Why don't they make 'em like they used to??

[Kabob]

I was just browsing over Metacritic's Nintendo 64 section and saw that Goldeneye 64 was the 3rd highest ranked N64 game overall. I started thinking to myself that pretty much every other Bond game since has ranged from flop to mildly dissappointing, with nothing even coming close to the hype that Goldeneye generated.

What did Goldeneye have that they can't seem to get back? Why can't Rare crank out another fantastic Bond game instead of giving us the same movie knock offs we've had lately?

Curious what you all think?

 

[Auryg]

The only reason we've seen crappy Bond games ever since Goldeneye is because EA got the license.

Anyways, if you go back and actually play that game you'll realize that even the worst FPSes of today are much, much better than Goldeneye. It was just really good for it's time is all.

 

[Queasy]

Yep, EA buying up the Bond license is partly the reason we got Perfect Dark. Unfortunately, Rare's 360 version of Perfect Dark was a disappointment partially due to the fact it was rushed for launch.

 

[Kabob]

Originally posted by: Auryg
The only reason we've seen crappy Bond games ever since Goldeneye is because EA got the license.

Anyways, if you go back and actually play that game you'll realize that even the worst FPSes of today are much, much better than Goldeneye. It was just really good for it's time is all.

Yeah, it was great for it's time, but that's a pretty big deal. You can just as easily say Doom or Super Mario Bros were great for their time...

Didn't realize EA got the licence, that would explain alot (no love lost for EA here).

 

[gorcorps]

It was one of the first console FPS so of course it was hailed. The thing is now that shooters are everywhere, so you have to be particularly good to make an effect. I don't think Goldeneye was that good, it was just something brand new that was fairly well done.

 

[ric1287]

because we have too much to compare things to these days. Back then it was Goldeneye or nothing, there weren't 135 awesome games out on 3 different platforms at the same time.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
It was one of the first console FPS so of course it was hailed. The thing is now that shooters are everywhere, so you have to be particularly good to make an effect. I don't think Goldeneye was that good, it was just something brand new that was fairly well done.

Goldeneye was amazing for it's time, it did so many things right.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: gorcorps
It was one of the first console FPS so of course it was hailed. The thing is now that shooters are everywhere, so you have to be particularly good to make an effect. I don't think Goldeneye was that good, it was just something brand new that was fairly well done.

Goldeneye was amazing for it's time, it did so many things right.

It beat out doom by having reasonable enemies and weapons, along with logical level design. One of the first games with location based damage too, headshots ftw.

 

[SonicIce]

One thing about Goldeneye was that alot of the team was new to the game business. It was the first game most of the members had worked on. Because they were so new, they were interestied in trying alot of new things. The levels were all unique and had a non-linear feel. You could complete a level through multiple routes. The game has a boat-load of cool weapons. Many items in the environment were destructable. It was one of the first games with bullet hole decals. The multiplayer was a new plateau of awesomeness -- 4 player split-screen deathmatch. The stealth elements and variable objectives were much more interesting than Doom and Quake. It also had good music and sound effects. Instant loading. Alot of games can do all of these things today, what made Goldeneye great is it did them first.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Auryg
The only reason we've seen crappy Bond games ever since Goldeneye is because EA got the license.

Anyways, if you go back and actually play that game you'll realize that even the worst FPSes of today are much, much better than Goldeneye. It was just really good for it's time is all.

QFT

Goldeneye is practically unplayable now despite the fact that I spent many enjoyable evenings getting killed by my bastard friends and their damned sentry guns and mines.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Yeah, Goldeneye is pretty sucky by today's standards. I got an N64 emulator recently and hooked up my 360 controller to my computer, and I tried out Goldeneye just for the hell of it. It was terrible. Things evolve... back then, people didn't care about strafing and a lot of us had "run" or "jump" on the primary mouse button for some reason.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Auryg
The only reason we've seen crappy Bond games ever since Goldeneye is because EA got the license.

Aye same reason every c&c after RA2 has sucked, same reason simcity 4 was a buggy mess and there was no simcity 5, same reason spore was a dumbed down babyish pos... god i hate EA :frown:

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: kabob983

Originally posted by: Auryg
The only reason we've seen crappy Bond games ever since Goldeneye is because EA got the license.

Anyways, if you go back and actually play that game you'll realize that even the worst FPSes of today are much, much better than Goldeneye. It was just really good for it's time is all.

Yeah, it was great for it's time, but that's a pretty big deal. You can just as easily say Doom or Super Mario Bros were great for their time...

The difference is that doom and SMB are still damn fun, and I cant say the same about goldeneye. The graphics havent aged well (no n64 game ever will), and it well, just isnt very fun. The awesomest part about it was the 4-player multiplayer, and I dare you to even try it nowadays - it's just awful.

Remember a game for the PS1 called battle arena toshinden? At the time, it was hailed as being incredible, but I'll be damned if looking back on it it wasnt the worst damn 3d fighter ever created.

So yeah, they dont make them like they used to, thank god.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: BD2003
The difference is that doom and SMB are still damn fun, and I cant say the same about goldeneye. The graphics havent aged well (no n64 game ever will), and it well, just isnt very fun. The awesomest part about it was the 4-player multiplayer, and I dare you to even try it nowadays - it's just awful.

Remember a game for the PS1 called battle arena toshinden? At the time, it was hailed as being incredible, but I'll be damned if looking back on it it wasnt the worst damn 3d fighter ever created.

So yeah, they dont make them like they used to, thank god.

This. Great classics stand the test of time, being fun even for those who play them now. Unfortunately, Goldeneye is not one of those games.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BD2003
The difference is that doom and SMB are still damn fun, and I cant say the same about goldeneye. The graphics havent aged well (no n64 game ever will), and it well, just isnt very fun. The awesomest part about it was the 4-player multiplayer, and I dare you to even try it nowadays - it's just awful.

Remember a game for the PS1 called battle arena toshinden? At the time, it was hailed as being incredible, but I'll be damned if looking back on it it wasnt the worst damn 3d fighter ever created.

So yeah, they dont make them like they used to, thank god.

This. Great classics stand the test of time, being fun even for those who play them now. Unfortunately, Goldeneye is not one of those games.

I played Goldeneye about 1.5 years ago and it was still fun. It was a simple fps with simple game mechanics. It does age well. Also you can't compare any sprite based game to any 3D game as 3D graphics don't age well. Fun never gets old.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
One thing about Goldeneye was that alot of the team was new to the game business. It was the first game most of the members had worked on. Because they were so new, they were interestied in trying alot of new things. The levels were all unique and had a non-linear feel. You could complete a level through multiple routes. The game has a boat-load of cool weapons. Many items in the environment were destructable. It was one of the first games with bullet hole decals. The multiplayer was a new plateau of awesomeness -- 4 player split-screen deathmatch. The stealth elements and variable objectives were much more interesting than Doom and Quake. It also had good music and sound effects. Instant loading. Alot of games can do all of these things today, what made Goldeneye great is it did them first.

Ahh, I just remembered the menu music :music: Good times

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I played Goldeneye about 1.5 years ago and it was still fun.

We must have different opinions of what is fun. Goldeneye was only intriguing because it introduced FPS multiplayer to the console. Now, it holds nothing ot interest.

It was a simple fps with simple game mechanics. It does age well.

It is entirely too simple in a bad way, as you will realize much of the game is actually poorly executed if you go back and play it today.

Also you can't compare any sprite based game to any 3D game as 3D graphics don't age well.

I call bullshit on this one. Some sprite based games have failed to withstand the test of time, and many 3d games have succeeded (ex: System Shock 2).

Fun never gets old.

Only applicable to some games.

 

[StageLeft]

Agree it's just too old now. I tried it a few years ago and thought its graphics sucked. I am one of those people (like most, even if they don't want to admit it) who value graphics substantially in my games; I will pretty much never play older games if they start to look dated. I never undstand people who will play a PS1 game on a PS3. I truly think something is wrong with them.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Yeah, Goldeneye is pretty sucky by today's standards. I got an N64 emulator recently and hooked up my 360 controller to my computer, and I tried out Goldeneye just for the hell of it. It was terrible. Things evolve... back then, people didn't care about strafing and a lot of us had "run" or "jump" on the primary mouse button for some reason.

LoL! Exactly. It's like saying Red Alert was the shizzles. Look at how RA2 sucked balls and so did C&C Tiberium Sun. Then newer games like Starcraft and War3 were totally better.

 

[mc866]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Yeah, Goldeneye is pretty sucky by today's standards. I got an N64 emulator recently and hooked up my 360 controller to my computer, and I tried out Goldeneye just for the hell of it. It was terrible. Things evolve... back then, people didn't care about strafing and a lot of us had "run" or "jump" on the primary mouse button for some reason.

LoL! Exactly. It's like saying Red Alert was the shizzles. Look at how RA2 sucked balls and so did C&C Tiberium Sun. Then newer games like Starcraft and War3 were totally better.

Wait wha??? Starcraft IS old, from 1998......

 

[Eeezee]

Listen, I just replayed Goldeneye last week with some friends and I can't believe how we ever played that game. It's soooooo laggy and hard to control. It was great back in the day.

 

[Eeezee]

Out of all of the old games, Goldeneye is the last one developers should look to for inspiration.

How about Fallout 1 and 2? How about Starcraft? How about Diablo? These are old games that are still considered great by today's standards. That's incredible.

 

[Kabob]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Out of all of the old games, Goldeneye is the last one developers should look to for inspiration.

How about Fallout 1 and 2? How about Starcraft? How about Diablo? These are old games that are still considered great by today's standards. That's incredible.

And all 3 of the series you mentioned are still being developed...how would the same guys make Goldeneye using today's developing technology??

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: SonicIceThe levels were all unique and had a non-linear feel. You could complete a level through multiple routes.
The game has a boat-load of cool weapons.
Many items in the environment were destructable.
It was one of the first games with bullet hole decals.
The multiplayer was a new plateau of awesomeness -- 4 player split-screen deathmatch.
The stealth elements and variable objectives were much more interesting than Doom and Quake.
It also had good music and sound effects.
Instant loading.

This. Goldeneye was out around the time of Quake, so Quake was the standard. Goldeneye did several things better than Quake such as breakable objects and having the mission change depending on map difficulty. Another cool thing was that the game itself, not just the maps, was very nonlinear. You would play a level and it would take you back to the level select screen. Up until then, games like Quake would have you beat a level then move on to the next level; you couldn't go back a level without entering a cheat code. Your save game was not just related to what map you're on and what your guns are, it was about which levels you've beaten at what difficulty and how long it took. It was almost like a single player version of Xbox Live.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: SonicIceThe levels were all unique and had a non-linear feel. You could complete a level through multiple routes.
The game has a boat-load of cool weapons.
Many items in the environment were destructable.
It was one of the first games with bullet hole decals.
The multiplayer was a new plateau of awesomeness -- 4 player split-screen deathmatch.
The stealth elements and variable objectives were much more interesting than Doom and Quake.
It also had good music and sound effects.
Instant loading.

This. Goldeneye was out around the time of Quake, so Quake was the standard. Goldeneye did several things better than Quake such as breakable objects and having the mission change depending on map difficulty. Another cool thing was that the game itself, not just the maps, was very nonlinear. You would play a level and it would take you back to the level select screen. Up until then, games like Quake would have you beat a level then move on to the next level; you couldn't go back a level without entering a cheat code. Your save game was not just related to what map you're on and what your guns are, it was about which levels you've beaten at what difficulty and how long it took. It was almost like a single player version of Xbox Live.

Sure, it had its high points, and a few firsts, but being the first game with 4-player splitscreen, instant loading, bullet hole decals or destructable items doesnt make it a game that stands the test of time. The controls are pretty awful by todays standards, and the terrible frame rate doesnt help its playability either. The AI is also pretty retarded.

Take doom on the other hand - it doesnt have bullet hole decals, it isnt even true 3d, and the AI is hardly more sophisticated than a side scrolling shooter, but the game still *plays* well. It controls much better, there's no frame rate issues, and the AI is as smart as it needs to be in the context of the game. Same with super mario bros, or any other classic game that *has* stood the test of time.

There's no disputing it was awesome back in it's day, but that day was about 15 years ago.