Did GoldenEye 007 and Perfect Dark age well?

I'm going to be hated for saying this, but I don't think they have aged well at all. Don't get me wrong, they're still fun games. But they're not as great as it used to be, and feels terribly outdated modern console first-person shooters. I just really don't think it deserves all of the Gold-like praise it's receiving from gamers, as if they're looking past the game's near game breaking flaws. The controls are just godawful, as it feels jerky to rotate or move. Not to mention that I can't individually aim my weapon, by holding down a butt and standing still during the process. It just feels archaic and sloppy for what we can do by today on console first-person shooters. It relies so much on auto-aiming, and even if I turn-off the auto-aim, there's no target reticule that I can aim properly with. I now for a fact that I'm going receive A LOT of hate for saying this too, but I feel the Halo series are better games. I'm no Halo fanboy (I can admit that each game have their own flaws), but the controls are tight and feel natural. I don't have to rely on TOO much on auto-aiming, because I can individually aim without holding down a button and standing still. I also feel that also console FPS like Resistance: Fall of Men, Resistance 2 (say what you want about it's single-player, but the MP makes up for it), Killzone 2 (The controls aren't as nearly as clunky), and many others. I used to love PD and GoldenEye, but when I took off my nostalgia goggles, I didn't enjoy as much as I used to.brosyn

Yes it does. Of course games always improve and in 2010 Goldeneye is not as great, but for the time it was simply brilliant, you had to be there...

Goldeneye? Hell no, I played it about 2 months ago for nostalgia's sake and it has probably aged worse than any other classic game I've played recently. Though the death physics still impress me, I suppose.

Haven't played Perfect Dark in years, so I can't comment.

The games have aged just fine, in certain ways. In other ways, they have aged terribly. Where the games still succeed is in the actual structure of the game--the pacing, difficulty curve, level design, etc. Where they fail is in performance and a dated control scheme. But really, if you play Perfect Dark--XBLA version--I think you'd be surprised at how well the game holds up.

Although the fun factor of the game is still there, the control scheme hasn't aged very well due to the Nintendo 64's singular joystick whereas controllers later on had dual-joysticks. Personally I'd say Halo: Combat Evolved laid out the perfect control scheme for console FPS.

However it is still a massive benchmark for the FPS genre on the console.

Not really. The level design is pretty bad and they were made for controllers for only one analog stick. Playing Perfect Dark on the 360 feels clunky and sloppy because it was built for a N64 controller.

They were great for their time butconsole shooters have evolved to the point to where Rare's N64 shooters feel completely archaic.

If you're an open-minded person then you'll like a good game no matter how old it is. I play Half-Life 1 regularly and have some great fun with it, while some people here are just spoiled with graphics and other stuff that isirrelevant to gameplay.

If you're an open-minded person then you'll like a good game no matter how old it is. I play Half-Life 1 regularly and have some great fun with it, while some people here are just spoiled with graphics and other stuff that isirrelevant to gameplay.

Orchid87

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

If you're an open-minded person then you'll like a good game no matter how old it is. I play Half-Life 1 regularly and have some great fun with it, while some people here are just spoiled with graphics and other stuff that isirrelevant to gameplay.

vashkey

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

If you're an open-minded person then you'll like a good game no matter how old it is. I play Half-Life 1 regularly and have some great fun with it, while some people here are just spoiled with graphics and other stuff that isirrelevant to gameplay.

vashkey

I can't agree with that. I like Sonic Adventure more now than I did when I first got it. My problem with that game in the past was expectations. Perhaps I wanted some form of Sonic, ala Mario 64--but what came out was essentially sonic in 3D. If you accept the game for what it is, it is exceptional. It has aged very well. Now Windwaker-well, but well nonetheless.

I thought the voice acting and script were awful and it was full of some awkward moments like one scene later in the game where you litterally took a step and a cut scene happened and then when you took another few steps another cut scene showed. I thought there were too many glitches and the non Sonic levels just didn't hold up as well. The hub was kinda pointless to, there wasn't much to do other than go from one level to the next. Sonic Adventure 2 was better in this regard, allowing the player to just move straight to the next level.

It was Okay at best.

Very few games from the 3D era of the 90's have aged well, the controls and graphics for most games are unbearable by today's standards. Some games like Super Mario 64 have aged pretty well, but MGS as good as it is requires some getting used to.

Many will say no. But I don't care, I still love them.nintendoboy16

No, they haven't at all.

I'd say that, for the most part, the only FPS games that have aged somewhat well would be the PC FPS games from that era given that they use a control scheme almost exactly like is still used today, if not exactly alike.

They were awesome in their time, but we've moved so far beyond controlling games with one analog stick, four camera buttons, and heavy auto aim :P

It relies so much on auto-aiming, and even if I turn-off the auto-aim, there's no target reticule that I can aim properly with.

brosyn

What? Maybe my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember playing the game without auto-aim all the time with a reticule? I know you could take the reticule out of the game though.

I don't have to rely on TOO much on auto-aiming, because I can individually aim without holding down a button and standing still.

brosyn

I could shoot just fine while running without holding any button. Or at least I think so...? I haven't played that game in a long time, but can anyone confirm that playing without auto-aim removes your reticule?

All of that said do I think the game is dated by today FPS standards? Hell yes.

Although the fun factor of the game is still there, the control scheme hasn't aged very well due to the Nintendo 64's singular joystick whereas controllers later on had dual-joysticks. Personally I'd say Halo: Combat Evolved laid out the perfect control scheme for console FPS.

However it is still a massive benchmark for the FPS genre on the console.

Vesica_Prime

I still find that the controller was fine for FPS, though the joystick could've been a little better(still, I found it better than the joysticks found on the dual shock for FPSs). Sure, the N64 controller didn't have that second joystick, but the buttons you use in the game to move aren't that very different from what you would experience in a PC--only difference being that the mouse is a hell of a lot better for accuracy and the controls switch sides: K-M; Joystick-Cbutons. So it might have been a little conterintuitive to some--though only if you haven't played much console games to begin with.

They aged horribly.

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: GoldenEye 007 has aged FAR FAR worse than PD. I think PD holds up in some ways still, whereas GE is completely unplayable. That said, they both haven't aged perfectly.

halo copied turok/quake n64 control scheme basically.koolbobfatslob

is my fav poster back?

No, but PD can still be fun to play.

Well the first-person shooter genre has a lot of strong competition, so of course they feel dated today (not looking at the graphics). However, I still find them to be more enjoyable than many crappy FPSes that get released these days.

Ugh. They are still great games. I dont get what peoples problems are. Yeah theres no dual analog.. so what. We all managed with it back in the day, and the controls still work if you spend more than 20 seconds with them instead of just throwing your hands up in the air after 10 seconds going BLAH THIS IS OLD AND DOESNt WORK.. Its all about stoping and taking aim with the R button.. And i mean the games arent just about shooting either, there are different objectives you have to complete etc. on harder difficulty levels that are always fun to do.

The controls, even in their day, held both games down. Also the graphics had some problems in the draw distance department, and PD was basically in slow mo in various parts of the game.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="Orchid87"]

If you're an open-minded person then you'll like a good game no matter how old it is. I play Half-Life 1 regularly and have some great fun with it, while some people here are just spoiled with graphics and other stuff that isirrelevant to gameplay.

Heirren

I can't agree with that. I like Sonic Adventure more now than I did when I first got it. My problem with that game in the past was expectations. Perhaps I wanted some form of Sonic, ala Mario 64--but what came out was essentially sonic in 3D. If you accept the game for what it is, it is exceptional. It has aged very well. Now Windwaker-well, but well nonetheless.

sonic adventure aged sooooo badly imo.

EDIT: and the overworld is completly pointless

Terrible camera, twitchy controlls, slowdown, terrible voice acting and you only get to play as sonic in 10 missions

No, they didn't, although PD is still pretty enjoyable nowadays. Modern shooters have moved on a lot since then, and those games just feel dated now. They do, however, deserve all the praise they received. That they didn't age well doesn't change the fact that they were, at one point, outstanding games. Especially Goldeneye was a very important game.

I don't think so.

When I played Perfect Dark on the 360, I was just too used to Modern Day Shooters that it took me awhile to get used to the game.

If you were old enough to appreciate it at the time then yes, if not then nothing ages well to be honest...

If you were old enough to appreciate it at the time then yes, if not then nothing ages well to be honest...

SapSacPrime

Except Super Mario Bros. 3 :P

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

If you were old enough to appreciate it at the time then yes, if not then nothing ages well to be honest...

nameless12345

Except Super Mario Bros. 3 :P

Well, some genres haven't changed much. You still play a 2D side scroller with a D-Pad, and one or two buttons.

If you were old enough to appreciate it at the time then yes, if not then nothing ages well to be honest...

SapSacPrime

Loads of 8bit games and 16bit games have aged rather well.

I reckon the godawful controller is why.

The analog stick is in the freaking middle.

Other than that, I can't really say for myself since I haven't played neither of them.:P

I wish that modern games borrowed the whole idea of difficulty changing the requirements for level completion instead of just upping the damage the enemies give and take, and or their numbers.

I reckon the godawful controller is why.

The analog stick is in the freaking middle.

Other than that, I can't really say for myself since I haven't played neither of them.:P

Nega3

The godawful control didn't really help the games to ages well. Makes you wonder some person could be invincible back in the day! Guess everyone adapted at the time. =P