Page 7 of 8

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:49 pm
by Melek-Ric
When I think of FPS games on console that really pushed the genre in the console space, it was Goldeneye ('97), Perfect Dark (2000), Halo CE (2001) and then Halo 2 (2004).

Goldeneye was the first, but each one of those games brought something great to the table and did it right for the time. The latter 3 have aged better than Goldeneye however and you can play those 3 today on the Xbox 360/One.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:02 am
by Jagosaurus
I once heard someone say
"There's PC FPS before Half Life and after Half Life."

I think that is true of Halo in the console world.

There's console FPS before Halo CE and after Halo CE.

It completely changed the game and the industry. Not sure I can say that about Goldeneye. Did Goldeneye do what it did well? Sure.

Also, of course DOOM, Wolf, Duke, etc paved the way. Then again, they did it right first. I think the conversation should be:
"Which FPS Had a Bigger Influence on Console FPS Gameplay" ... or something of the sorts.

The addition of great multiplayer on both of these is notable as well. While PC gamers were playing DOOM online for years... this sucked in console gamers to community (local) play. LAN party.... or 4 people huddled around a 20" CRT :lol:

As someone else mentioned, I liked Turok's control layout much better on the N64 controller than Goldeneye's.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:59 am
by Ziggy587
I'm really not sure I understand the question.

What game got console FPS right first? Well, Goldeneye, because it was released before Halo. I feel like this shouldn't even be a question.

What game did console FPS better? Well, Halo, but that's hardly a fair question, since it came out several years later on a newer generation of console hardware. Of course Halo did console FPS better than Goldeneye, but that's kinda like saying Sonic the Hedgehog did it better than Super Mario Bros. That doesn't mean SMB wasn't the first game, out of the two, to get platforming "right."

What exactly do we mean by "right" anyway? Goldeneye was a huge commercial and critical success. The single player was lengthy and had a lot of depth, and the multiplayer was an absolute riot. It had great graphics, as well as amazing sound effects and music. If that isn't doing it "right," I don't want to know what's wrong!

Say what you will about the controls. Sure, compared to modern console FPS, N64 FPS controls are wack. But during that generation, it was extremely playable. And it wasn't just "I'm gonna put up with these shitty controls because the game is otherwise fun" playable, your control of movement in the game could be precise. I mean, Turok had platforming for crying out loud. That's how tight you can be with the controls on the N64 controller.

So, yeah, between Goldeneye and Halo, Goldeneye definitely did consoles FPS right first. Halo doing it better is irrelevant. Whether or not it was a bigger commercial / critical success is irrelevant.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:08 am
by marurun
Ziggy587 wrote:So, yeah, between Goldeneye and Halo, Goldeneye definitely did consoles FPS right first. Halo doing it better is irrelevant. Whether or not it was a bigger commercial / critical success is irrelevant.


I think they major counter argument to that is that Halo had a much more profound effect on the industry as a whole, and influenced FPS games on console and PC for a couple console generations. And whereas Goldeneye didn't really seem to blow open the doors for console FPS games, Halo did.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:19 am
by Ziggy587
marurun wrote:
Ziggy587 wrote:So, yeah, between Goldeneye and Halo, Goldeneye definitely did consoles FPS right first. Halo doing it better is irrelevant. Whether or not it was a bigger commercial / critical success is irrelevant.


I think they major counter argument to that is that Halo had a much more profound effect on the industry as a whole, and influenced FPS games on console and PC for a couple console generations. And whereas Goldeneye didn't really seem to blow open the doors for console FPS games, Halo did.


To that I'd say we'd have to define exactly what "right" means. Because, again, I don't see how any of that is relevant. That's an answer to the question, "What game had more impact on the industry?"

Did Halo have more of an impact than Goldeneye? I don't know, I guess. But it's not like Goldeneye didn't have any impact, because it sure did.

It's not even fair to give as much credit as I am to Goldeneye. Goldeneye and Turok came out within months of each other, and they both paved the way for all the FPS that came out on the N64 after that. Goldeneye even influenced Turok 2, with the objective based gameplay and multiplayer. And is it me? Or did FPS on N64 totally rock FPS on PS1?

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:56 am
by alienjesus
FPS certainly played a lot more like Goldeneye and a lot less like Doom on consoles for quite a while after Goldeneye, and even into the PS2 era. Multiple weapons, health packs and less linear level design. The whole Halo style regenerating health and limited guns thing took a while to become the norm.

Goldeneye felt very much like the transition between the Doom era and the Halo era of FPS. Halo felt like the refinement.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:49 pm
by dsheinem
you all know the answer

Image

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:13 pm
by Ack
marurun wrote:
Ziggy587 wrote:So, yeah, between Goldeneye and Halo, Goldeneye definitely did consoles FPS right first. Halo doing it better is irrelevant. Whether or not it was a bigger commercial / critical success is irrelevant.


I think they major counter argument to that is that Halo had a much more profound effect on the industry as a whole, and influenced FPS games on console and PC for a couple console generations. And whereas Goldeneye didn't really seem to blow open the doors for console FPS games, Halo did.

But has Halo's influence really been that great? Regenerating health, straightforward level design, limits on carryable weapons, limited enemies in engagements to prevent problems with slower control sensitivity...these are all things we complain about, and Halo put much of these on the map.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:21 pm
by marurun
I said the effect was profound, not necessarily that it was a good thing, though I'd argue it is a good thing for console FPS games. Everything Halo did it did in the name of console accessibility. It struck a fantastic balance. The biggest weakness was the copy-paste of map layouts. Everything else was actually good stuff. The industry's inability to use those particular characteristics intelligently is not Bungie's problem, or Halo's.

Re: First Console Game To Do FPS "Right" - Goldeneye vs Halo

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:41 pm
by Jagosaurus
I'll agree Goldeneye64 seems to be a stepping stone in the console FPS world between the DOOM era and the Halo era.

@dsh, 32x Doom code was based on the Jaguar port by Carmack... and the music sounds like farts. Wrong either way :lol:

@Ack, Halo helped pushed the oXbox and Microsoft as a whole into the center of console gaming. Good or bad impact overall... maybe a different thread.