When I was introduced to 3D games, I found this game quite enjoyable. In fact, have relentlessly played it after midnight and then some.
But... why does everyone (yes, EVERYONE) continue to compare this title to next-gen games (ie. Halo)? I mean, it was fun. But it's not that good - is it? What makes it so good? What makes it more fun than games today? How is this possible?
hmmm thats a good question, to bad i cant answer it.
You are addressing excellent questions that I am still trying to figure out for myself. I personally enjoy and perfer Goldeneye far more than Halo 2, but expressing the reasons has never been easy for me. Many of my reasons are opinions that could easily be seen another way. I find that Goldeneye takes more skill to play. Halo just seems too simple to really get good at over time. I still find myself improving in my Goldeneye skills and I have had the game since August of '97, I believe. I still play it more than any other game. The multiplayer is still my favorite. Getting adroit at aiming and other movements, such as walking sideways with the C buttons, are things that one can improve on dramatically. The shooting technique and level designs are superb.
And not everyone compares Goldeneye with other next-gen games. Whenever I go into a new shooting game, I don't have the hope that it will be as excellent as Goldeneye was and I don't always bother comparing it to Goldeneye, except for TimeSplitters 2, but that was understandable. I just can't see games of today being superior to Goldeneye. It is just a great game.
I'll tell you why beacsue it was the first game that was actually a good multiplayer First Person Shooter. It had a variety of lvls , Characters, cheats, Weapons And an Awsome One player mode If it wasn't for this game we wouldn't have next generation game (ie Halo,halo2).
My favorite elements that made GoldenEye great for me were the weapons,gadgets,& level design. You had an ample amount of weapons in that game, and the gadgets are actually utilized throughout the game, not just used once and thrown away. The level design too. I absolutly loved the KGB building escape level, where you escape an intelligence agancy. You needed keys, you could hide, you had many objectives in one mission. Also I like how they put extra places where Bond actually never went in the movie itself. Such as the Water Caverns. I also like how they put older characters from the old movies in in the game, such as Jaws, MayDay, & Baron Samedi. To me thats what made that game great. The graphics were also as good as they needed to be.
I thought Goldeneye was good, but I personally prefer Tomorrow Never Dies. Partly becuase of the storyline, but also becuase of the gadgets. I prefer the gadgets in Tomorrow Never Dies to those in Goldeneye. But, then again, that's just my opinion.
Indeed, you do bring about some great questions, and although I personally haven't played Halo, I will still try to explain why I believe GoldenEye 007 is such a great game:
First I must address the difficulty of this game - Perfect. This game can be played by anyone at any level, be it a complete novice (In which case, they'll be happy if they can just pass a level on Agent level) or an uber-pro (In which case, they are side-strifing like mad to get the facility cheat at 00 Agent level in under 2:06. Perfect for any player with even the most minute of likes for shooting games (Hell, I often DISPISE shooting games, they are usually quite boring) will find themselves enjoying the perfection of the level layouts and mission objectives. While all too often a complete novice will get frustrated and turn off the game with other titles, this game is so gripping and fun that they will try until they finally jump off that dam. While all too often a seasoned pro will sit slumped as they kill anyone in their way with relative ease with other titles, they will be on the edge of their seats trying not to get killed or have the protectee get killed in the target time. In terms of difficulty, anyone at any level will find their own challenge within this title.
Oh, how fun it is at the same time! You will be so charged in your own fun while trying to find new ways to get around that pair of guards without getting shot. I often find myself planning to play for just a few minutes to find myself 3 hours later unable to drop the controller. Wow, words cannot describe how fun this game is.
The layout of the levels are so perfectly made, the numbers of bullets, the guns and other weapons available... Basically everything uncontrollable to the player is done perfectly. Health levels, damage for both yourself and enemies... I could go on, but you get the idea: everything is placed where they should be, everything available is at perfect quantity and quality. Amazing.
Sorry if I was unable to convince you myself, but I personally believe that it would be near-impossible to top this game short of making it a sort of virtual reality game with full colors and realistic movement sensors.
I see another thing about your post that I must note: Better Graphics don't mean a Better Game.
Let us take the Harvest Moon series for example:
Harvest Moon 64 - Noted by Harvest Moon veterans and nocices alike as, perhaps, the best Harvest Moon game made yet... The graphics aren't perfect, but the game is incredibly well-made.
Now let us look at a PS2 title:
Harvest Moon: Save the Homeland - Noted as perhaps one of the worst Harvest Moon games ever made, with a poor currency balancing, lack of need to farm, poor set-up of charaters and layout... The graphics, however, are superb, but the game is still quite bad.
So, what I'm basically trying to say is that this shouldn't be an argument between older-generation console versus newer-generation console, because there are a lot of great games (as well as terrible, for that matter) for older-generation consoles and a lot of terrible games (as well as great, for that matter) for newer-generation consoles... Actually, to be fair, we should assume that there are equal amounts of games on both camps of equal quality (Be it good or bad).
You made a LOT of good points there Crazy Guy.
I think the greatest aspect of Goldeneye was that it appealed to just about anyone.
Although for a lot of people the multiplayer is the best part, I personally got a lot from single player.
But, especially some of my favourite moments came from just watching my Dad play Goldeneye and how good he became. I simply showed him the basics and he ended up becoming a slaughter machine in single player.
Anyway as for the multiplayer it is excelent.
The only problem for me is a lack of quality opponents and the lack of respect this game gets these days from kids.
This game, with evenly matched opponents with decent attention spans is legendary.
And unlike most game I find it is great, no matter how many players you have to battle.
I can't wait till my next match of Goldeneye, whoever it ends up being against.
What I always loved about it was playing against a friend and having nothing but throwing knives. We always ended up facing each other and throwing knives hysterically, noone ever getting a hit.
I would still like to challenge Dex and D.J cat to a round of License to kill, complex, and just pistols. :) heh
well we are forgeting one game that matches goldeneye and is used still today as a comparision to any fps, Perfect Dark for the N64, it introduced one of todays biggest elements, Co-Op mode, now it may not of been the first game to do it, but it was the first one to get it right. you could think of it in the terms that Perfect Dark was merely a expanded version of 007, but it was one heck of a game, and id pick it any day over Halo, or Goldeneye, or any console fps in that matter.