1997 Game of the Year Runoff Vote - GoldenEye 007 Vs Final Fantasy VII

[Do Make Say Think]

For me, the purpose of video games, like any other creative medium, really, is lasting and complete satisfaction and reward, not temporary fleeting enjoyment that you can cheaply consume and throw away, personally.

And how do you dissociate the two? That's the hard part I think.

 

[Shareefruck]

And how do you dissociate the two? That's the hard part I think.

I mean, if you wouldn't want to play something again (and dislike it/don't appreciate it when you attempt to) when you're older and wiser but remember enjoying it a lot as a kid, I think that's a pretty clear sign that is easy to dissociate, personally. I know that for me at least, I have no interest in fondly elevating the crap that I liked as a kid. Especially when I, as an adult, clearly realize that it isn't what I once thought it.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I mean, if you wouldn't want to play something again (and dislike it/don't appreciate it when you attempt to) when you're older and wiser but remember enjoying it a lot as a kid, I think that's a pretty clear sign that is easy to dissociate, personally. I know that for me at least, I have no interest in fondly elevating the crap that I liked as a kid.

At the same time, with experience comes the whole "blasé" attitude. What was shiny and new when were kids might have been actually legit but not anymore when we are older no?

I was never into multiplayer but having an FPS with objective-based levels was pretty awesome back in 1997 (in referencing Goldeneye). It wasn't the only one but it was one of the first big ones. Half-Life of course put most FPSs to shame the following year but does that erase all the true and honest amazement of what we experienced prior?

I think the size of the gap might matter here? I mean 1997 is 21 years ago now so any of us who were gaming then have come a long, long way.

 

[Shareefruck]

Hush you. We had our chance, and both of our games lost.

At the same time, with experience comes the whole "blasé" attitude. What was shiny and new when were kids might have been actually legit but not anymore when we are older no?

I was never into multiplayer but having an FPS with objective-based levels was pretty awesome back in 1997 (in referencing Goldeneye). It wasn't the only one but it was one of the first big ones. Half-Life of course put most FPSs to shame the following year but does that erase all the true and honest amazement of what we experienced prior?

I think the size of the gap might matter here? I mean 1997 is 21 years ago now so any of us who were gaming then have come a long, long way.

Edit: Dammit, I read "biased" instead of "blasé" and wrote a reply that didn't make sense. Will get back to this later.

 

[Commander Clueless]

For me, the purpose of video games, like any other creative medium, really, is complete, lasting satisfaction and reward, not temporary fleeting enjoyment that you can cheaply consume and throw away, personally.

I think both have merit in their own way, and I also think that while a person's tastes evolve over time (that's just part of being human), it shouldn't invalidate the stuff you enjoyed in the past. That's my take, anyway.

Fair enough

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I personally don't know how this is even a debate, let alone Goldeneye actually winning...

Goldeneye was a flash in the pan stand-alone Party game with the 007 name slapped onto it, if it doesn't have the James Bond brand I'm not even sure it's in the conversation. The game hasn't held up whatsoever and didn't even age well ~2 years after release. The game has little depth to it.

Final Fantasy totally revolutionized RPG's at the time and was a ground-breaking game. It's a landmark game in an iconic series, generally regarded as the best game in one of the most successful franchises in video game history. You can find countless people who still play this game with regularity, which speaks volumes for a game without multi-player gameplay. It's spawned spin-off games, a sequel movie, and has been re-release (with boatloads of interest) multiple times on various outlets. The game was so beloved that consumers begged Squaresoft for a re-make for ages... Two decades later fans are still so invested and interested in the game that we're still eagerly awaiting the re-make.

The current poll result honestly kinda blows my mind... I have a feeling that a majority of the votes for Goldeneye are from people who have not spent any significant amount of time playing Final Fantasy 7.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ to be fair, a lot of people just don't like that kind of stuff at its core (equating it to cheesy weaboo bull-****), and everything you mentioned means very little to them. After all, you're not going to vote for something that seems dumb to you just because it's impressive that other people still play it. Final Fantasy isn't for everything.

I think both have merit in their own way, and I also think that while a person's tastes evolve over time (that's just part of being human), it shouldn't invalidate the stuff you enjoyed in the past. That's my take, anyway.




Fair enough

That's how a lot of people seem to approach it, but I don't really subscribe to that mentally, personally. I think our tastes more or less get better and more "right" over time, and while enjoying something as a kid has some serviceable function that can be appreciated on a developmental level (gateways to better things, helping pass the time/improve your mood, etc), I don't think it's actually worth a whole lot that should be held onto, in hindsight. I tend to have very little fondness for the stuff I liked as a kid that I don't feel holds up today. At best just a "Huh. I can't believe I used to like this" sense of curiosity.

 

[PK Cronin]

I didn't enjoy FF7 then and I certainly don't enjoy them now. Not sure if it's accurate or not because I was young, but wasn't FF7 just a ton of load screens and reading? Goldeneye was such a fun game for a long time for me, so I'll go with that.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I personally don't know how this is even a debate, let alone Goldeneye actually winning...

Goldeneye was a flash in the pan stand-alone Party game with the 007 name slapped onto it, if it doesn't have the James Bond brand I'm not even sure it's in the conversation. The game hasn't held up whatsoever and didn't even age well ~2 years after release. The game has little depth to it.

Final Fantasy totally revolutionized RPG's at the time and was a ground-breaking game. It's a landmark game in an iconic series, generally regarded as the best game in one of the most successful franchises in video game history. You can find countless people who still play this game with regularity, which speaks volumes for a game without multi-player gameplay. It's spawned spin-off games, a sequel movie, and has been re-release (with boatloads of interest) multiple times on various outlets. The game was so beloved that consumers begged Squaresoft for a re-make for ages... Two decades later fans are still so invested and interested in the game that we're still eagerly awaiting the re-make.

The current poll result honestly kinda blows my mind... I have a feeling that a majority of the votes for Goldeneye are from people who have not spent any significant amount of time playing Final Fantasy 7.

Anyone who played FF before 1997 knows that it wasn't in any way, shape or form ground-breaking.

Doesn't mean that FFVII is not good mind you, just that it was a revelation to a lot of people who didn't know anything about the genre. That doesn't carry any weight 20 years later. FFVII is a weaker VI (lesser cast, lesser villain, same combat system but less unique characters in terms of combat since the only difference between party members in VII is their Limit Break) with 3D graphics and I knew it the moment I finished the game back when it released.

However there is something to be said about the ice storms of early 1998 in Eastern Canada: I bet you a not insignificant amount of posters here lived through those and one of the recurring themes from people my age (I'm 34) is "epic days, all we did was 4 player Golden Eye all day long. License to kill pistols/proximity mines FTW!!" which counts for a lot.

I was living abroad back in 1998 but the topic still comes up with my buddies who lived through it.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Anyone who played FF before 1997 knows that it wasn't in any way, shape or form ground-breaking.

Doesn't mean that FFVII is not good mind you, just that it was a revelation to a lot of people who didn't know anything about the genre. That doesn't carry any weight 20 years later. FFVII is a weaker VI (lesser cast, lesser villain, same combat system but less unique characters in terms of combat since the only difference between party members in VII is their Limit Break) with 3D graphics and I knew it the moment I finished the game back when it released.

However there is something to be said about the ice storms of early 1998 in Eastern Canada: I bet you a not insignificant amount of posters here lived through those and one of the recurring themes from people my age (I'm 34) is "epic days, all we did was 4 player Golden Eye all day long. License to kill pistols/proximity mines FTW!!" which counts for a lot.

I was living abroad back in 1998 but the topic still comes up with my buddies who lived through it.

Exactly, it was a revelation, it brought jRPG's to the forefront of gaming and introduced a lot of people to the genre, I'm not sure how you can say it 'doesn't carry any weight 20 years later'. It helped to form the entire RPG genre moving forward... And it really did introduce a lot, in terms of the 3D graphics and the cut-scenes.

That's all fine and good that people are nostalgic about a snow-storm where they played Goldeneye all day. However, I used to play Runescape all day long and can look back at most of my friends doing something similar to what you mention about Goldeneye, I'm not going to proclaim that Runescape was the greatest game ever (or even from that year) just because of that.

I stand by my statement that I believe a majority of votes for Goldeneye are likely from folks who have not played FF7 at any length.

^ to be fair, a lot of people just don't like that kind of stuff at its core (equating it to cheesy weaboo bull-****), and everything you mentioned means very little to them. After all, you're not going to vote for something that seems dumb to you just because it's impressive that other people still play it. Final Fantasy isn't for everything.
That's how a lot of people seem to approach it, but I don't really subscribe to that mentally, personally. I think our tastes get better and more "right" over time, and while enjoying something as a kid has some serviceable function that can be appreciated on a developmental level (gateways to better things, helping pass the time/improve your mood, etc), I don't think it's actually worth a whole lot that should be held onto, in hindsight. I tend to have very little fondness for the stuff I liked as a kid that I don't feel holds up today. At best just a "Huh. I can't believe I used to like this" sense of curiosity.

I bolded the two most significant parts of what I think you said. A lot of people not liking the general style of the game plays into it a lot for sure, but I'm not using the fact that people still play it as something to be "impressed by" it is simply a testament to how the game has held up over time. Go back and try to play Goldeneye now and tell me how it goes for you. lol

 

[Shareefruck]

I bolded the two most significant parts of what I think you said. A lot of people not liking the general style of the game plays into it a lot for sure, but I'm not using the fact that people still play it as something to be "impressed by" it is simply a testament to how the game has held up over time. Go back and try to play Goldeneye now and tell me how it goes for you. lol

Totally. You're preaching to the choir. I'm just replying to the "I have a feeling that a majority of the votes for Goldeneye are from people who have not spent any significant amount of time playing Final Fantasy 7" sentiment. I don't think it's quite that. Final Fantasy just has some very specific quirks that can be off-putting for a lot of people, I find, and the popularity/flaws in the game don't exactly help that. Things that second or third looks may not help too much.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I stand by my statement that I believe a majority of votes for Goldeneye are likely from folks who have not played FF7 at any length.

In my case this is true. Back in those days I was playing RTS or party games almost exclusively, and had played exactly one CRPG game (maybe two, although the second was more of an adventure game with RPG elements...I digress). RPG wasn't really my thing until KOTOR and World of Warcraft came along, and a lot of that interest was due to loving the Warcraft series from the Golden Age of RTS.

I also knew maybe one person that had a PlayStation, but an N64? Everyone and their brother had an N64 around these parts. Quite the contrast from today where most people I know own a PS4.


Even those that had both consoles, might not have (or still might not) enjoy RPGs. And JRPGs? They tend to be a whole other niche. I have many friends who still don't enjoy them.

Heck, the only JRPG I can think of that I truly appreciate (Pokemon notwithstanding, if that counts) is Persona, and that happened just this year.

That's how a lot of people seem to approach it, but I don't really subscribe to that mentally, personally. I think our tastes get better and more "right" over time, and while enjoying something as a kid has some serviceable function that can be appreciated on a developmental level (gateways to better things, helping pass the time/improve your mood, etc), I don't think it's actually worth a whole lot that should be held onto, in hindsight. I tend to have very little fondness for the stuff I liked as a kid that I don't feel holds up today. At best just a "Huh. I can't believe I used to like this" sense of curiosity.

I would respectfully disagree. I don't think there is such a thing as "right" or "wrong" tastes, barring, of course, those that are harmful to others.

I would just think of my past self as someone with a different opinion.

Also, he ate way too much candy and left me with the obesity. What a dick.


For example, in the last few years I've shifted hard away from multiplayer games to single player games. I wouldn't say it's a more refined or "better" taste, just a different one.

 

[Shareefruck]

Anyone who played FF before 1997 knows that it wasn't in any way, shape or form ground-breaking.

Doesn't mean that FFVII is not good mind you, just that it was a revelation to a lot of people who didn't know anything about the genre. That doesn't carry any weight 20 years later. FFVII is a weaker VI (lesser cast, lesser villain, same combat system but less unique characters in terms of combat since the only difference between party members in VII is their Limit Break) with 3D graphics and I knew it the moment I finished the game back when it released.

However there is something to be said about the ice storms of early 1998 in Eastern Canada: I bet you a not insignificant amount of posters here lived through those and one of the recurring themes from people my age (I'm 34) is "epic days, all we did was 4 player Golden Eye all day long. License to kill pistols/proximity mines FTW!!" which counts for a lot.

I was living abroad back in 1998 but the topic still comes up with my buddies who lived through it.

Agreed that concept/mechanics/story-wise, it was nothing ground-breaking and was a weaker version of VI, but you could make a pretty good case that it was ground-breaking in the way that it used a fairly creative combination of 3D/cut-scenes/pre-rendered art to tell a cinematic story. That's not nothing, to my knowledge nobody else was doing it to such an extreme/ambitious degree at the time, and it sure as hell was a building block that changed how others did it afterwards.

Again, it's not something I care too much about, but it's there.

 

[Shareefruck]

I would respectfully disagree. I don't think there is such a thing as "right" or "wrong" tastes, barring, of course, those that are harmful to others.

I would just think of my past self as someone with a different opinion.

Also, he ate way too much candy and left me with the obesity. What a dick.


For example, in the last few years I've shifted hard away from multiplayer games to single player games. I wouldn't say it's a more refined or "better" taste, just a different one.

Yours is the more universally accepted sentiment, for sure, and mine is an unpopular opinion, but I've just never been able to buy into that, personally.

Who's more right or wrong is ambiguous and can't be measured or proven, but I think that some opinions/preferences are still more right (or at least, involve more meaningful reward) than others. After all, I can remember the explosive exhilaration and magical feeling I got from stuff as a kid but no longer do as an adult and compare how powerful it was with the different stuff I like now. Personally, in hindsight, I don't think the former compares favorably at all, despite being more dramatic, noisy, and obsessive.

Weird example, but for me it's like.... someone who likes roller coasters arguing that they can get as much reward and satisfaction out of riding a roller coaster and having fun as anyone else can.... I don't know, falling in love and raising a family or something, and claiming that it just comes down to subjective preferences that are equally valid. I don't think that's really true-- Sure, they're completely different experiences, but there's a limit to what something can give you depending on what it does. While you can get something out of a roller coaster that's serviceable, give you a big reaction, and that you might lose and stop appreciating as you move onto other things, the possible reward there is still ultimately pretty trivial and limited no matter what your preferences are or how hard your biases/comfort zones cling to them, IMO.

I prefer to think of it as "I think you're less right about these things, you think I'm less right about those things, one of us is probably closer to the truth, but we have to accept that we can't know for certain who and not take these suggestions too personally."

--

For the record, I've grown more and more of a preference towards single-player games as well and tend to scoff a bit at the big addictive online multi-player stuff, but there are probably reasons why that's the case-- Reasons which have to do with my opinion/realization of what I think makes them more rewarding. I could turn out to be totally wrong of course, but I don't think it's a case of every subjective perception/preference being equally true/meaningful/valid.

Sorry for the sidetrack.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Weird example, but for me it's like.... someone who likes roller coasters arguing that they can get as much reward and satisfaction out of riding a roller coaster and having fun as anyone else can.... I don't know, falling in love and raising a family or something, and claiming that it just comes down to subjective preferences that are equally valid. I don't think that's really true-- Sure, they're completely different experiences, but there's a limit to what something can give you depending on what it does. While you can get something out of a roller coaster that's serviceable, give you a big reaction, and that you might lose and stop appreciating as you move onto other things, the possible reward there is still ultimately pretty trivial and limited no matter what your preferences are or how hard your biases/comfort zones cling to them, IMO.

In your example, I definitely understand your point.

However, we're talking about video games, which I would argue all have a similar, if not equal, overall limit to the reward - that being entertainment. The only thing that changes is your tastes on what gets you to that reward.

I think there are a few exceptions to this, although they tend to be more based on life circumstances rather than the games themselves.

Sorry for the sidetrack.

I think we may have delved far deeper into the subject than was necessary in a Goldeneye vs FFVII thread.

 

[Shareefruck]

In your example, I definitely understand your point.

However, we're talking about video games, which I would argue all have a similar, if not equal, limit to reward - that being entertainment.

I think there are a few exceptions to this, although they tend to be more based on life circumstances than the games themselves.



Either way, I think we may have delved far deeper into the subject than was necessary in a Goldeneye vs FFVII thread.

I would disagree with that. If video games were purely mindless addictive entertainment (which I think is very limited) and nothing else, I wouldn't have any interest in the medium, frankly. Charm, creativity, rich detail, appreciation, depth, mood, expressiveness, inspiration, all that good stuff and more monumentally increases what levels of reward can be had. I don't think it's all equally limited.

 

[SniperHF]

I have a feeling that a majority of the votes for Goldeneye are from people who have not spent any significant amount of time playing Final Fantasy 7.

Whether that's accurate or not, that's okay. These polls are really more of a survey.
I'm sure there are games on the various lists everyone hasn't played. I'm at 7/10 on the '97 list.

didn't even age well ~2 years after release.

If you could enjoy Perfect Dark in 2000 you could enjoy GoldenEye in 2000.

 

[RandV]

Exactly, it was a revelation, it brought jRPG's to the forefront of gaming and introduced a lot of people to the genre, I'm not sure how you can say it 'doesn't carry any weight 20 years later'. It helped to form the entire RPG genre moving forward... And it really did introduce a lot, in terms of the 3D graphics and the cut-scenes.

That's all fine and good that people are nostalgic about a snow-storm where they played Goldeneye all day. However, I used to play Runescape all day long and can look back at most of my friends doing something similar to what you mention about Goldeneye, I'm not going to proclaim that Runescape was the greatest game ever (or even from that year) just because of that.

I stand by my statement that I believe a majority of votes for Goldeneye are likely from folks who have not played FF7 at any length.

While I'll always appreciate that FFVII made JRPG's mainstream for the next 10 years or so, as someone who had been playing that genre from the start the actual game has just never been anything special for me... though there is a little bit of personal bias there as I never particularly liked the bleaker aesthetics and the pseudo-modern setting. But considering that games like Suikoden II, Xenogears, or Final Fantasy Tactics don't even make these lists, I'm not really sympathetic that FFVII only gets to be #2 against Goldeneye.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I would disagree with that. If video games were purely mindless addictive entertainment (which I think is very limited) and nothing else, I wouldn't have any interest in the medium, frankly. Charm, creativity, rich detail, appreciation, depth, mood, expressiveness, inspiration, all that good stuff and more monumentally increases what levels of reward can be had. I don't think it's all equally limited.

That strikes me as criteria for enjoyment of the video game, not different "rewards" for playing it.

At the end of the day, it's end goal is entertainment. To use your earlier example, it's more akin to comparing roller coasters to different roller coasters based on a set of subjective criteria than it is comparing roller coasters to family, which has much different life impacts, no?


I'm probably off the rails. I clearly don't think on the same level when it comes to games.

For me, it all comes down to fun factor, and all the things you mentioned are ways to get there....some more than others.

 

[Shareefruck]

That strikes me as criteria for enjoyment of the video game, not different "rewards" for playing it.

At the end of the day, it's end goal is entertainment. To use your earlier example, it's more akin to comparing roller coasters to different roller coasters based on a set of subjective criteria than it is comparing roller coasters to family, which has much different life impacts, no?

You can say that about anything, can't you? Falling in love and raising a family are just criteria for enjoyment of life that is capable of yielding higher enjoyment than riding a rollercoaster (even ignoring all the practical implications of the former). The point being that different factors and different criteria being met can result in different limits to satisfaction that subjective preferences alone can't really overcome.

As we get older, it's not like we just move sideways-- Hopefully, we're building on top what allowed us to enjoy things in the past, progressing and developing our sensibilities, and opening up to more and more nuances that allow us to appreciate and enjoy better things on a more complete level. As long as we don't stop flexing those muscles, I think that doing so only gets us closer and closer to real satisfaction, not further and further away from it.

There's no question in my mind that the kid version of me had opinions/preferences that were less true and rewarding than I have now. He was just more easily hyped and addicted, which I don't think does anything that swings things in the other direction.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Goldeneye was the game of 97 by a mile. Everyone had to have it

absolutely agreed

every sleepover, every birthday party, every lock-in between the ages of 10 and 13, we were playing Goldeneye. I don't care that the game doesn't hold up. Wailing on your friends with automatic weapons, rockets, proximity mines, golden guns, watch lasers, and slappers only was tremendous good fun.

 

[Blender]

I personally don't know how this is even a debate, let alone Goldeneye actually winning...

Goldeneye was a flash in the pan stand-alone Party game with the 007 name slapped onto it, if it doesn't have the James Bond brand I'm not even sure it's in the conversation. The game hasn't held up whatsoever and didn't even age well ~2 years after release. The game has little depth to it.

This is completely wrong, Goldeneye revolutionized console first person shooters. Before Goldeneye almost no one played FPS games on console, afterwards it paved the way for later successful games like Halo and Call of Duty, which never would have taken off without the success of Goldeneye (and its successor Perfect Dark) or may not have been made for console at all. Goldeneye proved you could have a successful FPS game on console, which no one considered possible before it, and many elements in the game (snipers, stealth, the aiming system) all became FPS mainstays. You seem to be completely writing off the impact Goldeneye had while propping up FF7 for having a similar (but lesser in my opinion as the console FPS genre is far more popular in North America than the JRPG market) impact on the JRPG genre.

 

[syz]

This is completely wrong, Goldeneye revolutionized console first person shooters. Before Goldeneye almost no one played FPS games on console, afterwards it paved the way for later successful games like Halo and Call of Duty, which never would have taken off without the success of Goldeneye (and its successor Perfect Dark) or may not have been made for console at all. Goldeneye proved you could have a successful FPS game on console, which no one considered possible before it, and many elements in the game (snipers, stealth, the aiming system) all became FPS mainstays. You seem to be completely writing off the impact Goldeneye had while propping up FF7 for having a similar (but lesser in my opinion as the console FPS genre is far more popular in North America than the JRPG market) impact on the JRPG genre.

This is completely wrong. Years after the fact Halo was still being developed as a PC game despite Goldeneye until Microsoft bought Bungie and switched it to console.

Goldeneye did nothing for the genre on consoles. Literally the only game it inspired at all was Perfect Dark, which was also bad. For years after its release, nobody else tried to cash in on it. Don't you think that's strange, for something that was supposedly so revolutionary, in an industry that is 99% comprised of following trends? The genre was radio silent on consoles outside of the same developer making Perfect Dark, until years later when dual analog controllers came around and Microsoft ponied up for Halo exclusivity.

Also people did play FPS games on console before Goldeneye... it was called Turok, and (rightfully) nobody likes that anymore, either.

 

[Blender]

This is completely wrong. Years after the fact Halo was still being developed as a PC game despite Goldeneye until Microsoft bought Bungie and switched it to console.

Goldeneye did nothing for the genre on consoles. Literally the only game it inspired at all was Perfect Dark, which was also bad. For years after its release, nobody else tried to cash in on it. Don't you think that's strange, for something that was supposedly so revolutionary, in an industry that is 99% comprised of following trends? The genre was radio silent on consoles outside of the same developer making Perfect Dark, until years later when dual analog controllers came around and Microsoft ponied up for Halo exclusivity.

Also people did play FPS games on console before Goldeneye... it was called Turok, and (rightfully) nobody likes that anymore, either.

Halo was originally going to be a third person real time strategy game, not a FPS. Microsoft switched it to a shooter because of the demand for console shooters (which didn't exist before Goldeneye) and advances in technology which made it more feasible. Comparing Goldeneye to Turok is a joke, Turok was a niche game while Goldeneye was a huge hit that made console shooters mainstream.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nobody tried to cash in on it", when that's exactly what happened. Goldeneye came out in the fall of 1997, and 2-3 years later tons of console shooters began hitting the market. Game development takes years.

 

[PK Cronin]

This is completely wrong. Years after the fact Halo was still being developed as a PC game despite Goldeneye until Microsoft bought Bungie and switched it to console.

Goldeneye did nothing for the genre on consoles. Literally the only game it inspired at all was Perfect Dark, which was also bad. For years after its release, nobody else tried to cash in on it. Don't you think that's strange, for something that was supposedly so revolutionary, in an industry that is 99% comprised of following trends? The genre was radio silent on consoles outside of the same developer making Perfect Dark, until years later when dual analog controllers came around and Microsoft ponied up for Halo exclusivity.

Also people did play FPS games on console before Goldeneye... it was called Turok, and (rightfully) nobody likes that anymore, either.

Turok isn't in the same league as Goldeneye at all.