3 ms·
> Unlike Quake, Goldeneye focus was objectives-based Which also wasn't groundbreaking. Plenty of games were objective based, going back to the 8 bit era. A g
by louthy 8y ago
> Unlike Quake, Goldeneye focus was objectives-based
Which also wasn't groundbreaking. Plenty of games were objective based, going back to the 8 bit era. A game like Exile [1] on the BBC Micro was easily as complex as Goldeneye, if not more so.
The control aspect alone of Goldeneye was awful. As a game it always felt forced and 'clunky' to me, compared to the smoothness and elegance of Quake.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLndV_f_vo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLndV_f_vo
- rhino369 8y agoGoldeneye wasn’t ground breaking, but it was the first real playable, good, FPS on console. And it was a blast to play. It also did things right. Had a decent story, had good level design, great gameplay for console. Without it, FPS on console might not have happened. Though some would argue that would be a good thing.
- djmips 8y agoGood summary except the last hyperbole. There's no way FPS doesn't happen on console even if GoldenEye was absent.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoIndeed. DOOM was out on the Sega Saturn and Atari Jaguar, at least. Speaking of the Jaguar, check out Alien vs. Predator for a console FPS that was years ahead of its time.
- culot 8y agoWasn't Doom already popular on consoles by then/before then? I think FPS domination was inevitable on all platforms, no single title could have stopped it.
- m-p-3 8y agoIt was far from a perfect game that's for sure, but it combines the elements of FPS, mission objectives, great level design (you might want to read how they managed to get some textures to fit the limited memory of the N64), a compelling story (that wasn't an exact replica of the movie, too many games make that mistake), couch/splitscreen multiplayer along with cheats you could unlock by being good at speedrunning. All together, those made a great game for its time.