2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Let me know what you think about my reviews.
MrLuck87
Posts: 51
Joined: November 9th, 2015, 9:56 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby MrLuck87 » December 1st, 2016, 9:06 pm

Rev wrote:I liked the reviews. I'm curious though, since you've always said you grade games based on other games on the same console, do you feel there are other n64 games that have aged as lot better than fps's on the n64. Honestly that genre has has probably the most growth besides 3d platformers /action games. I guess I'm curious if you feel like it's fair to drop the scores of those types of games when most of the n64 library is going to feel outdated compared to modern games? I don't care about the scores just wondering.


Yea kind of feel like everything should get dropped by a letter if it's just getting compared to today's standards. 1080 Snowboarding certainly doesn't deserve an A anymore.

Alucard1191
Posts: 93
Joined: November 16th, 2016, 12:55 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby Alucard1191 » December 1st, 2016, 9:16 pm

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.

I really enjoyed Goldeneye and Perfect Dark when they came out. Oddly enough I got motion sickness when I first started playing Goldeneye.



So for me, and I've already said this, it's the controls. Go play Halo 1. Very first one, feel how natural and easy it is to move and aim. Then load up Goldeneye on your N64 and use a separate button for aiming... and you have to stop moving, while under fire... Certain games are honestly just as playable now as they were then, I'd put Mario and Starfox 64 on that list. But certain advancements are really tough to go backwards on. For example, playing Mario 64, which has a funky camera, can be tough at times to see what is going on. But playing 3d platformers that came out on the PS1 and Saturn before that? Ouch... those are rough. Before we really figured out how to make 3d games playable, there was a lot of trial and error from developers. At the time it's what you know so you're cool with it. But nowadays? It's like having an MP3 player or an Ipod or other such media device with a ton of songs on it, then suddenly having to go back to a cassette. You can't skip songs easily, sometimes the player eats the tape, etc. There are convenience things in games that make certain things age poorly. Some are very minor and able to be overlooked easily, like passwords on old games for example, and others, like the way you control in an FPS, are genuinely tough for the average gamer to overcome once they've experienced something better.

Breaker
Posts: 115
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 7:40 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby Breaker » December 2nd, 2016, 2:33 am

As I've been asking for reviews of Bond games, I am thrilled to see all 3 of these reviews.

I think you were a bit harsh on Goldeneye, but I appreciate your perspective. As someone who is a HUGE James Bond fan, one aspect of Goldeneye that has always impressed me is how faithful the single player missions are to the movie. It's quite accurate, and I think the single player facet of the game is still a blast. The multi-player, which is obviously the nostalgic favorite of most people, is fun and still gets a lot of run time when my buddies come over even now. I'd probably give it a B+, but that might be generous since I am such a Bond fan (and many of my friends are, too).

The World in Not Enough is probably a little bit better in the control and graphics arenas, and the ability to add bots actually adds replay to the multi-player, if that makes sense. But to me, even though it *should* be a better gaming experience than Goldeneye, for some reason it isn't. I think others have hit on the two main reasons - the music and the lighting in the multi-player. This one is probably a B- for me.

Perfect Dark is basically Goldeneye perfected. I'd grade it as an A. Yet, for this Bond fan, since it isn't actually a Bond game, it falls slightly below whenever I want to pull out an N64 FPS game.

jon
Posts: 315
Joined: April 9th, 2015, 4:30 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby jon » December 2nd, 2016, 4:21 pm

I agree with all of Breaker's brilliant post. The huge point here is that Goldeneye was faithful to the movie. I'm also a huge Bond fan, and the game is faithful to the movie, I didn't put it so eloquently, lol. It just feels like James Bond, it's hard to explain. And so for fans of the movie franchise it's a blast. If anything I enjoy the single player mode more than I did when it came out. I just don't know that anyone who isn't a huge Bond fan would understand. And another point I make is that yes the game is meant for anyone who loves video games. But it's specifically for fans of the movie. And the multi player in a game like this is always cherry on top of the cake. I mean, it's a one player game. And I always knew that the one player mode was awesome. There's some levels that are among the best designed I have ever seen.

User avatar
C64_Critic
Posts: 53
Joined: April 11th, 2015, 11:51 am

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby C64_Critic » December 2nd, 2016, 4:26 pm

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.

Alucard1191
Posts: 93
Joined: November 16th, 2016, 12:55 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby Alucard1191 » December 2nd, 2016, 5:04 pm

C64_Critic wrote:
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.



I'll second that warlords is an absolute blast with my buddies. I use to play that at Nickel City a lot. That is an absolute classic.

Gleebergloben123
Posts: 138
Joined: April 8th, 2015, 12:06 am

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby Gleebergloben123 » December 2nd, 2016, 6:18 pm

C64-Critic and Alucard, thank you for the explanation. When I've heard "this game didn't age well", I would think people were referring to graphics, which didn't make much sense to me. But in the context of controls, gameplay, cheap deaths, etc., it's very clear now. Thanks again.

jon
Posts: 315
Joined: April 9th, 2015, 4:30 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby jon » December 3rd, 2016, 1:46 am

Again, all I hear is multiplayer as if that should have any bearing on how good the game is. And sure for all I know there is a revolutionary way of playing FPS's and the control scheme renders Goldeneye obsolete and no one should touch it with a 10 foot pole. You can't look at it from an FPS perspective, or a multi player perspective. This is so ridiculous. I get the feeling that people try to spark up the multiplayer with friends, expecting Halo and being let down that it hasn't aged well. And then talk smack about it because they didn't have a good time with their friends. I'm glad there's another James Bond fan chiming in, because I'm not the only one. Guys, this is a one player game. I keep explaining that and all I hear is how the multiplayer sucks. The multiplayer was a fluke thing that got wildly popular. Me, I never was hot and heavy over it to begin with. Why? I know why. Because I'm a big fan of the movies and wanted to be James Bond. And how hard is it to understand that James Bond is a one player game. Is that too hard to comprehend?

User avatar
C64_Critic
Posts: 53
Joined: April 11th, 2015, 11:51 am

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby C64_Critic » December 3rd, 2016, 10:54 am

jon wrote:Again, all I hear is multiplayer as if that should have any bearing on how good the game is. And sure for all I know there is a revolutionary way of playing FPS's and the control scheme renders Goldeneye obsolete and no one should touch it with a 10 foot pole. You can't look at it from an FPS perspective, or a multi player perspective. This is so ridiculous. I get the feeling that people try to spark up the multiplayer with friends, expecting Halo and being let down that it hasn't aged well.


This is an important perspective Jon, and exactly why I made sure to emphasize that my opinion was based on the multiplayer portion only. It's entirely possible that the levels, controls, game play mechanics are different/better playing the single player part of the game and in fact I'm running with the assumption that the score the Critic gave the game was based on a conglomeration of the single and multi player components together. I know the Critic is a *huge* James Bond fan as well so I'm sure he'd have been ever bit as eager to live out that 007 role playing as much as anyone. I'm sure he'll chime in on his own to talk about whether or how much time and weight he gave to the one player portion of the game.

Still, you have to admit that 9 out of 10 people that wax fondly about playing Goldeneye "back in the day" do so talking about multiplayer matches with their friends. I think you're the first person I've ever heard argue for the single player mode and dismiss the multiplayer to be honest, so it would be remiss for the Critic to ignore or minimize the multiplayer aspect when reviewing the game.

Luigi & Peach
Posts: 166
Joined: August 19th, 2015, 9:30 pm

Re: 2016/11/30: Nintendo 64: Goldeneye 007, 007: The World Is Not Enough, Perfect Dark

Postby Luigi & Peach » December 3rd, 2016, 11:03 am

Did anyone else love playing the multiplayer with one- hit kill turned on? I realize it's kind of cheap, but there was nothing more satisfying than judo chopping an opponent who had an automatic weapon and watching them go down. Also, maybe it's because I always played with 3-4 people and had most of the maps, memorized, but I never had the issue with finding other players.


Return to “Review Feedback”