| The Ghost of RubangB said: ... I think the argument can be made that GoldenEye is still the best shooter. The same way that people argue that the best film ever made is either Citizen Kane (1941) or 8 1/2 (1963). We might have better special effects, better cameras, and better projectors by now, but we haven't improved storytelling, directing, acting, or editing. ... |
As much as I love cinema, I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. The "form" in cinema is not only cameras and special effects. It's direction and editing and composition and lighting... and those two movies were great in this regard. Aside from clearer picture, would Orson Welles have shot Citizen Kane differently if he had the technical means of 30 years later? I don't think so. Same with Fellini.
On the other hand if the same authors of Goldeneye were to create it today, would it be the same? No, it wouldn't.
Movies in the 40s and 50s can be formally great even by today's standards and taste. Games from 1996 simply aren't, however great they were back then.
PS: before shouts of "gameplay before graphics!", that's not what I mean with form. Form as in the means by which you convey your message.
It might mean graphics, audio fidelity, ability to handle physics and AI, amount of content you can deliver, ability to stream data so to not interrupt the game flow etc.
Authors can have great ideas and clear goals for the gameplay, but it can be maimed by the technical means by which it is conveyed. HL and HL2 have better storytelling than Goldeneye, and HL2 also has much superior technical means to convey its content.
A poorly lit or focused camera shot of agreat subject, with good composition, still loses something. You appreciate the idea, but it can get better.
