N64's Goldeneye or PS1's Silent Hill

Well the title gives it away. I want your opionion sp. on which is the better of the two.

Goldeneye was very inovative for its time.

Silent Hill has an amazing series.

I don't look at it which was better. I liked them both and I don't compare them against each other because for a start they are two completely different genres. I liked Goldeneye for the gameplay and multiplayer and I liked Silent Hill for the gameplay and story. Both great games.liquidzero123

I agree they both are great. Silent Hill had the spooky atmosphere and Goldeneye had the great multiplayer.

For that Generation of gaming I played mostly N64 so my love is to Goldeneye. I hope they can remake it or port it somehow. It would be amazing to play with a new feel.

Well the title gives it away. I want your opionion sp. on which is the better of the two.

Goldeneye was very inovative for its time.

Silent Hill has an amazing series.

Goldeneye007800

Both are great games, both are innovative in their own way. If I had to offer a personal opinion on which was better, I find that both are somewhat annoying to play now for pretty much the same reason. The combat in Silent Hill is horrendous, as the protagonist has the ludicrous shuffle-walk-run of the classic RE series, he shoots like he's blindfolded, and flails at the air with melee weapons like a child.

In Goldeneye, attempting to play with that horrendous beast-claw controller is about as difficult as fighting anything in Silent Hill, but at least the desperation of being too pathetic to kill anything is acceptable in a survival horror game. The edge: Silent Hill.

Also, although I agree that Goldeneye was innovative and very good at the time, its lasting value is considerably less than Silent Hill. In Silent Hill, despite the dated graphics and poor controls, I think its uniqueness in atmosphere and the world it created are much more of a lasting contribution [whereas there are tons of better shooters to play now instead of Goldeneye].