So, I grew up with PC shooters, and I enjoy both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark - but really, mission objectives, stealth and NPC's had been done in FPSes a long time before Goldeneye. System Shock (and to some extent, Ultima Underworld), Strife, Cyber-Cop, Bethesda's Terminator games, CyClones, CyberMage and William Shatner's Tekwar all had most aspects mentioned here.

Personally I don't even subscribe to the idea that Goldeneye was the first console shooter "getting it right", even the Genesis had Zero Tolerance which I think played excellently on that limited system, and there were plenty of FPSes on the Saturn and PlayStation early in those system's life cycles, both PC ports and exclusives. I really enjoyed Powerslave/Exhumed for example.

The staff simply has a way of muddying that notion often when they talk about their preferences. Jeff in particular. It is, albeit, often done for comical effect.

Well this is a pretty useless thread if you'll never understand it.

Also, the amount of times you say GoldenEye...

He's talking about the multiplayer, people really got into Golden Eye's local multiplayer. Meanwhile PC games had internet. And mouse+keyboard. That's all there is to it.

I can't stand GoldenEye.

With that said, I played the fuck out of it when it first came out...for quite a while...and I was enjoying myself when I played it. I also remember everyone else loving it and playing it.

In my older age, I can look at it and say that it's a bad game by modern standards, but back then, it was a fantastic game.

Anyone that says the game just flat-out sucks either weren't alive/were too young during that evolving moment of console gaming or they are jaded as fuck.

It's perspective.

Personally I don't understand the Call of Duty obsession because when COD was on the rise I was still into Halo, L4D, and other online games with my friends. None of us were interested in COD once it made the modern switch so as the franchise grew I remained on the outside. For some people when Goldeneye was becoming this landmark moment for multiplayer you could look at modern or previous games and wonder why players don't go to something "better".

There will always be someone who thinks what you're enjoying isn't the best out there. If you like something popular someone will try to convince you something niche is the way to go. If you like something niche someone will wonder why you don't just join everyone and do the popular thing.

Enjoy what you enjoy and try to understand where other's may view the things you love.

I never had a console until just before the PS3 launched. My first experience with Goldeneye was about four months ago.

It's a ton of fun now, speaking strictly of singer player!

But if I have to choose between Goldeneye and Quake, I'm going with Quake. Yes, there are more varied and interesting missions and level requirements in Goldeneye than in Quake. There are more varied and interesting mission and level requirements in Civilization 5 than in Age of Empires, too. They're the same genre, they're even fairly similar. But they scratch completely different itches.

Oh, and anyone who says "What about Goldeneye?" whenever Halo is mentioned as the first functioning console FPS is nuts. Goldeneye's control scheme was a bandaid over a gaping wound. If Call of Duty's auto-aim is generous, Goldeneye's is Monday-to-Friday Santa Claus.

There's another side to all this which is that I think GoldenEye came to represent that juxtaposition of ardent fandom but lack of range or perspective. It's not a wholly positive perspective depending on who is putting it out there and how but like Myst before it, there was a sense of someone showing their cards in not knowing much else if they claimed how great something like GoldenEye is and nothing else alongside it. In reality what the game represented is larger and somewhat removed from the game itself but I consider the adaptation that Jeff and Brad and them have taken is doing it in good fun alongside their reasonable argument that Quake and those PC classics are ultimately rooted by better game mechanics than something like GoldenEye.

Also, Quake single-player is still really good you guys.

Its incredibly easy to understand as far as I see. Its not about saying or claiming that it wasn't impressive for the time on a console the way the game was done, its just that when you've played shooters on PC at that point that control far superior to a FPS on the N64, it doesn't hold up at all.

It takes nothing away from it being impressive for the time on a console, just not that fun when comparing.

I'll go one further and just say golden eye was simply a flat out bad video game. I never liked it, always thought it controlled like trash and looked awful, I didn't play many pc shooters at the time either.

Forgot that System Shock 1 had come out long before GoldenEye and the story, world, characters and missions were much more interesting than James Bond of all things.

The way reviews were, were pretty messed up back then since Jeff gave it a 9.8.

@spudtheblacklab:Yep, you pretty much summed this thread up. GoldenEye was a fantastic console game at the time, you either enjoyed it (and still do) when it was released or you didn't (and still dont).

My god did I feel suckered the day I came home with GoldenEye. Specifically the swimmy ass guns put a sour taste in my mouth and I felt the gameplay was super bland even for a console shooter at the time. Like a bunch of others, I was neck deep in PC shooters but I also was way into console shooters too for some reason. Specifically Powerslave for the Saturn is a game that I still go back and play every now and then and it was way better then GoldenEye without the luxury of an analog stick.

More power too you if you love GoldenEye but I will never understand.

I played the shit out of Goldeneye. Unlocked everything that you possibly could. Beat every mission on the hardest difficulty with those fucking insane time objectives.

I don't look back at it fondly. It was a game I played because I couldn't buy my own games. My lasting impression of the game is that I didn't really like it.

Playing multiplayer with friends might have made all of the difference, though. Halo Lan parties are still my most treasured of experiences when it comes to multiplayer. But competitve multiplayer has gone online for the most part now, and I've just got no interest in playing with shit-talking randos.

slappers >>>>>>>>> every quake game ever

cold hard FACTS.

i HATED slappers

@fisk0: Shit! I forgot about Zero Tolerance! I rented that game like twice every month for years. High five for Powerslave too. Did you ever play Deathtank?

Deathtank > GoldenEye Multiplayer

Certainly the game was pretty awesome when I was a kid, before Halo came out and the casuals of us realized that there was a better control scheme out there. It's not a game I personally need to own but it's a pretty cool N64 game.

I haven't played DeathTank, but real-time Scorched Earth does seem petty cool.

Good to see others who played Powerslave back in the day, that pretty much was the original Serious Sam. And the controls were actually intuitive on the consoles.

@dudeglove: I didn't come to the forums for reading!... Oh wait... I didn't come to these forums for lots of reading!

@turambar: While it is done for comical effect it wouldn't work if Jeff wasn't deathly serious about those notions, which he definitely is.

Quake has way better control. That N64 controller was NOT suited to first person shooters. Quake has more variety in enemies and more interesting level design. Quake also basically pioneered the online FPS revolution.

Goldeneye has better mission design with more varied gameplay elements and extra bells & whistles.

They're very different games, but Quake accomplishes everything it sets out to do really well. Goldeneye has a lot of amazing ideas that no game has really quite hit the head on ever since, unless you stretch out to radically different games like Deus Ex...

The internet would me a much worse place if every statement had to be qualified with "In my opinion..."