set piece-driven shooters are through the roof, but whether or not they're successful due to ease of play or merely the appealing action sequences is anyone's guess.

The original A Boy and his Blob is totally a **** game compared to Super Mario bros.!!! Accessibility, right? Trying to make a game as appealing to on-lookers at a first glance as possible. Quake is incredibly easy to pick up and get in to, where Goldeneye needed those two old words no one uses anymore, learning curve.

Nintendo has mentioned many 'o times recently--as recently as a week ago when referring to the WiiU Zelda in fact--that they're trying to make their games as accessible as possible. No learning curves!!! Great for you, someone who grew up in such a time, but for the rest of us? It sends shivers down our spines, as we find sticking with complex games with layers of depth rewarding when digging deeper. Most people are just happy with runnin' and gunnin' though, yay. -___-

WALL OF TEXT OVER.
tl;dr Back in my day, etc...

[Louieturkey]

GE is still the best offline multiplayer FPS created. 

I know because I play games.  So obviously, that means my opinion is right and everyone else is wrong if they don't agree with me. /sarcasm

[Oblivion]

Not talking about that either. The gameplay is boring, the multiplayer levels were bland, and even for the time, the framerate was ****.

Well, I have to disagree with this statement. I spent hours upon hours playing the game in both the single and multiplayer modes, and I wouldn't have done so if it weren't fun, interesting, and engaging. Goldeneye was not a simple run and gun shooter like many FPSes today. The ability to sneak up on enemies and strategically eliminate them added a ton of depth to the game, and I wish more FPSes would utilize the same mechanic today. As for the multiplayer levels, there were one or two that were bland, sure, but the majority of them kept me and my friends playing this game until only a couple years ago.

It certainly could have used a better frame rate, but other than that, I have to think it is one of the most polished games on the N64. They went the extra mile in many areas including multiple enemy reactions to where they were hit (something I am not sure all FPSes even do today), as well as including excellent soundtracks and level designs that really use the 007 license to its full extent.

How old were you when you played the game?

Quake and Goldeneye really shouldn't be compared with each other. One's an arcadey twitch shooter, while the other is Goldeneye. Go and play the original Deus Ex and tell us you also hate that game. I know I definitely couldn't get into it after playing it two years ago, and it's the same reason you can't play Goldeneye.

No one's bloody patient enough to figure **** out for themselves these days. End! We've all been babied through incredibly pretty-yet incredibly non-interactive FPS games for the past decade and it's sent the genre way back. But that's my opinion, and obviously sales for those select few explosive set piece-driven shooters are through the roof, but whether or not they're successful due to ease of play or merely the appealing action sequences is anyone's guess.

The original A Boy and his Blob is totally a **** game compared to Super Mario bros.!!! Accessibility, right? Trying to make a game as appealing to on-lookers at a first glance as possible. Quake is incredibly easy to pick up and get in to, where Goldeneye needed those two old words no one uses anymore, learning curve.

Nintendo has mentioned many 'o times recently--as recently as a week ago when referring to the WiiU Zelda in fact--that they're trying to make their games as accessible as possible. No learning curves!!! Great for you, someone who grew up in such a time, but for the rest of us? It sends shivers down our spines, as we find sticking with complex games with layers of depth rewarding when digging deeper. Most people are just happy with runnin' and gunnin' though, yay. -___-

WALL OF TEXT OVER.
tl;dr Back in my day, etc...

I was always under the impression that Quake/Doom was the shooter with the steep learning curve, not the other way around.

[Phil]

PD64>GE64

Of course.

[Chozo Ghost]

I played both Quake and Goldeneye just four months ago,

There is a difference between playing these games four months ago and playing them 15 years ago when they were revolutionary and mind blowing.

[ShyGuy]

Boy the Model T Ford really SUCKS.

[UncleBob]

As someone who did play FPS games - heavily - all those years ago... Goldeneye... wasn't very good.  Game had a lot of issues.

With that said, with regards to FPS on a console - it was pretty much king of the mountain... of console.  About the best FPS experience you could get... on a console.  And the multi-player was amazing... on a console.

Now, I don't want to open the whole PC vs. Console debate, but back in the day, consoles couldn't touch PCs for FPS games.  So... comparing Goldeneye to PC FPS titles... well, it's not a good plan.

[Oblivion]

I played both Quake and Goldeneye just four months ago,

There is a difference between playing these games four months ago and playing them 15 years ago when they were revolutionary and mind blowing.

You mean 15 years ago when you were much younger and now that when you look back, you are blinded by nostalgia?


(I bet because Unclebob said that it sucked y'all will accept his, right? )

[Chozo Ghost]

No, I mean back then all the stuff gamers take for granted today was only starting to come into being. Back in those days Super Mario 64 was a huge deal because nothing like it had ever existed until that point, but nowadays a 3D platformer on par with that could come out and people would just take it for granted and it wouldn't have the same excitement.

The same goes for Goldeneye and other early FPS. Nowadays we get like at least a dozen FPS games each and every year, and the graphics and gameplay have come a long way since the late 90s. Gamers today are spoiled and are unable to appreciate something like that. That's why I said when you play an old game like today its probably not going to impress you, but if you played it in 1997 it would have blown your mind because nothing like it existed up until that point.

[Oblivion]

I know this. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't call me spoiled.

I didn't come to these forums to be treated like I'm your child that just doesn't know any better...But I'm too young so my argument is instantly invalid right?

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't think anyone is saying you being younger doesn't mean your opinion is any less valid, at least when it comes to stuff going on now. But how could you know more about a game which you didn't play until only recently? If you look at it through a modern lens you will be judging the game with a modern bias and you won't be able to appreciate it for what it was during its era. That would be like if I were to argue with someone who lived during World War 2 and me telling them I know more about that then they do, even though they lived through it and I did not. If I told them their WW2 was a joke compared to our current war in Afghanistan they would probably be offended.

[NWR_insanolord]

GoldenEye doesn't hold up that well now, but it was really impressive in its day. And it really is amazing how well Perfect Dark holds up; I've sunk a ton of time into the XBLA version, and it's probably my favorite shooter on the system.

[bustin98]

I'm the one who put Quake and GE in the same sentence. And I did so because I did not have a computer back then. So I played those games on the 64. The changing missions based on difficulty is something that remains pretty much unique to Rare's shooters, and adds immensely to replayability.

And just because you're young doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion. But you don't even realize what you take for granted. Though I guess I am in the same boat with my previous lack of pc experience.

[Drizzt]

I'm pretty young too but I've played goldeneye and it's fun, especially with friends. lol golden guns and slappers only and what was up with those bouncing grenades. From a modern point of view though it's harder to get friends together to play co-op offline than it was back in the day. The use of the rumble pack was awesome.

[Retro Deckades]

How old were you when you played the game?

I was under the impression that age was irrelevant to this argument, as you have expressed the interest not to be judged based on yours.

[BranDonk Kong]

Age when you played it doesn't really matter as much as it matters when you played it for the first time. If you were 15 and played it for the first time in 2007, then certainly it wouldn't be as impressive as it was to someone who was 15 and played it in 1997.

[NWR_insanolord]

It's not about age; it's about what you're comparing it to. The game was revolutionary compared to what was on consoles in the late '90s, and had a few wrinkles that were impressive even compared to most PC games of the time.

[Evan_B]

Quake and Goldeneye really shouldn't be compared with each other. One's an arcadey twitch shooter, while the other is Goldeneye. Go and play the original Deus Ex and tell us you also hate that game. I know I definitely couldn't get into it after playing it two years ago, and it's the same reason you can't play Goldeneye.

No one's bloody patient enough to figure **** out for themselves these days. End! We've all been babied through incredibly pretty-yet incredibly non-interactive FPS games for the past decade and it's sent the genre way back. But that's my opinion, and obviously sales for those select few explosive set piece-driven shooters are through the roof, but whether or not they're successful due to ease of play or merely the appealing action sequences is anyone's guess.

The original A Boy and his Blob is totally a **** game compared to Super Mario bros.!!! Accessibility, right? Trying to make a game as appealing to on-lookers at a first glance as possible. Quake is incredibly easy to pick up and get in to, where Goldeneye needed those two old words no one uses anymore, learning curve.

Nintendo has mentioned many 'o times recently--as recently as a week ago when referring to the WiiU Zelda in fact--that they're trying to make their games as accessible as possible. No learning curves!!! Great for you, someone who grew up in such a time, but for the rest of us? It sends shivers down our spines, as we find sticking with complex games with layers of depth rewarding when digging deeper. Most people are just happy with runnin' and gunnin' though, yay. -___-

WALL OF TEXT OVER.
tl;dr Back in my day, etc...

Learning curve and difficulty curve are not the same thing.

As for his whole Goldeneye debate- it revolutionized shooters on consoles. There's nothing else that needs to be said at this point. It was a pretty magical expereince for the people who first got it when the system was in its heyday, and that's not nostalgia. Its game design and addictive multiplayer quality made is likeable and successful. Now, does it hold up today? Probably not, from a graphical and even a gameplay standard. But it was the tits back then.

I enjoyed it when it first came out. It was certainly more engaging than the five-minute online shooters of this day and age.