Gamespy Title Fight
<div class="IPBDescription">Goldeneye VS halo</div> this is unbelieveable, halo. winning. against goldeneye. BY 3000(!) votes
all those damn fansites posting the link for all their little fanboys to click on. the page should be un-linkable or something, halo should just be disqualified for cheating.
GO AND VOTE GOLDENEYE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
<a href='http://archive.gamespy.com/titlefight/matches/0307.shtml' target='_blank'>http://archive.gamespy.com/titlefight/matches/0307.shtml</a>
this is my personal opinion, flame away, do your worst, im just trying to get myself heard
second time i typed this post, accidentally closed the window
all those damn fansites posting the link for all their little fanboys to click on. the page should be un-linkable or something, halo should just be disqualified for cheating.
GO AND VOTE GOLDENEYE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
<a href='http://archive.gamespy.com/titlefight/matches/0307.shtml' target='_blank'>http://archive.gamespy.com/titlefight/matches/0307.shtml</a>
this is my personal opinion, flame away, do your worst, im just trying to get myself heard
second time i typed this post, accidentally closed the window
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Lies. It's on the xbox. Halo was made four years later, yet Goldeneye (in my opinion) is four times better. Pitty really, I loved Bungie after Marathon.....oh well. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Amen to that!
Lies. It's on the xbox. Halo was made four years later, yet Goldeneye (in my opinion) is four times better. Pitty really, I loved Bungie after Marathon.....oh well. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a whole lot of PC users are simply bitter than Microsoft "stole" Halo from them.
GET OVER IT.
No, it wasn't cool. I was sad. It doesn't change the fact that Halo is a great game developed by a great company (Bungie), sadly rushed to market resulting in the single flaw of uninspired level design.
Engine: Halo wins hands down. Not only is it *gorgeous* compared to Goldeneye, it's one of the first engines to really start using a complex physics engine to define interactions between elements. Revolutionary.
Gameplay: In my opinion, Halo was the first example of a successful console FPS control scheme.
Multiplayer: Halo has more options, vehicles, linking multiple Xboxes for bigger games, customizable levels. At the least, it has team-based game modes, which in my opinion are infinitely more fun than straight deathmatch.
Level design: Ok, so Halo's SP levels had issues. But frankly, have you played some of the Goldeneye levels, especially the multiplayer ones? The Library (I think that's what it was called) was appalling - uninspired textures, pathetically square geometry, and more near-identical rooms than you could shoot an assault rifle at.
Models: Animations in Halo make Goldeneye look like the original Duke Nukem (and I'm not talking about Duke3D, I'm talking that 16-color shareware sidescroller). You didn't run through Goldeneye's levels - you slid, you flew through them. Compare the "karate chop" with Halo's melee hits. There's a reason the melee-only mode in Goldeneye was called "Slappers only." And going back to the engine, Halo's models use next-generation shading techniques and look spectacular.
So yeah, Halo's a better game. (: And I'm tired of PC gamers who won't admit it simply because they're STILL angry at Microsoft. <i>Your computer is running Windows</i>. If you hate MS that much, go install Linux - walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Me, I'm going to go pop Ninja Gaiden in the ol' Xbox and pwn me some undead minions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think a whole lot of PC users are simply bitter than Microsoft "stole" Halo from them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i could care less, so i'm not biased
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Engine: Halo wins hands down. Not only is it *gorgeous* compared to Goldeneye, it's one of the first engines to really start using a complex physics engine to define interactions between elements. Revolutionary.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's not fair. you're comparing an n64 game's graphics to an xbox's graphics!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Gameplay: In my opinion, Halo was the first example of a successful console FPS control scheme.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
goldeneye's was almost exactly the same (if control scheme was set to solitaire). only diff was there was only 1 joystick.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Multiplayer: Halo has more options, vehicles, linking multiple Xboxes for bigger games, customizable levels. At the least, it has team-based game modes, which in my opinion are infinitely more fun than straight deathmatch.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i dunno about anyone else, but i could play multi goldeneye forever. vehicles and stuff are kinda hard on an engine not built to support them, so yet again we're comparing xbox graphics to an n64's. but how can you beat sniper weapons set on license to kill with no time limit? halo's fun, but i get bored of hours of it. me and my friends played until 200 kills on temple last wednesday.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Level design: Ok, so Halo's SP levels had issues. But frankly, have you played some of the Goldeneye levels, especially the multiplayer ones? The Library (I think that's what it was called) was appalling - uninspired textures, pathetically square geometry, and more near-identical rooms than you could shoot an assault rifle at.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you're comparing graphics again! stop! and i don't really care about level repitition; they both did it at some points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Models: Animations in Halo make Goldeneye look like the original Duke Nukem (and I'm not talking about Duke3D, I'm talking that 16-color shareware sidescroller). You didn't run through Goldeneye's levels - you slid, you flew through them. Compare the "karate chop" with Halo's melee hits. There's a reason the melee-only mode in Goldeneye was called "Slappers only." And going back to the engine, Halo's models use next-generation shading techniques and look spectacular.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
graphics again. stop! (sides, chief needs to hit enemies with his rifle, bond uses his facking hands! pwnage!)
halo does have some really awesome graphics, and was extremely fun. i own it for pc and love to play it. but the hours i've spent on halo pales in comparison to the amount of time i've spent on goldeneye (SP and MP alike).
so there's my opinion. sorry about quoting almost all of your post coil, but you're the only one who posted any logic to their answer besides "HALO R TEH COOL3ST!!!1" i love both games, but neither of them compare to turok: dinasaur hunter! how come that game's not up there?
I know it's weird at first but if you think about when goldeneye came out there was almost no really cool fps games on n64, people just ate it up and I was one of them. It's sad to see a game win over a classic just because it's new, Halo is a great game in it's own right but it was not better than goldeneye, oh well.
Goldeneye 007 gets my vote.
all halo has over goldeneye is graphics ... are you people really that simple?
edit: heh, thinking of last match ^^
and you can't really compare a freaking n64 game to an xbox game ... that's like saying that mgs3 will beat the hell out of space invaders
oh, and mai last rant:
if you compare what the programmers did and factor in what they HAD, 007 wins. no contest
I'm tired of people insulting each others tastes - if you enjoy gaming, and be it in the form of The Sims and Deer Hunter, more power to you.
THEN you would have a truly perfect game. And the GC controller just rocks
goldeneye was made by Rareware, nuff said
And goldeneye's wasnt? We're talking a 4 year difference here. Thats a huuuge jump in power when it comes to computers.
[quote]Gameplay: In my opinion, Halo was the first example of a successful console FPS control scheme.[/quote]
No, no, and no. While Halo did have very good controls, Goldeneye's were just as good. It won countless awards for that.
[quote]Multiplayer: Halo has more options[/quote]
Have you ever delved into Goldeneye? Theres a TON of options to pursue there.
[quote]vehicles[/quote]
To Goldeneye's credit, it did have A vehicle. The tank. But again, theres a large span in power in 4 years.
[quote]linking multiple Xboxes for bigger games[/quote]
Hey, while we're talking about console-specific features, why dont we point out that you can add more RAM to the N64. And you could also buy a disk drive.
[quote]customizable levels[/quote]
As were goldeneye's. You could change the weapons and gameplay modes.
[quote]At the least, it has team-based game modes[/quote]
That is one thing to Halo's credit, thought it was missing in the PC version.
[quote]Ok, so Halo's SP levels had issues. But frankly, have you played some of the Goldeneye levels, especially the multiplayer ones? The Library (I think that's what it was called) was appalling - uninspired textures, pathetically square geometry, and more near-identical rooms than you could shoot an assault rifle at.[/quote]
Your comparing the single player levels to the multiplayer ones, which is just irrational. Goldeneye's single player levels beat Halos. Hands down. As far as multiplayer, well, its pretty close. What is Blood Gulch after all - a box. Yes, a box with more box at each end. Throw in some pretty terrain, a cave or so, and thats about it. Im not going to doubt they look prettier than Goldeneye's, and perhaps are even slightly better - but Goldeneye's multiplayer levels arent nearly as bad as you make them out to be. There are ramps. There are sniping positions. There are air ducts to sneak through. Etc.
[quote]Models: Animations in Halo make Goldeneye look like the original Duke Nukem (and I'm not talking about Duke3D, I'm talking that 16-color shareware sidescroller).[/quote]
Again... the time difference. 4 years.
[/quote]You didn't run through Goldeneye's levels - you slid, you flew through them.[/quote]
Only if you wanted to earn cheats. Otherwise you could take whatever pace you wanted through them.
[quote]Compare the "karate chop" with Halo's melee hits. There's a reason the melee-only mode in Goldeneye was called "Slappers only."[/quote]
You could use the sniper rifle as a melee weapon much like Halo. Goldeneye focused more on the shooting and less on melee - which for a first person SHOOTER, I think thats a good idea.
[quote]And going back to the engine, Halo's models use next-generation shading techniques and look spectacular.[/quote]
4 years.
Its like saying some game like Final Fantasy X is a better game than Pong. Yes, it has better graphics, sound, etc... but good lord, theres quitet a bit of a time difference between them. And if you seriously think FFX is better than Pong... well then you have absolutely no appreciation for the classics that made the industry what it is today.
I used to respect you Coil. Halo indeed is a great game, but it hardly gave me the enjoyment I got when I played the living legend, Goldeneye.
And that changes because he enjoyed a different <i>game</i> for reasons you dislike?
if i see halo win again, then, um well i dont think i CAN do anything tbh
DAMN you halo
i know halo is going to win, but i will still keep up hope that it will get diqualified for fanboyism... or something
1) Goldeneye *could* be compared to games like Quake and Half-Life, which in my opinion look *worlds* better than it does.
2) Goldeneye's animations are average at best, and certainly don't compare to its contemporaries on the PC.
3) Goldeneye's level design, again, is a sad shadow of its contemporaries. The texturing is dull and repetitive, and the complexity reminds me of DOOM or even Wolfenstien3D. The game was clipped by the limitations of its platform. I'm not saying Halo's was better; I'm merely saying that Goldeneye's was nothing to write home about.
Re: console-specific functionality (Xbox linking) -- the console doesn't have a say in how good the game is? A friend of mine prefers Soul Calibur 2 on the Xbox because he doesn't like the Cube controller. You mention a hard drive and RAM for the N64... did it make Goldeneye a better game? If you want to go into it, I could talk about how the N64 and its cartridge system were a huge mistake for Nintendo, who might have stood a chance against Sony if they'd made the move to CD media for the N64. Did you know there was a CD drive planned for the SNES?
I'm by no means a Nintendo hater (I love my GBA and my Cube, which sits proudly on the shelf just above my roommate's SNES), though I do think the N64 is the least of their systems. Goldeneye, in its day, was a great game, and the first good console FPS. But Halo *nailed* that role, and did it with style. It also made a lot of innovations to FPS's in general, especially in the area of physics. The only revolutionary thing about Goldeneye was that it was the first of its class. I appreciate its contribution to gaming, but that's about it.
they should just start releasing consoles with a mouse and keyboard, you can't go wrong.
Called the Playstation? Yes.
IMHO, both games here are overrated. Way overrated.
edit: discozombie, I know guys that can aim with perfect accuracy and extreme speed with the goldeneye setup. Without the cheap-o autoaim. he does the last challenge in Perfect Dark like its nothing (2 DarkSim, pistol only, Sekdar). The funny thing was, he cant aim for blabbers on mouse and keyboard <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, I suppose it's academic now. Halo over Goldeneye, 58:42.
Next matches:
March 29
DOOM vs. Mariokart 64 (my prediction: DOOM)
March 30
Super Mario 3 vs. Civilization III (my prediction: no clue. I'm voting for the plumber)
March 31
Zelda: Ocarina of Time vs. Diablo II (my prediction: Diablo, more's the pity.)
April 1
Halo vs. Half-Life (my prediction: couldn't they have tried to have these two meet in the final or something?? Kicking one out this early is just no fun. Anyway, I think Half-Life will edge out over Halo. Yay!)
And everyone saying 'Well it's older!' that's like complaining that a fight your younger brother picked isn't fair because your brother is smaller, and the other guy should have to be on his knees.
Multiplayer map designs were poor from what I can remember. Things just weren't well laid out, and didn't have multiple entries, meaning that too many choke points cropped up, making the game time playing too frustrating. I really only played on one map (the one with the bathroom stalls), because everything else was... blah.
But I had fun playing it (when I wasn't playing with the obsessed guy who had memorized the spawn points). Despite its flaws, it was one of the better shooters at the time. If it wasn't for the lack of competition, I wouldn't have bothered playing it... because looking back at the game, I realize how many huge flaws it has.
However, I haven't played Halo, so I can't make a fair decision on which is better.
Played goldeneye. Didn't really appeal to me personally :/
So I went for halo <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
win <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But in its time, Goldeneye ruled. Not only did it singularly transformed how video game franchises were made, but set the standard as to how shooting games for consoles were. It was the Inventor of the Zooming Sniper Rifle (no other shooting game had one before that), the skill required for a one-shot-one-kill gun (the BFG required no skill), a free aiming system (thank you L&R), and multi-player.
It pretty much, like SM Kart 64, wrote the rules for console multiplayer.
-Tons of weapons, check.
-Tons of skins, check.
-Full customization with handicaps, rounds, time, check.
Graphics, at that time, were excellent. Pioneered by Rareware, it had close to no fog (thanks to excellent level design) and smooth framerates. It also had lighting effects, a big wow for that time.
I can say, that Halo would not have been Halo without Goldeneye. (Nor do I think Splinter Cell would be Splinter Cell for that matter, think Facility). Go ahead, ask the Bungie devs, I'll bet money on it.
James Bond for President.
When I first played goldeneye deathmatch (this is BEFORE deathmatch became very popular on pc). I was so overpowered by how fun it was. I never played such an amazing console game in my whole life.
When I first played Halo for XBox, I had so much fun going through co-op. But other than that there wasn't much to brag about here.
Both games are great, although Goldeneye for me is just a tad bit better.