You really sound angry, don't you? Please chill out.

Pushing a machine to the limit doesnt make a game good. Goldeneye was a good game because it was a good game. Hitting the limits made it _worse_, not better, just as any other game.

I already mentioned an FPS that did much more, and that's Half Life.

What would I miss playing Goldeneye it today? Maybe good AI? Maybe networked multiplayer and better multiplayer modes? Maybe better controls? Maybe physics?

It's a good game, you can have fun. I have fun playing with MAME. There are also better games out there, with which you can have more fun.

Oh, and the graphic junkie mantra is very misplaced. I'd rather play CS 1.6 than CS:S. I'd rather play Halo 1 than Halo 3. But I'd rather play KZ2 than any of your alleged best FPS games ever.

@ RubangB

I do agree that 96 and 97 were great years for games and no, games don't progress linearly. I still replay some of the games you mentioned very often. Newer does not mean better.

But Citizen Kane was not constrained in its expression because of the year it was shot. Goldeneye and Half Life were.
I can't really say it more clearly, I think.

Did I say that pushing it to the limits was the only thing that made it great? How did it make it worse?

Sorry, but half-life isn`t better.

Did you play the game today? I told you too do that before you came back to comment. And by the way I`m playing Goldeneye online.

Have fun with Killzone and Pearl Harbour. I`ll play me old games and watch Seven Samurai and Clockwork Orange.

Ps: I`m not angry, just a little upset of yer comments about movies and video-games is not comparable. It is entertainment after all.

Because pushing a limit means you're cutting something that is right _beyond_ the limit. It doesnt make the game better than a game that doesn't push as much a much further limit. Unless you judge quality by effort instead of by result.

Half Life is better (see, I can make one-liners too :)

And I played it last week.

I despise Pearl Harbour because it's a terrible movie. I like Killzone 2 because it's a great game. New doesn't mean better, but neither does old.

And I state once again that no, you can't compare movies and video-games. One artistic form is mature (and was almost as mature in the 50s), the other is still juvenile and undergoing growing pains. We're basically in a place equivalent to the 30s for the cinema: technical progress is running fast, a few authors make great movies with their restricted means, most of what is produced is plain bad and forgettable. The real golden age is still ahead. And the '33 King Kong is a classic... but is also not a good movie :)

Pushing it TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO the limits.

No half-life isn`t better.

Can`t you see the differnce between classic and good? Haven`t you seen good movies made in 2006-2009, that have no special effects? United 93 to mention one. You just cant seem to understand the simplicity of entertainment.

You're speaking to someone who still plays Dungeon Master and Bard's Tale on his Amiga emulator. They were great, they were part of my youth, I still have fun. I just don't go around saying that they are still the best RPGs ever.

Let me ask you a crucial question: how old were you when you first played Goldeneye? Because I think nostalgia is obfuscating your judgment.

Ah okay.  I agree with this.

I just think that technological restraints aren't always bad, and can sometimes force people to make more creative solutions.  Some of my favorite films are silent and/or black and white, and I even love some films made before Eisenstein really made editing into an art form in 1925.  And Mario's iconic character design was a direct result of the limited amount of pixels and colors they could use.  They made a moustache instead of a mouth, a hat instead of hair, sideburns to make the ears noticeable, and overalls instead of other clothes.  They didn't have to, but it was a hilarious and creative solution for 1981, when everything else looked like Frogger or Ms. Pac-Man or even Qix.

And there are certain innovations that end up actually hurting art more often than helping.  When zoom lenses were first invented, just about every film for 10 years used a hot zoom in almost every shot, making most of those films completely unwatchable.  I feel the same way about modern FPS games that let your health bar recharge instead of making you find health packs.

I'm not arguing with you anymore actually.  I understand and agree with you.  At this point I'm just explaining my own different wacky ideas.

in the end i want to speak again if someone has played 007 and pd back in their release dates has lost his interest in shoot em up.call of duty medal of honour killzone etc are not all good but all look the same and they hardly make something new and innovative as half life or halo1.
thats why pdzero failed and killzone2 will fail when killzone3 or 4 comes out
and goldneye hasnt got the perfect AI but believe me it is more fun and enjoyable than most of 2000after games.

Perfect Dark. Definitely.