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

GOTY 1997?


  • Total voters
    77
  • Poll closed .

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,238
2,922
I mean, for myself personally, it's not a huge deal, because I was more impressed and engrossed with FF7 at the time than GoldenEye.

But there are plenty of games I loved at the time that time and perspective has allowed me to realize weren't that great, I was just young, dumb, easy to impress. :laugh:

1994 me would have very likely told you that Donkey Kong Country was the greatest platformer ever made, for example.

The rules of the poll obviously aren't hard and fast, but IMO, I think it would be silly not to use the benefit of perspective to measure these games. But that's just me.

I think both perspectives have different benefits, honestly. It's impossible to send current day you back in time to play 1997 games in 1997, so while you gain wisdom and experience, you also lose the feel for the time....back when N64 controllers were normal and not the horrid abominations they are today. :laugh:

Two ways of looking at it, and I don't think it's silly to judge something based on the time when it came out and the person that you were at that time. For example, I voted Mario Kart 64 originally and Goldeneye is this tiebreaker, but modern day me wouldn't even play those games now - in part because my interests have changed and in part because those games rely heavily on the party aspect, which is a much more difficult scenario to pull off in your 30s than it was in your teens.


Personally, I've just been voting on what game I enjoyed most in the year in question. Not sure what else really matters in a poll like this, but I guess Shareefruck and I have beaten that discussion to a sufficient level of death. :laugh:
 

belair

Jay Woodcroft Unemployment Stance
Apr 9, 2010
38,541
21,721
Canada
So your counter-argument to the claim that "no other developers" tried to cash in on the console FPS craze in the years following the whirlwind revolution that was Goldeneye is that... one other developer gave it a shot? Damn, point conceded, I guess.

Another bad Bond game, another couple of Turok games, and Perfect Dark. All thanks to Goldeneye's influence. Truly the beginning of the golden age. Remove them all from history and very little changes, tbh.

The best part of all this will be when the 96 poll goes up and Quake gets like 1 vote.
I'm not saying it influenced anything. It set a bar never to be equaled on that console. And the only developer who seriously attempted to was the one who made it.

I also never really understood the necessity to criticize old games for their lack of quality graphics. If you actually played that game religiously in 1997-2001, those graphics aren't going to bother you going back and playing them today. I'd almost prefer the simplicity of a game like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark over the garbage that Activision has been spewing out every year with its regurgitated COD series.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,093
9,356
Discussions like this really remind me how different console and PC gaming were in the 90s. In the 90s, console gaming was dominated by platformers, and, to a lesser extent, jRPGs, because they did those very well and not much else. In contrast, PC gaming was dominated by FPSes, wRPGs, point-and-click adventures and strategy games, practically every genre but platformers and jRPGs. As a PC gamer, that makes it hard for me to relate to this discussion, since neither title had any direct impact on the PC market. I kind of want to participate, but that'd be like voting just to vote, so maybe it's better that I sit this out. I would like to see how the votes currently stand, though. I'm not sure that hiding them until one's voted is best idea, to be honest, since I'm tempted to affect the results with my meaningless opinion just to see where things stand.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
I liked DKC better.

Though I think DKC 2 was the best of the three SNES games.



giphy.gif
In terms of pure platforming, level design, and just how they feel to control and move around in, I think Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World are outright masterpieces that are pretty difficult to touch, even today, personally.

Diddy's Kongquest is a solid, complete game with a lot of charm, but I don't think its actual mechanics/rhythm are all that inspired or deftly executed. It felt more like an ambitious game made by a bunch of people who wanted to do something cool rather than something masterfully crafted, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,905
DKC has David Wise doing the music so they get a special place cause David Wise is almost Koji Kodo-good and consistent
 

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
I would disagree. Virtually every Mario game released before it (including the ones from the NES era) completely dwarf it as a platformer, IMO. DKC had a lot of bells and whistles and at its best was a challenging and fully realized collect-a-thon with strong aesthetics (music especially) and a few innovative ideas, but it's always been really weak in terms of pure level design and platforming feel. There's still some charm to the overall product, but I don't think the games themselves are all that great.

Agreed, though I'd probably say 'unspectacular' rather than outright 'weak' in terms of platforming and feel. And yes, they have a distinct charm thanks to the presentation and music.

They're a ways behind the Mario Bros games, but they're still fun.


I'd take that further and say that even the Sonic series was a lot stronger, and I'm not a huge Sonic fan.

Woooooooooah now, let's not go crazy.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
Agreed, though I'd probably say 'unspectacular' rather than outright 'weak' in terms of platforming and feel. And yes, they have a distinct charm thanks to the presentation and music.

They're a ways behind the Mario Bros games, but they're still fun.




Woooooooooah now, let's not go crazy.
Okay, "a lot stronger" is probably an exaggeration, but I think they're both in a pretty comparable tier. Two companies throwing tons of money, investment, and effort into games competing with Mario, but without anything close to the genius talent to pull it off.

I do find the overall idea of how Sonic plays and how Sonic levels are laid out a fair bit more inspired and interesting than Donkey Kong Country (which feels pretty generic), and would give that franchise the edge, though.

I think the fact that Sonic Mania is a great game simply as a result of dedicated fans understanding how to get classic Sonic "just right" and doing that justice is a testament to the fact that there's a lot to like in those original games. If you make a new game that gets classic Donkey Kong "just right", I don't think it would be nearly as good. There's Tropical Freeze, but that feels like a completely different (more modernized and unrecognizable) animal to me.
 
Last edited:

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,905
Tropical Freeze is pretty damn amazing. I was skeptical when I first heard about it but I got it for Switch and I am loving it: it is super tight and the challenge level is expertly calibrated. Plus there is an easy mode on Switch for kids, brilliant.

To top it off the collectibles are fun to grab but you don't get anything gameplay related (like open up a new level) for getting all of them. This means I just go for the ones I see, try to find the hidden ones as I play the level but I never re-do levels and look under every pixel.

The attention to detail is really impressive.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
Discussions like this really remind me how different console and PC gaming were in the 90s. In the 90s, console gaming was dominated by platformers, and, to a lesser extent, jRPGs, because they did those very well and not much else. In contrast, PC gaming was dominated by FPSes, wRPGs, point-and-click adventures and strategy games, practically every genre but platformers and jRPGs. As a PC gamer, that makes it hard for me to relate to this discussion, since neither title had any direct impact on the PC market. I kind of want to participate, but that'd be like voting just to vote, so maybe it's better that I sit this out. I would like to see how the votes currently stand, though. I'm not sure that hiding them until one's voted is best idea, to be honest, since I'm tempted to affect the results with my meaningless opinion just to see where things stand.

For the people voting on here it's also likely much more common that in the mid 90's they were playing console games, not PC. A good PC for gaming back then was more of a luxury item, while nearly every kid had a video game console of some sort.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
I think both perspectives have different benefits, honestly. It's impossible to send current day you back in time to play 1997 games in 1997, so while you gain wisdom and experience, you also lose the feel for the time....back when N64 controllers were normal and not the horrid abominations they are today. :laugh:

Two ways of looking at it, and I don't think it's silly to judge something based on the time when it came out and the person that you were at that time. For example, I voted Mario Kart 64 originally and Goldeneye is this tiebreaker, but modern day me wouldn't even play those games now - in part because my interests have changed and in part because those games rely heavily on the party aspect, which is a much more difficult scenario to pull off in your 30s than it was in your teens.


Personally, I've just been voting on what game I enjoyed most in the year in question. Not sure what else really matters in a poll like this, but I guess Shareefruck and I have beaten that discussion to a sufficient level of death. :laugh:

The perspective of time is always interesting. A couple years ago I recall watching my much younger cousin and his friends playing split screen Halo 4 or 5 split screen on a big 50-60" TV, and it kind of dawned on me that for all the advancements in technology they weren't actually having any more fun than me and my friends did at the same age playing 4 player Goldeneye on a little 20" CRT.

Funny how that works.
 

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,102
10,547
It's sad that split-screen gaming in general has all but become extinct at this point. Some of my favourite memories were playing Mario Kart, Goldeneye, and Halo split-screen - whether it be versus or co-op.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PK Cronin

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
Tropical Freeze is pretty damn amazing. I was skeptical when I first heard about it but I got it for Switch and I am loving it: it is super tight and the challenge level is expertly calibrated. Plus there is an easy mode on Switch for kids, brilliant.

To top it off the collectibles are fun to grab but you don't get anything gameplay related (like open up a new level) for getting all of them. This means I just go for the ones I see, try to find the hidden ones as I play the level but I never re-do levels and look under every pixel.

The attention to detail is really impressive.
I agree, but my point was that unlike Sonic Mania, it being great isn't really a testament to how great the original Donkey Kong Country series was so it's not really relevant here-- it's a great game because it completely evolves into its own better thing that the originals don't resemble.
 
Last edited:

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
Tropical Freeze is pretty damn amazing. I was skeptical when I first heard about it but I got it for Switch and I am loving it: it is super tight and the challenge level is expertly calibrated. Plus there is an easy mode on Switch for kids, brilliant.

To top it off the collectibles are fun to grab but you don't get anything gameplay related (like open up a new level) for getting all of them. This means I just go for the ones I see, try to find the hidden ones as I play the level but I never re-do levels and look under every pixel.

The attention to detail is really impressive.

Tropical Freeze is fantastic, but it's almost nothing like the originals outside of the look and the music (which is great), the controls, the level design, everything is much tighter in the new Retro games than the original Rare games.

And a good thing too, cause Tropical Freeze is freaking TOUGH.
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,336
7,242
British Columbia
If your game looks or feels dated or unplayable because of outdated technology without maintaining the same charms that it once had, it means that you were overshooting what could be appropriately done with that technology and hoping that the novelty will allow people to overlook that, I think. Which is something that should have been considered a flaw at the time every bit as much as it's obvious now, IMO

I guess that’s where we differ. To me, it’s not a novelty to be the ones who push beyond the limits of what’s capable at the time. Goldeneye was a practically flawless game for what they had available at the time. If anyone claims they played Goldeneye and were thinking how much better it would be if they added a 2nd joystick to aim, I’m calling bull****. Similarity to modern design isn’t what makes things great.

To continue with the car example, what’s the greater automotive accomplishment, the Ford Model T, or the Cadillac Type 53? I’ll give you a hint. The correct answer is the one that doesn’t hold up to today’s standards.

If you can't see more than cheap novelty and speed in car design, I am shocked.

A great car will always be a great car.

Screenshot-2016-03-07-22.46.08.png


Such as this Ferrari 275 GTB.

That’s the thing. That car is Goldeneye. In today’s terms, that’s not a great car. A jaw droppingly gorgeous car, absolutely (not that Goldeneye looks good). But it’s slow and doesn’t handle well. It would be laughed at if you tried to release that today, because it’s slower than a pickup truck. Just look at what happened with the Delorean. Despite being beautiful, it’s severely “flawed” by today’s standards. Yet when you look at it for what it was in 1964, it’s truly special.
 
Last edited:

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
I guess that’s where we differ. To me, it’s not a novelty to be the ones who push beyond the limits of what’s capable at the time. Goldeneye was a practically flawless game for what they had available at the time. If anyone claims they played Goldeneye and were thinking how much better it would be if they added a 2nd joystick to aim, I’m calling bull****. Similarity to modern design isn’t what makes things great.

To continue with the car example, what’s the greater automotive accomplishment, the Ford Model T, or the Cadillac Type 53? I’ll give you a hint. The correct answer is the one that doesn’t hold up to today’s standards.



That’s the thing. That car is Goldeneye. In today’s terms, that’s not a great car. A jaw droppingly gorgeous car, absolutely (not that Goldeneye looks good). But it’s slow and doesn’t handle well. It would be laughed at if you tried to release that today, because it’s slower than a pickup truck. Despite being beautiful, it’s severely “flawed” by today’s standards. Yet when you look at it for what it was in 1964, it’s truly special.
Any car comparisons between models will completely go over my head I'm afraid. They're all just boxes with wheels to me.

I would consider "pushing the limits of what's possible in a manner that will not hold up" a mere novelty, personally. It may be a novelty that can be fun, is historically significant and should be appreciated for leading to greater things, but to me, none of those things affect how good something was or is.

There are certainly changing standards and expectations in the medium over time that affect how good these games are perceived to be in their respective eras, but I would argue that these differences should be considered largely irrelevant and insignificant compared to more timeless, universal, and ultimately TRUE standards that become more obvious with added perspective. Pushing the limits of technology, alone, isn't a significant factor in that evaluation, IMO-- What's significant is whether or not doing so ACTUALLY results in something that works well-- the degree that it does or doesn't is how good or bad the game is, was, and will always be. If it doesn't result in something that works all that well, to me, that points to an overrated game that relied too heavily on pushing limits and too lightly on lasting substance.

I agree that similarity to modern design isn't necessarily what makes things great, but only because modern design isn't always superior, or may only provide a superficial benefit that ultimately doesn't matter that much. The way I see it, either the game was flawed at the time because modern iterations needed to add all the missing pieces to make it truly effective, or the game was not flawed at the time and the significance of advancements in modern FPS standards are merely minor quality of life improvements that are overblown and are not critical to a game's effectiveness (which would mean that holding it against the game for not living up to these standards would just be a case of recency bias). You can land somewhere in between those two extremes of course, but I don't think you can have both at the same time-- there has to be a trade-off when more meaningful and lasting standards are used to evaluate both, and I think that's how they should be evaluated, personally, but YMMV.

I think the same is true of great movies, music, television, or whatever. It might be the same with cars (that's trickier and not really the exact same thing because there's a primary practical function to it that objectively gets better and better), but I wouldn't know.
 
Last edited:

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,363
59,270
Ottawa, ON
I guess that’s where we differ. To me, it’s not a novelty to be the ones who push beyond the limits of what’s capable at the time. Goldeneye was a practically flawless game for what they had available at the time. If anyone claims they played Goldeneye and were thinking how much better it would be if they added a 2nd joystick to aim, I’m calling bull****. Similarity to modern design isn’t what makes things great.

To continue with the car example, what’s the greater automotive accomplishment, the Ford Model T, or the Cadillac Type 53? I’ll give you a hint. The correct answer is the one that doesn’t hold up to today’s standards.



That’s the thing. That car is Goldeneye. In today’s terms, that’s not a great car. A jaw droppingly gorgeous car, absolutely (not that Goldeneye looks good). But it’s slow and doesn’t handle well. It would be laughed at if you tried to release that today, because it’s slower than a pickup truck. Just look at what happened with the Delorean. Despite being beautiful, it’s severely “flawed” by today’s standards. Yet when you look at it for what it was in 1964, it’s truly special.

I don’t know many pick ups that go 270 km/h.

It handles extremely well and typically sells for $4M to $8M.

What it lacks are some of the creature comforts that have little to do with the pure driving experience.

A great game may not have all of the modern bells and whistles but the gaming experience should still resonate.

For the record, I don’t think Goldeneye is one of those games but it’s also not the reason I voted for it.
 
Last edited:

Xelebes

Registered User
Jun 10, 2007
9,013
595
Edmonton, Alberta
Didn't get to vote but I would have voted 007. FFVII supremely pissed me off because I understood it was all the rage but it was a game that I had absolutely no interest in playing. I didn't know it then but I have come to realise why I don't have that interest: I can't play games that require rolling dice or rely heavily on RNGs to decide outcomes. It just feels too much like gambling. Goldeneye was enjoyable when I had the chance to play it.
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,363
59,270
Ottawa, ON
I'm not saying it influenced anything. It set a bar never to be equaled on that console. And the only developer who seriously attempted to was the one who made it.

I also never really understood the necessity to criticize old games for their lack of quality graphics. If you actually played that game religiously in 1997-2001, those graphics aren't going to bother you going back and playing them today. I'd almost prefer the simplicity of a game like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark over the garbage that Activision has been spewing out every year with its regurgitated COD series.

The graphics of Goldeneye at the time were bad. Even against its contemporaries.

The gameplay was fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

syz

[1, 5, 6, 14]
Jul 13, 2007
28,864
12,267
If we're comparing games to cars GoldenEye is more like an 85 Civic hatchback. It works but you only drive it because you can't afford something better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

Tasty Biscuits

with fancy sauce
Aug 8, 2011
12,162
3,415
Pittsburgh
Goldeneye was a completely isolated thing that hit big with a group of kids who didn't know any better

The majority of your post is solid stuff, but this part is a little too unnecessarily attack-y for my tastes. You can express your opinion on the game's quality/influence (or lack thereof) without effectively calling anyone who enjoyed it simpletons.
 

SeidoN

#OGOC #2018 HFW Predictions Champ
Aug 8, 2012
30,796
6,445
AEF
honestly the votes arent equal but both games should get a mention. I call for a joint winner
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,237
6,516
Didn't get to vote but I would have voted 007. FFVII supremely pissed me off because I understood it was all the rage but it was a game that I had absolutely no interest in playing. I didn't know it then but I have come to realise why I don't have that interest: I can't play games that require rolling dice or rely heavily on RNGs to decide outcomes. It just feels too much like gambling. Goldeneye was enjoyable when I had the chance to play it.
Huh?? How in the world does FF7 rely heavily on RNG? There's a little bit of difference in RNG between damage amounts on attacks, but it's pretty negligible. I've played FF7 for pretty much my entire life and never once can I recally having thought about RNG in the game (outside of maybe Chocobo Breeding or the Boxing mini-game). I play Runescape as well, which is pretty much an entirely RNG based game, so it's not that I don't understand how it works or how it affects gameplay/combat in games.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->