XIII is cool but boring.
Printable View
XIII is cool but boring.
I'm confused. Earlier in this thread you disputed System Shock 1 being an FPS. That's understandable but it seems weird to include the other two in the genre then, especially System Shock 2 given the increase in RPG elements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
I'd say this seems likely, at least for the most part. Maybe a bit of early gaming on other things, but the majority on N64. Just a hunch. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Again, EVERYTHING Goldeneye 64 did was done before, and often better elsewhere. Goldeneye was maybe the game to give it to the console masses (younger folk at the time who didn't have full PC access yet). I can VERY clearly remember the first time I saw Goldeneye, and I was not at all impressed. The only thing about it was that it was on a console instead of a PC. Had Goldeneye been a PC game, it would have been a complete afterthought.
Bingo.Quote:
i had many friends with PCs
...The reason i bought the N64 was because it looked like the only good console for FPS (i could't buy a PC)...
Don't get me wrong, Goldeneye did what it did quite well for a console game at the time. It was above everything else FPS on a console when it came out, at least as far as I know. I did have fun with it back in 1997/98 and even onward.
The Turok games were pretty popular on PC back in the day, not 1st tier Doom/Quake/Half Life popular, but they sold pretty well nonetheless.
System Shock 2 controlled more like a traditional FPS and it seemed like it had more shooting, but i admit i never played the first one for more than 30 minutes to know for sure. I only played the second one. That's why a asked if SS1 counts as an FPS, i wasn't sure. I always thought of it as a game closer to something like the first person Ultima games.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
If Goldeneye was on the PC it would have better resolution and textures, better frame-rates (depending on the setup), no disappearing bodies (because of the better hardware/memory) and mouse/keyboard controls. These seem to be the biggest reasons that everyone here complains about. With these "faults" fixed it would have been a major hit on the PCs too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breetai
That's kind of like saying System Shock 2 has more traditional controls than Doom. FPS controls weren't so standardized in 1994. Either way, I don't think the control setup affects what genre they fall into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulis
The second game is more survival horror-influenced and involves more ammo conservation so I think it might have less shooting. I think it's fair to call both mixed genre games but I think the experience points aspect makes the second game more RPG-ish.Quote:
and it seemed like it had more shooting.
This seems just right on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngofKHTLM0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMUUrFtwHDY
I didn't say someone can't have it in your top 10, it's just that if they do, they don't really know any better.I liked the game growing up,but having matured I now see the game isn't very good, I know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
This thread inspired me to play some Terminator: Future Shock today. It's amazing how well it holds up. I have to wonder how many hardcore Goldeneye fans have even played it. It came out more than a year before GE, and has similar mission based design, but it's so much smoother playing.
I never payed Future Shock, but I played Sky Net a while back, how similar are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
They use the same engine and are quite similar. It was originally just going to be an expansion pack. The biggest difference is that Skynet added multiplayer.
wait....no duke nukem 3d....
Half Life definately needs to be in that list. Don't forget that HL was built on the Quake engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christuserloeser
The implication is that you "know better", i.e. you're right and anyone else is wrong if they put this in their top ten. Sorry, I don't think opinions about enjoyment of games are that absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
Again, I've played a good number of fps's on various platforms and PC, so I don't put Goldeneye as one of my top out of ignorance or not knowing any better. I just have a different opinion from you of what makes a good game.
My favorite FPSes? Hmm... it's never been one of my preferred genres, so I haven't played as many FPSes as I have games in some other genres I like more, but that said, I can at least list a favorite.
1. Star Wars Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight with its expansion Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith - This is a very easy pick, and has been my favorite FPS ever since I first played it in the late '90s.
After that I don't know. I'll just list some FPSes I liked, in no order.
Doom (PC, SNES)
Perfect Dark (N64)
Doom 64 (N64)
Hexen (PC)
Half-Life 2 (PC)
Turok: Dinosaur Hunter (N64)
Turok 3 (N64)
Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force and its addon Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force - Expansion Pack (PC)
Return to Castle Wolfenstein (PC)
Unreal Tournament (PC)
Tribes: Vengeance (PC)
FPSes I liked but have only played for a small amount of time (couple hours at most), not enough to judge for sure: Unreal Tournament 3 Black, Quake 1, Doom 3, etc. There are other FPSes I could mention because I at least moderately enjoyed what little I played of them, but they probably don't quite deserve to be listed here.
I won't count Metroid Prime (GC/Wii) as an FPS, or it'd be high on the list.
As for Goldeneye, it's badly dated, even just among N64 FPSes. Any of the Turok games are better, as are Doom 64 and Perfect Dark. But of course, as that N64 reviews thread made clear, I'm critical of Goldeneye...