Hacker News
points by Glyptodon 1 day ago | 0 comments
Like many games, I think people's ratings of importance and quality are highly colored by their own experiences. For example, Goldeneye is beloved, but I've always found it weird, and I think anyone who played multiplayer Quake, Descent, Doom, etc., before it came out will just never see it as the revelation that console gamers do. Similarly, if you played Marathon games, Halo never seems nearly as special as many gamers find it.

With Deus Ex, I think one factor that really boosts it is that very few games previous to it focused nearly as much on experiencing a story while giving a first person player agency of any degree, and this is probably doubly true for the kind of audience that would find a first person real-time experience appealing, or at least I imagine the audiences for Fallout and Planescape: Torment and such, while overlapping some, weren't really quite the same audience as for Deus Ex, and stuff like Lucas Film's Maniac Mansion style games (puzzle narrative games?) are even further removed. While other games that are obviously similar in some ways, like Half Life, are much much more on rails in terms of both player experience and narrative compared to Deus Ex. And of course it's also very topical in ways that only seem more prescient.

I think it's a great game, just like the X-Files was a great show, but also just like X-Files was not a perfect show. (Though I'm not sure there's a strict analog to the degree of unnecessary continuation X-Files has had.) By the standard of its time, just being first person and having varied endings, varied routes, and a lot of narrative support are all big winners for its time.

[–] paulryanrogers 1 day ago
> I think people's ratings of importance and quality are highly colored by their own experiences. For example, Goldeneye is beloved, but I've always found it weird, and I think anyone who played multiplayer Quake, Descent, Doom, etc., before it came out will just never see it as the revelation that console gamers do.

Having played all those games before GoldenEye, I still thought GE was groundbreaking and raised the bar for both PCs and consoles. My guess is it's harder for those who came after to go appreciate it. Or really anyone who needs stable, high frame rates. Because GE's low frame rate is probably its biggest flaw.

[–] olelele 14 hours ago
All I can say is archives, pistols only, 4 controllers and some friends.
[–] Glyptodon 11 hours ago
In your view what about it did? Having played multi-player PC shooters like Quake first, the friend experience of living room sharing the screen was great, but not that game specific - it's part of why makes Mario Cart type games so enduring. But the effective quarter resolution on a CRT always making my eyes bleed even after just 15 minutes + the much worse controls (compared to keyboard + ball or mouse) always made me feel like it was just drastically more miserable than Quake on PC. Not to mention Descent (II? maybe), which I was bad at but fascinated by, and seemed to require comparatively much more skill.
[–] paulryanrogers 5 hours ago
Quake was pretty mediocre brown mess with no coherent vision IMO. Its engine was a technical achievement. The game had moderately entertaining gunplay, and full screen MP over wires was nice for those who could lug PCs or had multiple.

GoldenEye had better graphics (if static lighting), big levels, lots of detail (for the era), realistic (mo cap) animation, blood stains where you struck an opponent, could shoot the hat off someone, higher tick rates than most PC multiplayer, an interesting story with intriguing set pieces (mostly), and multiplayer options galore (unmatched until Unreal's mutators).

Screen sharing and low frame rates were all I can recall disliking. And the former could be solved with some cardboard ;). Nowadays you can play emulated or decompiled with high resolution and high frame rates. The models may not hold up as well, while most everything else is great.