Goldeneye review (from the year 2000)

October 15, 2017

I look back on these reviews when I want to cringe.

Goldeneye
Review by Jerec

Pages and Pages of Text
When starting a mission, if you dont read the 6 pages of text, you might aswell give up. I really didn't like reading so much. But even when I did read, the missions went from being ''too hard'', down to just plain ''hard''.

Graphics (7.3/10)
The textures are good. That makes the levels look quite good. The people on the other hand, almost had square faces. They were revolting piles of stench. You only had to see Bond for a few seconds to tell he looked pathetic! When enemies were behind a door, you could see parts of them sticking through. You could also put your gun through a door and shoot away. People are going to be telling me that I am being too harsh on the graphics because they are quite old and they didn't have the technology to make the graphics perfect.

Sound (8.6/10)
The music is good (not great) and the sound effects are average. It could have had a little bit of voice. Super Mario 64 was released way before Goldeneye and had the beginning and end with voice from Peach, and Mario's voice through the game. I would have to say that the sound is one of the games high points.

Lasting Appeal (3.2/10)
Well, I couldn't get past the second surface misssion on the easiest difficulty setting. It was just too hard. So I dont see much Lasting Appeal here. But you may find it. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Gameplay (5.1/10)
Too hard, too much reading to do. I dont see the point of killing. It just doesnt appeal to me.

Good Points
- Good Textures
- Music is fine

Bad Points
- Too hard
- People look very weired
- Arms can go through doors. (closed ones)

Overall 6.1/10 (Rounded to 6/10)
This turns out to be an average shooter. I dont see how it is better than any others. Only more confusing. There are better shooters out there. Check out Perfect Dark.

Buy or Rent?
Rent first, It may save you from making a bad choice. If you really like it, buy it. Most people probably have this game by now. Lots of people like the game, and I respect that. But that means that people have to accept that I dont like the game.

Reviewer's Score: 6 / 10

Most recent blog posts from Jerec ...

Jerec's games of Q4 2022

Jerec's games of Q3

Jerec's Games of Q2

Most recent blog posts from Jerec ...
Jerec's games of Q4 2022 Jerec's games of Q3 Jerec's Games of Q2

Feedback

hastypixels - October 17, 2017 (10:21 AM)
Reminds me of the way I wrote in high school. You do make some good points though. The idea that technology limits presentation is wrong. My favorite musicians and coders seem to revel in limitations.

It's not easy looking back, but it does provide some comfort: You progressed and that's worthy of some gratitude.

jerec - October 17, 2017 (12:10 PM)
Yep, I think I was 15 when I wrote this over at GameFAQs. I did about 40 reviews like this. People offered constructive criticism and I did improve bit by bit.

I think any good points I made were by accident. I was throwing around phrases and terms because I'd seen others using them but didn't really understand them.

honestgamer - October 18, 2017 (12:12 AM)
When I first contributed to GameFAQs with an older account I can no longer access (or maybe I can, though I'm too lazy to bother trying), I remember sectioned reviews not being optional. You had to fill out a bunch of different fields in a form, and it was parsed as a sectioned review. That's why so many older reviews on the site are sectioned. Then someone realized essay-style reviews are better, I guess, and any sectioning was left to individuals who still felt like taking that approach.

jerec - October 18, 2017 (03:11 AM)
Was this in 1999 or earlier? I know I was reviewing stuff from around May 2000 and it was always one text box.

It would make sense that there were so many reviews with lines like "There is no story, this is a sports game."

overdrive - October 18, 2017 (12:45 PM)
I know I started in the early 2000s (01? 02? at the latest 03) and sectioned reviews were still common, but gradually losing their steam, as I started when there was a good-sized community and it didn't take long to find that out when I submitted my first few and noticed the whole RotD thing.

Because I was in my mid/late 20s when I started, my writing was more polished than this, but the overall content of my reviews wasn't. I simply started by reading random reviews on the site and modeled my stuff after that. And those reviews weren't among the site's best, but tended to be random sectioned drek.

honestgamer - October 18, 2017 (03:44 PM)
Yes, Jerec. I first wrote around three reviews for GameFAQs, I believe in November of 1999, and I definitely recall being forced to enter descriptions into various boxes set aside for the usual categories. The system must have switched over not long after that, because the next time I created (with a new account) there was no such form.

overdrive - October 19, 2017 (10:10 AM)
Okay, I checked and my first review was in early '03 on GFs. And I also noticed I'm no longer in their top 50 review contributors, because apparently, not doing anything over there in slightly over a decade has given people time to catch up to me.

Feedback
	hastypixels - October 17, 2017 (10:21 AM) Reminds me of the way I wrote in high school. You do make some good points though. The idea that technology limits presentation is wrong. My favorite musicians and coders seem to revel in limitations. It's not easy looking back, but it does provide some comfort: You progressed and that's worthy of some gratitude.
	jerec - October 17, 2017 (12:10 PM) Yep, I think I was 15 when I wrote this over at GameFAQs. I did about 40 reviews like this. People offered constructive criticism and I did improve bit by bit. I think any good points I made were by accident. I was throwing around phrases and terms because I'd seen others using them but didn't really understand them.
	honestgamer - October 18, 2017 (12:12 AM) When I first contributed to GameFAQs with an older account I can no longer access (or maybe I can, though I'm too lazy to bother trying), I remember sectioned reviews not being optional. You had to fill out a bunch of different fields in a form, and it was parsed as a sectioned review. That's why so many older reviews on the site are sectioned. Then someone realized essay-style reviews are better, I guess, and any sectioning was left to individuals who still felt like taking that approach.
	jerec - October 18, 2017 (03:11 AM) Was this in 1999 or earlier? I know I was reviewing stuff from around May 2000 and it was always one text box. It would make sense that there were so many reviews with lines like "There is no story, this is a sports game."
	overdrive - October 18, 2017 (12:45 PM) I know I started in the early 2000s (01? 02? at the latest 03) and sectioned reviews were still common, but gradually losing their steam, as I started when there was a good-sized community and it didn't take long to find that out when I submitted my first few and noticed the whole RotD thing. Because I was in my mid/late 20s when I started, my writing was more polished than this, but the overall content of my reviews wasn't. I simply started by reading random reviews on the site and modeled my stuff after that. And those reviews weren't among the site's best, but tended to be random sectioned drek.
	honestgamer - October 18, 2017 (03:44 PM) Yes, Jerec. I first wrote around three reviews for GameFAQs, I believe in November of 1999, and I definitely recall being forced to enter descriptions into various boxes set aside for the usual categories. The system must have switched over not long after that, because the next time I created (with a new account) there was no such form.
	overdrive - October 19, 2017 (10:10 AM) Okay, I checked and my first review was in early '03 on GFs. And I also noticed I'm no longer in their top 50 review contributors, because apparently, not doing anything over there in slightly over a decade has given people time to catch up to me.

© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.