It’s sad, because the initial unveils made it seem like so much more. The final result is just 5 sub par games mashed into one.
Unreal had a rather long Single Player campaign. Granted, It wasn’t as good as Half Life, but few thing are.
I second that. Both Spore and Red Alert 3 feel like wastes of money for me.
My point was other people were pushing the form while Goldeneye was a poorly implimented version of what had come before.
Gee, popularity contests. That’s definitely an objective measure. Certainly better than the barren environments, the unresponsive controls, and the fact that I can point to dozens of precedents who did the same thing more effectively a dozen different ways.
And my point was that it’s a meaningless comparison. Also, poor implementation of what, pray tell?
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. Barren environments? Unresponsive controls? (you do know those could be adjusted, right?) And I’d love to see your list of 12 games released before Goldeneye, that you deem to be categorically superior.
What is a hubbed world?
Something that superior games feature, apparently.
ETA: In my previous post, I mentioned “12 games.” Upon re-read, Just Some Guy said “dozens.” As such, I would like to see Guy’s list of 24+ games that he deems categorically superior to Goldeneye.
Instead of having stand alone maps they linked together to make a large environment for the player to explore.
Games in general?
Let’s start with the entire output of Infocom. There we go, I’m at fifty and I haven’t even broken into the 1990’s or gone beyond one company.
Let me turn that around on you: what makes Goldeneye good? What made it superior to all of the other FPS’s being released at that time? It had inferior multiplayer (wow, four players at one system with a few modes; I’ll be over here enjoying 32 players around the world modifiable in more ways than you can imagine), the controls my have been adjustable but never as useful as a mouse and keyboard, and the game world itself was a boringly flat. What made it something that is worthy of note besides the fact that it was the first time that people who weren’t up on technology encountered some of these basic things?
I was showing my cousin my Ipod Touch. We got started talking about the Nintendo DSI, and I commented that I didn’t see the point in a Third DS (I still have a DS fat).
He then goes on to comment, that he had no room to talk, because he bought a Nokia N-Gage.
A week goes by, and in that time, I thought up the perfect comeback:
“You bought an N-Gage? I bought a Virtual Boy. I win.”
But yeah, Virtual Boy for me as well.
As well as my PSP, and my Pokemon Cards*
*I worked for WOTC at the time, we had to know how to play, to help kids that came in the store. However, Compared to MAGIC, Pokemon’s equivalent to Land came 1 in every booster pack.
More players =/= more fun. Would chess be enhanced if you had 32 guys playing on the same board? Four players was optimal with the level design and gameplay options on-hand. And while it had “few modes,” they all played brilliantly. In fact, having fewer options almost ensured the game would always be fun, whereas the same was not true for its spiritual successor, Perfect Dark, or any other number of shooters since (Halo 2, 3, Call of Duty, etc).
Using your reasoning, every FPS on a console ever couldn’t hold a candle to even Doom. If mouse and keyboard is that important to you, I can’t even begin to see how you could treat any comparison objectively.
At any rate, despite the increased accuracy, I prefer a console controller to using a mouse and keyboard for gaming. I find it more comfortable, and have no trouble aiming with it. But I certainly wouldn’t hold the control input device (particularly when it works, quite adequately, I might add) against any game, unless it otherwise broke it (which no matter how much you argue it, simply isn’t the case).
Ironic coming from the guy who cited Outlaw as better than Goldeneye.
First off, your premise is wrong; this was not the first time console games, let alone, N64 gamers had experienced a shooter. Doom 64, Hexen, and Turok were all released prior. Then when you consider that Goldeneye sustained its popularity throughout the entire 64’s lifespan, even as games such as Quake 64, Quake 2, Duke Nukem 64 (just 2 months after Goldeneye), and Rainbow 6 were released, there seems to be no merit to your ‘console owners are ignorant’ argument.
For me, Goldeneye was pure fucking fun. The most important factor, was without a doubt, the multiplayer. Never before had I played a game, whether on console or PC, that provided as much fun or replay value. The level design was brilliant, and the gameplay was surprisingly nuanced. And it provided gameplay options simply not available in any other game: Proxy-mine matches only in the bunker were mind-blowingly fun and hilarious.
As for the campaign, I couldn’t disagree more that the environments felt “barren.” Instead, I thought they were surprisingly populated, not just by characters, but by items, objectives, and unnecessary details (such as the background island in the dam level, which served no practical purpose). Goldeneye provided a great context for the missions, and provided objectives to make it more than just a run-and-gun (Doom, Duke Nukem, and even Half-Life to an extent), and required some actual thought and planning. Plus, the game brilliantly added more objectives with each hike in difficultly, instead of simply scaling up the enemies’ health, like most other shooters (which is still largely the case today).
Also, the A.I., at the time, was particularly impressive–taking cover, alerting others, triggering alarms, reacting to injuries–I’d argue it was the best I’d seen until Half-Life. It lent Goldeneye a dynamic factor no other shooter had yet matched.
Ignoring the FPS thing for a bit:
[ul]
[li]**Regular NES: Bill Elliott’s NASCAR Challenge**. I didn’t, don’t, and will never like NASCAR, I only wanted a cool racing game. Unfortunately the makers took the 8 bits at their disposal, and made them all terrible. My Dad let me drive the van around empty camp ground parking lots faster than this game let you go. Fortunately I rented it before actually buying, because you could set the screenshot in the link to your desktop background and have more action.[/li][li]SuperNES: Krusty’s Super-Funhouse. A terrible, terrible game, which Krusty’s recurring "Hyuk hyuk hyuk!"s come nowhere close to saving. Boring and repetitive level design combine with frustrating difficulty to make something I thought a few times of trading in, but was afraid of being thrown out of the store for.[/li][li]DS: InuYasha: Secret of the Divine Jewel. I’m a massive IY fanboy, which is the only reason I managed to finish this. The two major sticking points are 1: it looks like they just replaced the sprites from another game to make it and 2: it feels like when they finished the game they decided it was only 1/2 the length it should be, so you run in to un-avoidable monsters literally every 10 seconds, making walking anywhere a chore.[/li][li]PC: ArmA. A friend convinced me to buy it so we could play multiplayer. While on the box it looks comparable to Call of Duty, in reality it’s a buggy, crashy, ugly, frustrating game with control response that’ll convince you your PC is full of marshmallow.[/li]
[/ul]
And then not ignoring FPS, while DN was released a year and a half before Goldeneye, I’d still slightly prefer it. 
As it happens, I picked up a used copy of “Bully: Scholarship Edition” for $15 today.
I want my $15 back.
I’ve never played Bully but everyone seems to think it’s the bee’s knees. What’s wrong with it?
I bought a modernized version of SSI’s mid-90s game “Steel Panthers”, or one of the follow-ons that was supposedly upgraded with modern weapons and better AI, etc… It was called “WinSPMBT”
The game played slower than dogshit - so bad (on a Athlon XP 2600, no less) that it wasn’t even playable. And this wasn’t a rewritten game- it was basically some new data files, new graphics files (bitmaps), and some new ai routines. My computer at the time WAY outmatched the minimum hardware requirements in all respects.
So I email the company, only to be told that I’m SOL. Not in those exact words, but something similar - like “Do you have enough memory?”, and when I answered all the stupid-ass scripted things, they weren’t willing to help me figure out what was actually causing my problem.
So I effectively spent $50 or so, to not even be able to play the game.
Moral of the story: Shrapnel Games are a bunch of motherfuckers. Don’t buy their software.
If it’s for the Wii or 360 I’ll take it off your hands!
The Nintendo version? The Nintendo version?
Heretic.
My best guess is that people move differently in Czechoslovakia, like perhaps they’re all being animated by Ray Harryhausen. I never had problems with ArmA crashing, but the control system is just absurd (I found CoD to be fast and twitchy, which ArmA is not ever so it may be just geared to a different playstyle). Not to mention the part where you want to switch weapons, and your brain apparently has to get permission from customer support at the United States Postal Service because it takes about six damned hours. I think the great problem with ArmA is it has this massive gap between being at its worst and being at its best. Spending half an hour walking to an enemy controlled-town only to be sniped by an AI that spends most of its time in a stoned daze, wandering around in circles aimlessly, and has had its glaring defects made up for by unerring situational awareness and accuracy? Terrible.
Taking part in a massive completely-unscripted multiplayer combined-arms operation (with artillery and rotary-winged support) with your pilot (who ideally has some talent) dodging RPGs and machine gun fire to drop you off, We Were Soldiers style, in support of an advancing armor column, and running up against a tank that you can’t take out without exposing yourselves, so you call the location in to the person acting as commanding officer, who vectors the fixed-wing tankbusters to save your ass? If cooperative tactical multiplayer gaming is your thing, it can make Rainbow Six look like “Rainbow Brite”. However, you need a bunch of likeminded people, and that can be difficult.
Because it tries so hard to be complete crap sometimes, I absolutely agree with you for lots of people it is absolutely a complete waste. Sometimes, though, ArmA is like BF1942’s “DC-Village”, only it’s “DC-Village” on fire, going 130 miles an hour through a hospital zone being chased by helicopters and ninjas. And the ninjas are all on fire, too. I hate games that do that. Far Cry 2 was like that for me, there were times I wanted to strangle it and times when it was just so cool I forgave it all its transgressions and told it I would love it for ever.
Maybe the 360 version is better, but the PC controls are appalling.
Let’s see here…
Final Fantasy XII. Bought it full price for $50, unfortunately just a few weeks before it got discounted to $20. Characters were bland, plot was slow and confusing and bland, combat starts out lame and doesn’t get better until later because of the gambit system, and even after spending a ton of time continuously grinding levels I was STILL underleveled when I got to the Stillshrine at Miriam. Stopped playing there and haven’t touched it since.
Unreal Tournament III. Didn’t buy it myself, but asked for it as a gift. Played through the single player mode once and haven’t really touched it. Just seems to clunky to me, though maybe that’s because the graphics are a bit too much for my computer. But it feels like UT99 was the pinnacle and each UT game since then gets worse. Might need friends to play it with too.
Fallout 3. Also didn’t buy, but asked for as a gift. Got to Megaton and stopped. Too boring, slow and clunky controls. Even the dialogue menus were terrible to go through.
Dungeon Siege. Hey, this will be like a 3D Diablo! Oh wait, there’s no character skills. And every new area has the exact same enemies, just with palette swaps. Nevermind.
I had only good things to say about the 360 version.