3 ms·

Goldeneye is remembered as groundbreaking everywhere I go, it seems. A lot of it comes down to split-screen multiplayer and its ability to run on a $200 console

Goldeneye is remembered as groundbreaking everywhere I go, it seems. A lot of it comes down to split-screen multiplayer and its ability to run on a $200 console. It sold at least 10x as many units as Quake 2. People you meet by chance, in person, are more likely to remember Goldeneye. People you meet on HN or at FAANG companies had $2000 PCs back in 1998, hooked up to a LAN. You get a distorted perspective if you work in the tech world.

bennysomething 5y ago
That's a good point, it also seems to gaming press too.
everdrive 5y ago
I vividly remember my first experience with Quake. I had to turn the settings all the way down as far as they would go, and the game barely ran. We have a 486 DX33. It took me hours to download the 8mb shareware version, and the game stuttered badly. I remember the sound effects would echo badly as the computer could not render the game at full speed. I could hardly make any of the platforming sections, since the frame rate was so low, and there was a palpable delay between hitting the buttons, and getting a reaction. A year or two later, we got an upgraded PC which ran at ~100 MHz, and of course this handled Quake just fine. It was only then that I played it online. I remember distinctly: 800 ping was "pretty good," while over 1000 ping" was on the boundary of playable. We had dial-up only, and were very rural, so our connection quality was not simply slow, but also spotty and high-latency.
- klodolph 5y ago
  I remember that Quake was not designed to run on a 486 at all. The vertex transformation code that did a perspective divide was optimized around the Pentium microarchitecture and wasn't as efficient on other microarchitectures, sometimes much less efficient. Quake is cited as one of the reasons why Cyrix disappeared.

3 ms·

Goldeneye is remembered as groundbreaking everywhere I go, it seems. A lot of it comes down to split-screen multiplayer and its ability to run on a $200 console

by klodolph 5y ago

bennysomething 5y ago
That's a good point, it also seems to gaming press too.
everdrive 5y ago
I vividly remember my first experience with Quake. I had to turn the settings all the way down as far as they would go, and the game barely ran. We have a 486 DX33. It took me hours to download the 8mb shareware version, and the game stuttered badly. I remember the sound effects would echo badly as the computer could not render the game at full speed. I could hardly make any of the platforming sections, since the frame rate was so low, and there was a palpable delay between hitting the buttons, and getting a reaction. A year or two later, we got an upgraded PC which ran at ~100 MHz, and of course this handled Quake just fine. It was only then that I played it online. I remember distinctly: 800 ping was "pretty good," while over 1000 ping" was on the boundary of playable. We had dial-up only, and were very rural, so our connection quality was not simply slow, but also spotty and high-latency.
- klodolph 5y ago
  I remember that Quake was not designed to run on a 486 at all. The vertex transformation code that did a perspective divide was optimized around the Pentium microarchitecture and wasn't as efficient on other microarchitectures, sometimes much less efficient. Quake is cited as one of the reasons why Cyrix disappeared.