This is how I feel. I just want something I can play 30 minutes at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieBogard
This is how I feel. I just want something I can play 30 minutes at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieBogard
FPS still hadn't come into their own on consoles when Goldeneye was released.
Actually, it's the reverse with me.
The more I play old games, the more I realize the new ones suck.
This is how it is with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil N
Specifically with Goldeneye though, it's awesome, but I find it to have laggy controls.
If it were the same game, with more refined controls, it'd be twice as good.
It's probably the best single player experience in a FPS game I've ever had.
Even beating out Doom and Duke Nukem 3D (which I still play, unlike Goldeneye, ironically) which had far superior controls.
The multiplayer of Goldeneye, thanks to the controls, is extremely interesting to me.
I find the strategy all comes in your skill at going for head shots.
Most players would rely on auto aim, but I was a beast with getting head shots using manual aim, and it always let me come out on top.
Strangely though, the only Goldeneye tournament I was ever in used "Licence To Kill" mode, so that didn't help. (it wasn't a real, pro, money, tournament)
Just the same, I hate Perfect Dark's multiplayer, because there's no point to go for head shots, you die too fast.
There's no fun there to me. I prefer my FPS games to give me time to set up my kills.
Doom 2, ironically, plays extremely fast. People die in one hit from a Super shot gun or rocket launcher most of the time.
I guess I deal with it better because the maps are small, and you usually spawn right by a powerful weapon, there's weapon stay by default, and everyone moves as fast as Sonic The Hedgehog.
This is just FPS games though.
The more I play older games from other genres, the more I realize the new games in those genres are terrible games. I just don't have fun with new games like I do with the old ones.
Doesn't help that all the news games are ultra easy, and all old games are moderately to super difficult.
I have the other way, the more I play modern games the more I go back to old games.
The problem with Goldeneye is the atrocious framerate in multiplayer and the fact that basically all console FPS since 2001 have used dual analog controls. Moving and aiming in Goldeneye is hell if you've played any shooter since then. Games like Doom, Duke 3d, and the Quakes can be enjoyed in modern ways - mouse and keyboard, 60fps, or double analog on a modified Xbox. That, to me, is why I'll continue to drag out the iD titles and the Duke while the N64 shooters rot in the dust.
And OP, I'm guessing this convo isn't going to be the most balanced since it was brought up on a retro board. If you go post this on, say, NeoGaf you'll probably get a lot more support.
This from a 15 year old...Quote:
-sigh- you young kids..
I don't have any problem moving in Goldeneye, since it basically uses dual joysticks...just one of them is buttons.
Unfortunately, that's the part that lags, and you have to manually aim because of it.
The auto centering also makes it pretty hard to correctly aim at heads by default.
The game also has alternative controls, for new school console FPS players.
So you can have the joystick strafe, and use the C buttons all as head turning buttons.
IMHO less user friendly, but then again I'm a legacy player (on consoles.)
If you want to legitimize the old single-stick controls, the Dreamcast shooters (Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Outtrigger, HalfLife) had better single-joystick controls than Goldeneye. Smoother, more precise stick control for looking plus more weighty button control for moving. Goldeneye just has a shitty implementation IMO.
I can't stand to play a 3D game with a single analog stick. Burning Rangers was agony to play when I went back to it a few months ago.
I don't prefer new games over the old or vice versa. There are genres that are no longer really active now (shooters, 2D platformers), and I can enjoy those on the old console. By the same token, new genres (sandbox games, modern FPS) have arisen that simply could not be done on the old machines.
And some genres are making a comeback. Graphic adventures have exploded onto modern consoles, which is a pleasant surprise. It's great that I can now play all types of games, often on the same machines even.
I definitely don't find that the old games suck when compared to new games because (for me at least) it's all relative to when you played them. By that I mean, I can enjoy a game like Yar's Revenge today because I grew up during that period of gaming, and it's still a lot of fun today.
I imagine that a lot of younger gamers might look at a game like that and dismiss it because of its simplicity, but that's one of the aspects I love about it: 1 button, 1 screen, but still plenty of fun and challenge.
By the same token, I also have very fond memories of playing Prince of Persia: SoT on the GameCube. I haven't played many modern games since then, but I remember that game as being...wow!
The thing with newer FPS's, or pretty much any new game, is that they are trying to tell a deep story, like a movie, which really gets in the way of the actual gameplay, you'd think that this was meant for the RPG genre only...
The only game I've stayed up an entire weekend playing with friends taking turns, old school style since Resident Evil on Playstation...is Sonic Unleashed (this year)
That's a pretty damn long gap, since we did the Resident Evil games in 1998, and they were the only games on PSX we did that with, so it feels more like it hasn't happen since Super NES and Genesis days.
Not many games have that special quality. (not counting fighting games here)
That comment was satirical. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis Knight
I don't judge an older game based on what's come after it in the genre. I tend to enjoy the game for it is, and what it offers. So games like Thunder Force IV, Ultimate Doom and Herzog Zwei, aren't any less fun because the likes of Raiden IV, Prey and Command & Conquer 3 came out (to me anyway).
I grew up playing the older games. As such, I watched things grow in the video game world, as opposed to having to go back and see what it was like before I was born, or old enough to really play a video game. Perhaps that gives me a different perspective than others here, perhaps not. I don't know. But what I do know is that I still enjoy games on my Atari XE, Master System, Genesis and such, and I don't see how the games coming out in the future are going to change that.
I see it as being much the same kind of thing regarding old TV programs. Just because "The Office" came along, doesn't mean "Barney Miller" stops being funny. You know?
I think we've reached the limits offered by traditional control devices. There are only so many ways you can do parkour using a standard gamepad, and Ninja Gaiden/Bayonetta/DMC won't be offering any groundbreaking control schemes any time soon. If anything games are becoming more like linear interactive movies.
I wouldn't mind fewer games if they offer the kind of advanced interaction as demonstrated in the (yet unrealistic) Natal's Milo footage.