Oxigen_Waste Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I think Ine and I played it once or twice and haven't touched it since. You're not missing much. I swore it was online though, can't believe that it isn't. I actually got to play Nintendoland with two other people this weekend. The Animal Crossing and Luigi's Mansion games are good. However, the disc is now back in the box and it'll probably never see the light of day again. A bit of a shame. Howeveeeeer, I got to play one of the worst multiplayer games ever this weekend. Goldeneye for the Wii. Fuck me, how can Goldeneye be the name of the best AND worst multiplayer simultaneously? The N64 version is great but the Wii version in local multiplayer is AWFUL. Not just a bit bad, it's fucking tragic. There were so many things that were wrong with it. I wish I had filmed it. (one of those moments where you kinda wish the WiiU had a share button...just putting that out there ) Having three people with Wiimotes trying to play an FPS casually just doesn't work. Unless you're all sat in exactly the same spot, it just...it's a mess. Turning was so slow, the game looked really terrible and it ultimately just become a chore. There was no passion in it either, it's so utterly boring. I'm still shocked. How could that go so wrong? I don't think the game in single player looked bad at all but it looks disgusting in multiplayer. Never again. However, it did bring on some laughs. I know I'm gonna get flack for this, but I will never ever understand how the original Goldeneye ever became a "classic". Splitscreen shooters just don't work (people always peek, can't be avoided) and I'll never understand how anyone can get over the controls. And don't give me the "at the time" speech, FPS games on PC during those days controlled exactly the same as they do today, so the standard for excellence was already there. I remember playing it at the time and thinking it was ridiculously cumbersome to play compared to the stuff on PC. Rare are the most overrated dev ever.
Wii Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I think Ine and I played it once or twice and haven't touched it since. You're not missing much. I swore it was online though, can't believe that it isn't. I actually got to play Nintendoland with two other people this weekend. The Animal Crossing and Luigi's Mansion games are good. However, the disc is now back in the box and it'll probably never see the light of day again. A bit of a shame. Howeveeeeer, I got to play one of the worst multiplayer games ever this weekend. Goldeneye for the Wii. Fuck me, how can Goldeneye be the name of the best AND worst multiplayer simultaneously? The N64 version is great but the Wii version in local multiplayer is AWFUL. Not just a bit bad, it's fucking tragic. There were so many things that were wrong with it. I wish I had filmed it. (one of those moments where you kinda wish the WiiU had a share button...just putting that out there ) Having three people with Wiimotes trying to play an FPS casually just doesn't work. Unless you're all sat in exactly the same spot, it just...it's a mess. Turning was so slow, the game looked really terrible and it ultimately just become a chore. There was no passion in it either, it's so utterly boring. I'm still shocked. How could that go so wrong? I don't think the game in single player looked bad at all but it looks disgusting in multiplayer. Never again. However, it did bring on some laughs. Goldeneye was really good online. The Siberian snow level was my favourite. I finished the single player campaign, that too was good. I've never finished a COD single player campaign. Never tried the local multiplayer and I probably wouldn't. You need to adjust the settings to make the turning faster and other adjustments too. I've never been a fan of split screen multiplayer. It's tolerable at 2 but at 4 I hate it and that goes all the way back to MK64. It's too small and the game takes a big hit. How you'd play an FPS I wouldn't know. Even lately I played MK8 with 3 players and the frame rate drop put me right off. I hope there's an update for 2 players to have their own screen ala Blops 2 and All Star Sonic Racing Transformed.
Sheikah Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 I know I'm gonna get flack for this, but I will never ever understand how the original Goldeneye ever became a "classic". Splitscreen shooters just don't work (people always peek, can't be avoided) and I'll never understand how anyone can get over the controls. And don't give me the "at the time" speech, FPS games on PC during those days controlled exactly the same as they do today, so the standard for excellence was already there. I remember playing it at the time and thinking it was ridiculously cumbersome to play compared to the stuff on PC. Rare are the most overrated dev ever. I think this one's pretty obvious - Goldeneye could easily be played with friends on your N64 while PC gaming was very much seen as a reclusive form of gaming back then. At least, it was nowhere near as easy for me to play against my friends in that way, whereas it was on my N64. I also never found peeking too much of an issue, since everyone could see everyone so it pretty much levelled the playing field.
Jonnas Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 The original Goldeneye got famous for being one of the few good console FPSes at the time, along with Quake. Online gaming wasn't exactly a thing back then, and LAN gaming was impractical, so the most accessible way to play FPS multiplayer was, indeed, on consoles, split-screen and all. Also, even if PC multiplayer was more practical at the time, there's another potential issue: for some absurd reason, PC gamers and console gamers (as long as their respective fandoms) haven't mixed much. Never understood why Never played the Goldeneye single-player, but if it was anything like Timesplitters 2, then I trust it was engaging. MK8 is going to be the first home console game with DLC, is it not? As was said, there were other Ninty console games with DLC, but I'm not here to hammer that more. Their first-ever game with DLC (Fire Emblem: Awakening) was on the 3DS, and I originally took this comment of yours as purposefully ignoring the DLC on 3DS games. I think making the distinction between portable DLC and console DLC is a bit pointless, as Nintendo clearly takes both "branches" seriously, and the Fire Emblem DLC was the first time we ever saw Nintendo taking a stab at it (and being successful, no less). If I'm not mistaken, New Luigi U came out shortly after, so it's reasonable to assume both were being worked on simultaneously, and that neither was more important than the other. For the purposes of discussing whether Nintendo is behind the times or not, I don't think it makes a difference whether they started on the 3DS or the Wii U, as they consider both consoles equally important, even if the gaming media (and public) generally don't. Finally, on this DLC debate, I will just add that even if Nintendo is late to the party (they usually are), they're at least doing DLC right: offering a fair price for good content. And with the state that the industry has gotten itself into, I think that setting that sort of example is ultimately the healthiest move.
The Bard Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 I know I'm gonna get flack for this, but I will never ever understand how the original Goldeneye ever became a "classic". Splitscreen shooters just don't work (people always peek, can't be avoided) and I'll never understand how anyone can get over the controls. And don't give me the "at the time" speech, FPS games on PC during those days controlled exactly the same as they do today, so the standard for excellence was already there. I remember playing it at the time and thinking it was ridiculously cumbersome to play compared to the stuff on PC. Rare are the most overrated dev ever. Yeah bro Goldeneye was totally shit but I played it to death because it was the only FPS I'd ever played at the time. Then I got Quake on PC and it was like I didn't actually have to play these games like a palsied out treacle swimmer. Can't go back to it, it's trash. Also this thread has so little discussion that it's turned into a meta discussion about the thread itself like some sort of fucking Nintendo singularity.
Zechs Merquise Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 This is hilarious! It's now so 'cool' to hate Nintendo we're actually bashing classic games that shaped the whole industry and referring to them as 'trash'?? Goldeneye was a masterpiece - and not just for the fun multiplayer. That was an after thought. The main draw on Goldeneye and the thing that made it stand out was the missions. A proper structured set of single player missions that had you completing actual objectives and having to use stealth more than just out and out fire power. It broke the mold of just collect three keys and fight through hordes of mindless enemies collecting ammo and pushing walls to find secrets. The places felt like real world locations. The enemies weren't just mindless zombies and the game actually added more objectives and things to do when the difficulty got higher - rather than just making loads more enemies appear and making the damage go sky high. What's more, post game you could set the parameters in levels, complete speed challenges and it had hidden missions that were great. It really took FPS gaming past the Doom/Quake/Rise of the Triad kill fests and changed the way people looked at the genre. Yeah, it doesn't play as well today, because most early 3D games don't - they all suffer from low frame rates which is something we've moved past and once you go back to them it kills the experience. Goldeneye was massive - and for good reason. It was not only a masterpiece that changed the FPS genre, but it was also damn good fun in both single and multiplayer mode. As for the Wii version - the multiplayer tried to emulate the original, and after games like Modern Warfare you can see how FPS gaming has again moved on. It felt old fashioned as it hadn't moved forward and kept with the times. The single player on the other hand was godly! It felt like the original in terms of the stealth, but brought in enough contemporary influences so it didn't feel dated. What's more, the Wii remote aiming was amazing for headshots.
Hero-of-Time Posted September 9, 2014 Author Posted September 9, 2014 I never really cared for Goldeneye on the N64. It was alright and I appreciate what it did for the N64 and the industry but it wasn't for me. Me and my mates were too busy playing things like Mario, Diddy Kong Racing, Smash Bros, Mario Party etc. As for the Wii version of the game, I thought it was garbage. I played it a couple of times and just didn't like it at all. It didn't help coming from playing FPS on the 360, to then playing a jaggy mess on the Wii.
Cube Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 The Wii version was a poor Call of Duty with half decent stealth. Although the headache-inducing reload animation blur made it nearly unplayable. The N64 version was brilliant, although entirely surpassed by Perfect Dark. edit: perhaps we need a thread split.
Happenstance Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Goldeneye was always a game for me that was impressive for consoles but if you were a PC gamer at the time it was nothing special. Doesn't take away from its console impact of course.
Rummy Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Yes, Mario Kart has online but the lack of options, voice chat and other stuff that has been discussed to death on here shows that they are behind the curve in this regard. Online is still terrible..Lack of voice chat hurts. I haven't played the Pokémon games, but even Mario Kart 8 has a very lacking online. The online in MK8 is adequate, not "used well". I'll take an example of something that I've probably played the most online, and that's due to the good online nature of its platform - Halo Reach I apparently clocked a total of almost 118 hours on the game. MK8 playtime so far? 13 hours, with some of that being offline. Now it could be argued that either way, a single sale of a game was made - but in Halo's case there's the arguable potential profit from Xbox live but more importantly my time in Reach and conversation with a friend led me to purchase Halo 4 a couple days after release, renew my Xbox live, and then clock up a similar amount of 119 hours - this time all of it exclusively online. And it was mostly because of that excellent online functionality. I played often with my headset on - I could chat and chuckle with mates whilst they were on their xboxes, obviously voice chat if we played matches together, occasionally chat randomly with a stranger - sometimes even if they didn't have a headset I could communicate and it was clear they were listening. And when was all this? Halo Reach was like...4 years ago? Halo 4 was 2 years ago? The system/infrastructure and ability to do these things even older. Me and my friends are all getting older now too, more responsibilities and ting, I need online more and more to actually manage to video game socially and I can't believe that Nintendo are still just so behind the curve with it. (random aside - I love how easy it is for me to simply log on to my halo waypoint from my PC and see all my playtime stats with little more than a few clicks and keystrokes. I'd enjoy more stuff like that in the 'cloud') Edited September 9, 2014 by Rummy
Hero-of-Time Posted September 9, 2014 Author Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Ah, Halo:Reach. Good times. The Firefight mode in that was godly. You and 3 mates, online, fighting waves of enemies, as your backs were against the wall. Amazing. Wait.... I'm thinking of ODST. Also amazing. I probably had more fun online with ODST than Reach. Both were great games though. Edited September 9, 2014 by Hero-of-Time
Kav Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 It pains me that the Wii had 3rd Party games with a vastly superior online set-up than Nintendo's own games on the WiiU. The Wii CoD games are the perfect example of this.
drahkon Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 I'd enjoy more stuff like that in the 'cloud' Dude, there is other stuff to enjoy in the 'cloud' right now. It pains me that the Wii had 3rd Party games with a vastly superior online set-up than Nintendo's own games on the WiiU. The Wii CoD games are the perfect example of this. Is that true? Never played a CoD on a Nintendo console, but that sounds horrible. The Wii had games with better online set-up than WiiU games? Shiiieeeet.
Hero-of-Time Posted September 9, 2014 Author Posted September 9, 2014 Is that true? Never played a CoD on a Nintendo console, but that sounds horrible. The Wii had games with better online set-up than WiiU games? Shiiieeeet. For a start, you could actually talk to people online while playing CoD on the Wii.
Goron_3 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 @Zell came over the other week and we played some Mario Kart and after about 5 minutes one of us said 'Xbox Live was better in 2007 for Halo 3 than the Nintendo Network is now for MK8'. God dammit Nintendo.
Kav Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 You could create a party with your friends and search for public games as a group.
Hero-of-Time Posted September 9, 2014 Author Posted September 9, 2014 @Zell came over the other week and we played some Mario Kart and after about 5 minutes one of us said 'Xbox Live was better in 2007 for Halo 3 than the Nintendo Network is now for MK8'. God dammit Nintendo. It's funny because it's true. Thing is, they could probably do all the other stuff that Sony and Microsoft do, but for whatever the reason, they just choose not to. I would love someone to question them about this.
Goron_3 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 It's funny because it's true. Thing is, they could probably do all the other stuff that Sony and Microsoft do, but for whatever the reason, they just choose not to. I would love someone to question them about this. Did you listen to this weeks RFN with Dan Adelman. It's quite eye opening imo.
Hero-of-Time Posted September 9, 2014 Author Posted September 9, 2014 Did you listen to this weeks RFN with Dan Adelman. It's quite eye opening imo. Yeah, just replied to you in that topic.
Oxigen_Waste Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 I think this one's pretty obvious - Goldeneye could easily be played with friends on your N64 while PC gaming was very much seen as a reclusive form of gaming back then. At least, it was nowhere near as easy for me to play against my friends in that way, whereas it was on my N64. I also never found peeking too much of an issue, since everyone could see everyone so it pretty much levelled the playing field. I had the opposite experience, myself. Most of us didn't have consoles back then (I only knew 1 person with an N64 at the time) and almost everyone had access to their parents' computer at home (maybe this is just something that is bound to be different when comparing a wealthy country like the UK to other nations). The internet wasn't really a thing at the time though, so I can certainly see the appeal when it comes to the multiplayer, but for me personally, I just can't understand how anyone would play a clunky FPS on splitscreen when they could be playing Mario Kart, F-Zero or Smash Bros. Plus, I really don't think the game was that good for multiplayer, having fiddled with it a bit at the time. Was it fun? Sure! But what game isn't, with friends? I've had great fun with some truly average games because I was playing them with friends. I literally can't see a single extraordinary thing about the game, if I'm being honest. Not that it's a bad game, at all... it just does not and cannot live up to the absurd reputation it has. This is hilarious! It's now so 'cool' to hate Nintendo we're actually bashing classic games that shaped the whole industry and referring to them as 'trash'?? Goldeneye was a masterpiece - and not just for the fun multiplayer. That was an after thought. The main draw on Goldeneye and the thing that made it stand out was the missions. A proper structured set of single player missions that had you completing actual objectives and having to use stealth more than just out and out fire power. It broke the mold of just collect three keys and fight through hordes of mindless enemies collecting ammo and pushing walls to find secrets. The places felt like real world locations. The enemies weren't just mindless zombies and the game actually added more objectives and things to do when the difficulty got higher - rather than just making loads more enemies appear and making the damage go sky high. What's more, post game you could set the parameters in levels, complete speed challenges and it had hidden missions that were great. It really took FPS gaming past the Doom/Quake/Rise of the Triad kill fests and changed the way people looked at the genre. Yeah, it doesn't play as well today, because most early 3D games don't - they all suffer from low frame rates which is something we've moved past and once you go back to them it kills the experience. Goldeneye was massive - and for good reason. It was not only a masterpiece that changed the FPS genre, but it was also damn good fun in both single and multiplayer mode. As for the Wii version - the multiplayer tried to emulate the original, and after games like Modern Warfare you can see how FPS gaming has again moved on. It felt old fashioned as it hadn't moved forward and kept with the times. The single player on the other hand was godly! It felt like the original in terms of the stealth, but brought in enough contemporary influences so it didn't feel dated. What's more, the Wii remote aiming was amazing for headshots. I can't agree with any of this. It is in no way, shape or form a masterpiece. It broke no molds whatsoever, you've just been playing the wrong FPS games. Quake was fun, but you're right about about it's linear progression. You seem to be overlooking several other hugely influential games from that era, though. The System Shock games, Bungie's Marathon games, Mechwarrior, Duke Nukem 3D, Half Life, Rainbow Six, Medal Of Honor, the list goes on. Several of which were released quite a bit earlier than GoldenEye. I only became aware of most of these games later on, obviously, but the point stands that they can't be ignored. I get it. The game was special to you and it provided you with many memorable moments and fond memories. But the masses being ignorant of everything else that was being made out there isn't really a valid point in GoldenEye's advantage. So while it did help change the way people looked at FPS games, it can hardly be credited with breaking any molds. In my experience, it never, for a single second, felt "real", as you say. Immersion was not one of it's strong suits at all. Perfect Dark is a different beast, though... Much like every single "supposedly-great" game that Rare has ever made, GoldenEye was a competent and decent product which got propelled to interstellar fame because the player base was absolutely desperate for games and their games were on the right side of average. It's funny, I played DKC1/2, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Banjo and Conker because they were all supposed to be god-tier and I didn't really think any of them was even close to being great (conker was funny and memorable as hell, but the gameplay was so mediocre). I was quite surprised a few years later (when I finally started caring about devs) when I find out they all just happened to be developed by the same guys. I guess whatever their "magic" is, it just doesn't work on me at all, since I unknowingly disliked all of their games I played. Played Starfox Adventures too, and while it didn't have a great reputation, it was just as competent-yet-uninspired as everything else they've done. With all that said and done, at the end of the day, I don't think anyone can seriously claim GoldenEye is anywhere near being a bad game. It's a nice game. Definitely no masterpiece, however. Maybe Rare's just not for me! They're a bit too incompetent at nailing the gameplay and the other elements aren't to my liking and therefore can't really compensate.
Jonnas Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 This is hilarious! It's now so 'cool' to hate Nintendo we're actually bashing classic games that shaped the whole industry and referring to them as 'trash'?? Don't go jumping to conclusions, Oxi_Waste's opinions are very much genuine. He also dislikes games like Final Fantasy 7, you know. We're in a (supposedly) level-headed forum. People aren't going to say they dislike games just to "be cool" or spite others. GoldenEye was a competent and decent product which got propelled to interstellar fame because the player base was absolutely desperate for games and their games were on the right side of average. Can I use this quote whenever someone mentions about how Nintendo were awesome during the N64 days? That console was the definition of "few, but excellent" games, but people act like it was some sort of bountiful golden age.
Aneres11 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 It's a very interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the comments. But anyone who doesn't think Banjo-Kazooie was anything other than amazing needs their head testing.
dazzybee Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 That's the paradox, I really enjoyed the singleplayer and thought it looked quite good for a Wii game at the time. But, I was blown away by just how bad the multiplayer was. It surprised me. I was certain it would be at least decent. It's probably better online...maybe? I can't believe it... Pikmin 3 multiplayer is just stunning... The challenge maps are like smack and bingo battle is an incredible and fresh mutplaiyer experience... And it looked quite good for a wii (u) game at the time... You've changed... Dude, there is other stuff to enjoy in the 'cloud' right now. Is that true? Never played a CoD on a Nintendo console, but that sounds horrible. The Wii had games with better online set-up than WiiU games? Shiiieeeet. Not true, cod on the wii u does the same thing. Plus Monster hunter does too. I think he means SOME wii games have better online than SOME wii u games.
drahkon Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Not true, cod on the wii u does the same thing. Plus Monster hunter does too. I think he means SOME wii games have better online than SOME wii u games. Still unacceptable that some WiiU games have worse online set-ups.
Pestneb Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 But you probably could find some games on the PS4/X1 that have worse online set ups than SOME games on the Wii U. It's a reflection of the software, not just the hardware/infrastructure.
Recommended Posts