Gleebergloben123 wrote:What do you mean when you state "this game hasn't aged well"? It can't just be graphics because Warlords and Adventure have very primitive graphics, yet they're considered timeless classics. Just curious.
As someone who helped play-test these titles with the Critic for his revision, I can address this. The difference between Goldeneye and, say, Warlords, is that despite the incredibly simplistic graphics of Warlords the game is still flat-out FUN to play. Almost any time you have 4 buddies looking to game, you can fire it up and everyone will enjoy themselves. The graphics for Warlord are simple but work perfectly fine within the framework of the game, and don't inhibit the fun or play-ability.
With Goldeneye, we all found ourselves fighting the controls, struggling to find each other
(a necessity for multiplayer of course), commenting on the plain and repetitive level design, and getting annoyed when emptying an entire clip into the back of someones head at point-blank range and having them still either run away or turn around and return fire. While I understand there was a huge 'innovation' factor in play back when it was released that made it a smash hit ("Wow, FOUR of us can run around shooting each other!!"), that novelty has long since worn off and now the bland and poorly implement game play is laid bare. Personally, I think the Critic gave it a higher score than it really deserves. If you stuck me on a desert island with a N64 and let me pick 10 games to keep and play for the rest of the my life, Goldeneye would not even be close to making the list.
* NOTE: I did not play any single-player portion of Goldeneye so my opinion is based solely on my experience with the multiplayer death matches.