GoldenEye 007 Nintendo 64 Community, GoldenEye X, Nintendo 64 Games Discussion

[Kerr Avon]

On the XBox 360 and PS3 boards, people are already discussing what they think was this generation's best game, even though there are still some great games yet to come for current consoles, plus it's not like the 360 or PS3 are going to die as soon as the XBox 1 (stupid, STUPID name) or PS4 comes out.

Then again, since consoles nowadays are so often online, maybe Microsoft will send out a special code and every XBox 360 will commit suicide, forcing the players to buy the next XBox...

Anyway, what game do you think is the best game this generation, on any machine? And since the PC and Mac don't really have generations, certainly not parallel to the consoles, let's call this generation 2005 to the present day).

Personally, I'd say Batman: Arkham City is the best game this generation. It's a fantastic mix of story, characterisation, stealth, exploration, and ultra-violence, and it's both very enjoyable and replayable. Batman: Arkham Asylum is almost as good (even better storywise), but City is better overall, I think.

Bioshock 2 is excellent (Bioshock 1 is nearly as good, Bioshock: Infinite not nearly so, and to me was a huge dissapointment), as is Read Dead Redemption. Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 were great (not yet played 3), as were Halo 3, Halo Reach, and Halo 4 (didn't much like Halo: ODST), Portal 2 (and Portal 1, if it counts as a current generation game), The Saboteur, Singularity, LittleBigPlanet 1 and LittleBigPlanet 2, Vanquish and Skyrim. Limbo was a nice little game too, though I thought Braid was very over-rated.


It's been a good generation for games, but I do think the previous generation (XBox/Gamecube/PS2) was better overall. Then again, we still have GTA V, Watch Dogs, Batman: Arkham Origins, and Thief 4, amongst many others, to look forward to on this generation's hardware, so it's too early to judge, really.

[mistamontiel]

zzz

Pardon if I misinterpret opening words, but 2005 and up there is hardly ANYTHING to play

Games used to games

EDIT: I mean, look how social/mystical/real they are.. this + last gen beats me
_________________

[PaRaDoX]

To me the best game I played this gen has to be Xenoblade Chronicles.
Simply a MARVELOUS game!

[fantsu]

There isn't many games I would consider good from this generation.
Maybe Minecraft just because it created something new.

Then there is many of those overhyped games that were really bad, like the new Deus Ex and Civilization 5.

[Dragonsbrethren]

Human Revolution was a great game; I'd consider it the best I've played in years. Better than the first Deus Ex in nearly every way possible - static environments are the only thing I think it did worse. Everyone complains about the boss fights, but the boss fights in the original sucked too.

Man, I hate old and bitter gamers. Everything from your childhood wasn't great and not everything today's awful. Get over it and actually play some games.

[Rey]

Dragonsbrethren wrote:

Everything from your childhood wasn't great

Whaaaaaaat that right there is harsh crap. You can't jump on no one like that.
Just giving out there opinion.
Might as well not have a forums if you can't state your opinion.
_________________
www.youtube.com/gamerrey23

[Dragonsbrethren]

But it's the truth? Previous console generations had plenty of terrible games, everyone just ignores them now and focuses on the good. There's plenty of good this generation too, and there will be next. Pretending good games don't exist after a specific year is dumb.

[mistamontiel]

What is the truth.. what is "the" opinion

EDIT: ..I was BOMBED
_________________




Last edited by mistamontiel on Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total

[PaRaDoX]

Dragonsbrethren wrote:

Everything from your childhood wasn't great and not everything today's awful.

My childhood games that I truly did enjoy beg to differ.
Even my younger brother enjoys them.

[Dragonsbrethren]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me, I'm not talking about good games here, I'm saying there were bad games in every generation, people just love to conveniently forget that fact when they talk about how much today's games suck. Today's games suck no worse, and you certainly get more for your money now than you did in, say, the NES days.

[mistamontiel]

Of last gen and today's gen, I'll say ONE game doesn't suck
_________________

[fantsu]

Sorry dragonsbrethren if I offended you somehow, that wasn't my plan at all.

Just my opinion that in few years there hasn't been that many games that I have enjoyed. Bad games have always been around, not just recent years, true.
Let's take an example:
Dishonored. This game was praised before it was even released, and todays hype really gets me exited. Sadly in this case too, the game was pretty bad. It went on rails, new skills were pretty useless. Graphics were done pretty bad (terrible texture quality). Story was unexiting and too simple. It had zero replay value.

For me important things in games are:
1. Good story.
2. New innovations/ideas.
3. Replay Value. Bang for your buck.
4. Good high quality multiplayer, if the game has multiplayer option.

Now GE and PD both have all of these. PD's story isn't the greatest, but it surely has some nice depth going for it. It will make you ask some questions why things happen and why things go like that.

Both games had plenty of new ideas in games overall, GE has sniping in fps game for the 1st time, good multiplayer options. PD innovations were mostly in multiplayer modes (like counter-op). Both games had HUGE replay value.

Now Human Revolution... well... It just wasn't game for me. It took everything away I loved in the original. Story... well, it was about modifying human body, augmentations... thats pretty much it. Every contact would talk you about that one specific thing.
First game on the otherhand had tons of different conspiracy theories revolving around you: Goverment as terrorists, Area 51 and alien contact, Knights Templars and Nazi gold, cloning theories, world domination through internet, new dark age, AI's that were 100% self aware, Illuminati and so on.
Human revolution didn't have AWESOME multiplayer. It didn't have replay value at all, you could simply see everything on one playthrough.
Every place looked like the same and the game was much shorter too.
I can understand that some players like it, I mean it isn't a "bad game". It just isn't the game I was waiting for, at all.

[Dragonsbrethren]

I'm not offended at all and my comment wasn't about you specifically, just a general attitude I've been noticing a lot over the past few years.

As for Deus Ex, I think I'd agree with the story in the original being better, but the story telling in HR is done excellently, so that I found myself being drawn into it more. The last chapter of HR really felt tacked on and forced to me, though.

[Sogun]

I too feel that most games have "lost" something since 10 years ago or so. It's hard to tell a concrete date, it was more a tendency than a sudden change. But it was somewhere during the PS2/GC/XBOX era.

Until then it was like every game wanted to surprise with something (even if some were more ambitious than others). You knew that almost every new game would have something than you coulnd't find in any previous game. Even copycats had their own personality.
Now it's like they are afraid of trying new things because that could mean lower sales. Even worst, when a game breaks the sales the companies try to emulate it and they don't mind "corrupting" legendary sagas.

I think the main reason for this is that games expenses are monstrous. Companies don't make games, they do trilogies or beyond because they can reuse most of the work. It's like they are selling demos of a game that takes six years to develop. There's also all the DLC crap.
Since it's a trilogy there's a story that unites the different games, so they "don't end" until the third one. This is a way to make sure the players will buy the other games.
The first game usually feels fresh and the story gains the interest of the player. The second one polishes the gameplay (although it's still too similar to the first one) or simplifies it if the sales weren't good. Also, the story for second parts is usually filler. The third game hardly satifies anything (not gameplay or story because they streched the possibilities too much), but the player buys it because he bought the other two and wants to see the end.

Worst than trilogies are anual sagas. These kind of games degenerate at a higher pace because there's only a twelve months after each release instead of two or three years. The usually rely on a very addictive online multiplayer and a ridiculously short and easy one player mode. Beause they focus on online and playing alone sucks, once they shut down the servers or the community of players move to another online game you'll have to move as well.

It's the era of fastfood games. Games that focus on story and online (and graphics, of course. Since all play the same they better have the best graphics). You have to buy the game as soon as it releases or the story would be spoiled to you or you won't get any better/competitive online.

But of course not everything is like that. There are still games that are enjoyable, that went under enough time of development and tried to do something new, or at least something good.


The best game I have played in the last 10 years is without a doubt Super Mario Galaxy. It does everything right and tries new things when you though everything has been already invented.
Other games I really enjoyed were Guild Wars, Trackmania Nations, Monster Hunter tri and Red Steel 2 (yeah, this one!).


To me, the most important things in a videogame are:
-Core gameplay and controls
-Level design
-Game modes (including multiplayer)
-Art (graphics and sound)


Sorry for the long reply.

[MRKane]

I agree with you Sogun.

I've actually quite enjoyed skipping the last generation of games and just getting on with living and letting my friends tell me how everything is "afraid to be brilliant" as all too often games are attempting to appeal to a "broader audience". The sheer cost of these games means that they'll be a safe as possible with design choices and as generalistic as possible with their overall direction.

I really think that the PS3/XBox360 will be remembered as a "gaming slump" in the era before users started making content for consoles, opening things up will put pressure on the big companies to start getting their product right instead of doing a money grab, otherwise they'll be out-competed by small niche-specific developments. The entire entertainment industry is in this mess at the moment to be honest.

Still, we can't forget where these all came from. Angry birds is just Scorched Earth with better graphics, Batman Arkham is essentially just double dragon (I didn't like it FYI because after an hour of play all it had left to offer me was story), Halo is really just Marathon with better graphics (seriously...it IS), and I frequently prefer the older games because they weren't confused or confusing - they had that electic mix of components that resulted in "fun".
_________________
No Mr. Bond, I expect you to be re-coded!