Best multi player games on N64

Ironman76

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

A couple of the wrestling games were very good in multiplayer as well. Wrestlemania 2000 and WCW/NWO Revenge.

Agreed. We used to have almighty craic with WWF No Mercy back in the day. 4 Player Royal Rumbles etc, class.

Setun

Stoner wrote: »

I liked wipeout64 as you had four players at the same time, but it still played better on the ps1

Would love to get a copy of Wipeout 64 actually, it looks a laugh, and I loved the ps versions.

Retr0gamer

I said earlier that there were no destruction derby type games for the N64 but I was wrong. There's actually destruction derby 64 and it's in R.A.G.E. on fade street at the moment.

OwaynOTT

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I said earlier that there were no destruction derby type games for the N64 but I was wrong. There's actually destruction derby 64 and it's in R.A.G.E. on fade street at the moment.

Not anymore it isn't! Got it last week and its not quite what I remember.

Retr0gamer

You'll get that a lot with N64 games. How people still think Goldeneye holds up is beyond me. Actually it isn't, those people are just idiots :P

Retr0gamer

Your debating skills match your intellect.

SuperInfinity

How would you know? I haven't debated anything.

o1s1n

SuperInfinity wrote: »

How would you know? I haven't debated anything.

LOL You are not quite the post deleting ninja you think you are.

seamus

Nothing like Goldeneye and Mario Kart for multiplayer.

There were three of us used to hang around together, so games which you could have more than 2 players were the only way to go. One summer we literally spent every hour of every day for a couple of weeks playing both of these.

SuperInfinity

o1s1n wrote: »

LOL You are not quite the post deleting ninja you think you are.

I mean on this board, with him, in the past few days....

It's one thing to be talking crap about established legendary games, which I could nearly accept. But calling people who like them "idiots" is surely crossing the line, and you would think a mod would know better.

This board is the ONLY retro place I have ever seen someone being so offensive and insulting towards older games.

No game deproves in time. Game graphics are not like a drug, where you have to go higher and higher or get withdrawal symptoms. And even if they were, all you would have to do is stay off the more powerful ones for a while to get the same hit from a less powerful one.

As shown here:

iu

despite initially claiming it, he has never even played the game enough to give any sort of valid opinion on anything to do with it, apart perhaps from how it starts off. Anyone can buzz through agent and part of secret agent in a small few hours, that's just welcoming you into the game and getting you used to it. That is nothing compared to the real heart of the game.

He also calls himself "stupider and more impressionable" when he liked FF7. I think he should just relax, nobody is stupid or an idiot for liking a good game or for liking a bad game.

It does feel silly coming back after all these months talking about almost the exact same thing again, but I do think he should stop calling people like me idiots which he clearly did. Nobody likes it when you diss one of their most beloved games and it evokes a big reaction, which is often just trolling, intentional or not.

Now I'm done, that's all I wanted to say and don't wish to debate the matter.... lest I be accused of trolling myself.

Retr0gamer

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's one thing to be talking crap about established legendary games, which I could nearly accept. But calling people who like them "idiots" is surely crossing the line, and you would think a mod would know better.

I was talking about visuals here, you took me up wrong. Anyway these are some fairly ****ty graphics:



If you disagree it will make me make some fairly accurate assumptions about your mental state or else your eye sight.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This board is the ONLY retro place I have ever seen someone being so offensive and insulting towards older games.

Have a look in the latest copy of retrogamer magazine. In the first page editorial the guys talk about their favourite rare games and at least 3 of them mention how Goldeneye hasn't held up. Games TM and Edge magazine also talk about how influential the game is but how it hasn't held up with age. I'm not the only one. I'm one of the people that can look at these games critically.

Goldeneye for me is like the videogame equivalent of a film like Birth of a Nation. Any film critic will tell you how influential the film was and how it changed cinema and the big impact it had on film after it's release. In the same way I won't deny the massive impact Goldeneye had back in it's day. However with Birth of a Nation it's themes have dated extremely badly and it comes across as one of the most racist films ever made. No critic would call it the best film ever made but itis a film with major historic value and worthy of study. I think Goldeneye definitely has some historic value but it would be very blind and ignorant of me to suggest that it stands tall in a genre that has far surpassed goldeneye.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No game deproves in time. Game graphics are not like a drug, where you have to go higher and higher or get withdrawal symptoms. And even if they were, all you would have to do is stay off the more powerful ones for a while to get the same hit from a less powerful one.

I agree that graphics aren't important don't make a game but framerate is a vital component to how a gameplays. Why are game developers aiming for 60FPS gameplay as a high point and 30FPS as a compromise? Because anything less feels sluggish, laggy and will negatively affect gameplay. Goldeneyes framerate is on average about 15 FPS which is totally unacceptable. It had to be this way because Goldeneye was built for the specifications that were much higher than the release N64 because Nintendo kept downgrading it's power. Now it just makes the game barely playable. This is pretty much game design 101 and if you do a course in it you'll learn all about compromising art for a playable framerate.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

As shown here:

iu

despite initially claiming it, he has never even played the game enough to give any sort of valid opinion on anything to do with it, apart perhaps from how it starts off. Anyone can buzz through agent and part of secret agent in a small few hours, that's just welcoming you into the game and getting you used to it. That is nothing compared to the real heart of the game.

There's a big difference between assumptions you make and the truth. Do you really honestly think that I have never beaten goldeneye despite being a massive gamer when it was released? There's very few gamers my age that haven't beaten goldeneye. Let me give you the facts again instead of your hearsay quote taken out of context. I beat goldeneye back in 1998 when I used to play it almost every day in my friends house. I beat it on the second hardest difficulty level. I severel doubt I'm missing out on much having not played the hardest difficulty level. Sure I own 2 copies of the game! When I said I stopped playing at the control level it was when I went back to play it a few months ago when I finally got my own N64 and stopped because I had better games to be playing gna wasn't having fun with the game for a long time at that point.

I said the stealth mechanics don't work. You said this shows I didn't beat the game. I say it shows you didn't understand what I said. Stealth is vital in the harder parts of the gameand yes I did use it, never said I didn't. I said they didn't work. They don't work because they are a bit broken and buggy. You can go through most of the level perfectly but the game can then glitch and you will be caught through no fault of your own. The stealth mechanics in MGS and splinter cell work because they are fair and glitch free. Goldeneye on the other hand can throw a dick move in and you'll fail through no fault of your own. It was bad programming but then again stealth in FPS games was a new area. A few months later Thief came out on the PC and made the stealth mechanics in Goldeney look terrible.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

He also calls himself "stupider and more impressionable" when he liked FF7. I think he should just relax, nobody is stupid or an idiot for liking a good game or for liking a bad game.

Well I was back then. I was younger and without the extra 10 years of experience I have now. Also FF7 isn't a bad game. People seem to think that when you say a game is overrated that you are saying it's crap.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It does feel silly coming back after all these months talking about almost the exact same thing again, but I do think he should stop calling people like me idiots which he clearly did. Nobody likes it when you diss one of their most beloved games and it evokes a big reaction, which is often just trolling, intentional or not.

I wasn't aiming it at you. Here's a song just for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g

SuperInfinity

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I was talking about visuals here, you took me up wrong. Anyway these are some fairly ****ty graphics:

Oh Sweet Jesus, Mary Mother of God you did NOT just do that....

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If you disagree it will make me make some fairly accurate assumptions about your mental state or else your eye sight.

*gives you an odd look*

lol, are u mad?

What the hell is this supposed to be? Those are AMAZING graphics. When I started reading that first I thought you were going to show some screenshot where the graphics were all amiss and the smoke looked horrible, not a perfectly good one like that.

Great graphics are not necessarily realistic ones. They just have to look great. Nobody would ever say those graphics are bad except from you and some people a lot younger than you are.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have a look in the latest copy of retrogamer magazine. In the first page editorial the guys talk about their favourite rare games and at least 3 of them mention how Goldeneye hasn't held up. Games TM and Edge magazine also talk about how influential the game is but how it hasn't held up with age. I'm not the only one. I'm one of the people that can look at these games critically.

Personally I think "held up" or "good for its time" are the most ridiculously over-used phrases in videogames. Those phrases are encouraged by the industry of course to get you to buy the latest games, but they're not accurate. Wolfenstein 3D (the original Wolfenstein), is something that doesnt really "hold up", simply because there were technical limitations in that game that made it a limiting game experience. Goldeneye does not have that limitation.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Goldeneye for me is like the videogame equivalent of a film like Birth of a Nation. Any film critic will tell you how influential the film was and how it changed cinema and the big impact it had on film after it's release. In the same way I won't deny the massive impact Goldeneye had back in it's day. However with Birth of a Nation it's themes have dated extremely badly and it comes across as one of the most racist films ever made. No critic would call it the best film ever made but itis a film with major historic value and worthy of study. I think Goldeneye definitely has some historic value but it would be very blind and ignorant of me to suggest that it stands tall in a genre that has far surpassed goldeneye.

I have never heard of that movie, nor do I really care. I draw the line at silent movies, however I believe movies such as King Kong (1933), Casablanca, I Walked With A Zombie, Psycho and lots of other movies made many, many years ago are often just as good as movies today. I don't like silent movies and wouldn't watch them today, such as how I don't think I would play Doom or Wolfenstein 3D today (I have played them and found what I played of them fun, I'm not really drawn to them though, which I could say about many games today).

Get it? Once the basic technical limitations in the artistic expression are overcome, there is no reason why any game today would be more of a fun experience to Goldeneye. Graphics means very little.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I agree that graphics aren't important don't make a game but framerate is a vital component to how a gameplays. Why are game developers aiming for 60FPS gameplay as a high point and 30FPS as a compromise? Because anything less feels sluggish, laggy and will negatively affect gameplay.

The reason they do this is because to help with syncing with monitors, as monitors have a finite refresh rate as well. The human eye cannot detect anything higher than about 24 frames per second, maybe 30 at most. Granted, this goes for Goldeneye as well.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Goldeneyes framerate is on average about 15 FPS which is totally unacceptable. It had to be this way because Goldeneye was built for the specifications that were much higher than the release N64 because Nintendo kept downgrading it's power. Now it just makes the game barely playable. This is pretty much game design 101 and if you do a course in it you'll learn all about compromising art for a playable framerate.

It's higher than 15 fps on average. I have taken mobile phone footage at 15fps and you notice it straightaway. Sure maybe it drops to that sometimes, we knew that already.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a big difference between assumptions you make and the truth. Do you really honestly think that I have never beaten goldeneye despite being a massive gamer when it was released? There's very few gamers my age that haven't beaten goldeneye. Let me give you the facts again instead of your hearsay quote taken out of context. I beat goldeneye back in 1998 when I used to play it almost every day in my friends house. I beat it on the second hardest difficulty level. I severel doubt I'm missing out on much having not played the hardest difficulty level. Sure I own 2 copies of the game! When I said I stopped playing at the control level it was when I went back to play it a few months ago when I finally got my own N64 and stopped because I had better games to be playing gna wasn't having fun with the game for a long time at that point.

Have you beaten Aztecs on Secret Agent difficulty? I'll give you credit for at least having played enough to be able to give a valid opinion on it if you've done that. Check and make sure plz..... :pac:

Your contention that there's very few gamers your age that haven't beaten Goldeneye is ridiculous, the majority of them didn't/don't even have N64s. Shur you never even beat it yourself!!!!

It's not the same as choosing "hard" in an FPS and beating that instead of beating it on "very hard". In a game like Goldeneye you cannot access all the levels or truly beat it unless you do it on 00 Agent.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I said the stealth mechanics don't work. You said this shows I didn't beat the game. I say it shows you didn't understand what I said. Stealth is vital in the harder parts of the gameand yes I did use it, never said I didn't. I said they didn't work. They don't work because they are a bit broken and buggy. You can go through most of the level perfectly but the game can then glitch and you will be caught through no fault of your own.

Wrong, some people can get through them 100% of the time. I myself have played this game heaps and there is never a glitch.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A few months later Thief came out on the PC and made the stealth mechanics in Goldeney look terrible.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!! Highly siggable.

Retr0gamer

Good at least some proper debate and no name calling.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

What the hell is this supposed to be? Those are AMAZING graphics. When I started reading that first I thought you were going to show some screenshot where the graphics were all amiss and the smoke looked horrible, not a perfectly good one like that.

Great graphics are not necessarily realistic ones. They just have to look great. Nobody would ever say those graphics are bad except from you and some people a lot younger than you are.

No good graphics aren't necessarily realistic ones but goldeneye went for a realistic look and it hasn't held up. I played through another world recently. The graphics in that are very old with characters that have less polygons than I have fingers on my hands. However the creator went for a stylised unrealistic look and therefore the graphics have held up and not aged and still look fantastic. If you make a game look realistic it's going to be surpassed and will look bad in years to come. It's good art that will keep a games graphics ageless. The latest Call of Duty games are going to look laughable in a few years time whereas Okami will always be gorgeous looking.

At the time realistic graphics were a good choice for Goldeneye but in legacy terms it hasn't held up. The best looking games on the N64 are the ones with stylised graphics that didn't push the hardware too much and have to have terrible framerates. Games like Mario 64 and Starfox 64 still look great but anything that went for a realistic look on the N64now looks dated and poor.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Personally I think "held up" or "good for its time" are the most ridiculously over-used phrases in videogames. Those phrases are encouraged by the industry of course to get you to buy the latest games, but they're not accurate. Wolfenstein 3D (the original Wolfenstein), is something that doesnt really "hold up", simply because there were technical limitations in that game that made it a limiting game experience. Goldeneye does not have that limitation.

You say that games don't age and hold up over time yet prove yourself wrong by saying that Wolfenstein 3D hasn't held up? You're not doing your debating skills any favours. I totally agree with you that Wolfenstein 3D hasn't held up and it was technical limitations. I also think that goldeneye is held back by technical limitations. The low framerate makes the game play sluggishly, the AI is terrible and some of the level design is questionable (and other times inspired but there are some very poor levels).

A game like Doom though I feel hasn't aged a bit and has more technical limitations than Goldeneye. It's because Id made a game around these limitations. AI was even worse but they added simple elements like infighting and tonnes of enemies on screen. the world was essentially 2D but they designed levels around it made them interesting even if they couldn't create rooms over rooms.

Goldeneye wasn't designed around it's limitations. Graphical quality was kept high which had negative effects on both AI and the playability of the game. Sure Goldeneye couldn't have been made on the N64 without these compromises but it doesn't excuse the negatives it had. Bad AI is bad AI even if the console could do better or if it was pushed so hard there wasn't anyway it could be improved.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I have never heard of that movie, nor do I really care. I draw the line at silent movies, however I believe movies such as King Kong (1933), Casablanca, I Walked With A Zombie, Psycho and lots of other movies made many, many years ago are often just as good as movies today. I don't like silent movies and wouldn't watch them today, such as how I don't think I would play Doom or Wolfenstein 3D today (I have played them and found what I played of them fun, I'm not really drawn to them though, which I could say about many games today).

Just like in movies there's dated movies and there's movies that will remain classics. All the movies you mention are classics and haven't aged except King Kong. In myopinion it's another very important landmark in cinema but hasn't held up. Some of it is technical reasons like the special effects, amazing back then but shoddy now. It's got historical relevance just like goldeneye. I can look at king kong and enjoy it and I can play Goldeneye and enjoy that now but I'd be wrong to say that either is the best film of game or even the best in their genre. There's better monster movies than king kong and there's better FPS games than goldeneye.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Get it? Once the basic technical limitations in the artistic expression are overcome, there is no reason why any game today would be more of a fun experience to Goldeneye. Graphics means very little.

Yes I know but as I mentioned there's more problems with Goldeneye than graphical problems. There's plenty of gameplay problems. Some poor level design in quite a few areas, bad AI, poor stealth mechanics, sluggish controls due to framerate, respawning enemies, one of the worst protection missions ever. Those are all gameplay related than graphical. PFS gaming has come a long way and has been done a whole lot better than goldeneye. I'm not just talking about graphics here that have very little to do with it.

A game like Super Mario Bros or Robotron 2084 have some very dated graphics but are still classics that are as fun to play today as the have always been.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The reason they do this is because to help with syncing with monitors, as monitors have a finite refresh rate as well. The human eye cannot detect anything higher than about 24 frames per second, maybe 30 at most. Granted, this goes for Goldeneye as well.

It's higher than 15 fps on average. I have taken mobile phone footage at 15fps and you notice it straightaway. Sure maybe it drops to that sometimes, we knew that already.

It's nothing to do with monitor syncing issues. If the framerate is low the console will tear frames or slow the game down to cope. Goldeneye will output 25 FPS on PAL consoles but will be running at 15FPS. It copes with this by displaying some frames twice. This has the effect of slowing the game right down. The display will seem smooth and the frames aren't torn since you are getting 25 frames but the game runs at 15-20 FPS so about 40% of these frames are copies of the previous frame. The game then runs slower than full speed making the game feel laggy and sluggish.

This is a fact and if you don't believe me that this happens then go play the N64 version of Perfect Dark and then straight after the 360 version of Perfect Dark, there's a demo so no need to buy it. You'll notice how much faster the game is and how much smoother it is to control. I'm not even going to argue with you about how framerate negatively affects the game experience until you try this and read the digital foundry articles on eurogamer because it's just plain wrong to think it doesn't.

Also if you think Goldeneye is running constantly at its full framerate then try this out. Play the game as normal and get used to the speed of it. Then walk up to a wall and look directly at the wall texture so nothing else is showing. You'll get about a 20% jump in framerate and the game becomes a lot more responsive. I'm pretty sure even the music will speed up as well.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Have you beaten Aztecs on Secret Agent difficulty? I'll give you credit for at least having played enough to be able to give a valid opinion on it if you've done that. Check and make sure plz..... :pac:.

Yes I have beaten it, it's a bonus level you get for beating the game. Took me a very long time to get through it and it was infuriatingly tough.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Your contention that there's very few gamers your age that haven't beaten Goldeneye is ridiculous, the majority of them didn't/don't even have N64s.

You are obviously getting my age totally wrong. I was 15 back when Goldeneye was released, let me tell you nearly every 15 year old back then was playing goldeneye or playing it in there mates.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's not the same as choosing "hard" in an FPS and beating that instead of beating it on "very hard". In a game like Goldeneye you cannot access all the levels or truly beat it unless you do it on 00 Agent.

Well if I wasn't really enjoying the main gameplay I very much doubt that playing on a higher difficulty will change my mind on the game. I was told legendary makes Halo much better. It doesn't, it's BS. I was sick of goldeneye on the lower difficulties, making it more frustrating isn't going to solve anything.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Wrong, some people can get through them 100% of the time. I myself have played this game heaps and there is never a glitch.

Yes if you do it the same way every time it will work but there are situations in the game where stealth should work but it doesn't and there's a reason people don't try these in perfect runs.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!! Highly siggable.

You've never played thief. It's one of the best games I've ever played and the stealth mechanics are fantastic. It's an infinitely better game than goldeneye and the graphics are just as shoddy. If you haven't played the game your argument is null and void.

Daith

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You've never played thief. It's one of the best games I've ever played and the stealth mechanics are fantastic. It's an infinitely better game than goldeneye and the graphics are just as shoddy. If you haven't played the game your argument is null and void.

Oh Thief is fantastic. You cant really compare the sneaking elements there to Goldeneye at all. And I quite enjoyed Goldeneye.

Anyway best multiplayer game on N64 was probably WWF No Mercy. Great fun altogether and one of my fave games.

landsleaving

I'm pretty much in agreement on Goldeneye, after playing through it again recently, some things really stand out as awful. The Bunker levels and their respawnng enemies coupled with the awful stealth that just never worked right made me want to hurl the controller at the tv.

Train level is still great though (except the end, I always run out of watch laser)

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if I wasn't really enjoying the main gameplay I very much doubt that playing on a higher difficulty will change my mind on the game. I was told legendary makes Halo much better. It doesn't, it's BS. I was sick of goldeneye on the lower difficulties, making it more frustrating isn't going to solve anything.

Blows my mind when people say that. Better on legendary? Because the AI is better is it? WELL WHY DIDN'T YOUR ALMIGHTY GODS BUNGIE MAKE THE DAMNED AI GOOD IN NORMAL MODE???

SuperInfinity

The stealth never worked right for you because you couldn't do it.

I've read your post Retr0gamer and my only comments are: 1) Everything you have said about FPS and the game speeding up is nonsense you just invented on the spot along with a RIDICULOUS strawman argument. I NEVER said or implied that higher framerate didn't help. 2) You obviously didn't understand my analogy between Silent movies and the very technically limited starting games of the FPS genre like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. I stated that I didn't much like Silent movies, and I don't much like the very first FPS games, although I can tend to enjoy them a little. Goldeneye would be a non-silent classical, old movie. What part of the analogy don't you get?

Retr0gamer

landsleaving wrote: »

Blows my mind when people say that. Better on legendary? Because the AI is better is it? WELL WHY DIDN'T YOUR ALMIGHTY GODS BUNGIE MAKE THE DAMNED AI GOOD IN NORMAL MODE???

They didn't make the AI better though. They take more damage, deal more damage, throw more grenades and fire faster but the AI is the exact same.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I've read your post Retr0gamer and my only comments are: 1) Everything you have said about FPS and the game speeding up is nonsense you just invented on the spot along with a RIDICULOUS strawman argument. I NEVER said or implied that higher framerate didn't help. 2) You obviously didn't understand my analogy between Silent movies and the very technically limited starting games of the FPS genre like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. I stated that I didn't much like Silent movies, and I don't much like the very first FPS games, although I can tend to enjoy them a little. Goldeneye would be a non-silent classical, old movie. What part of the analogy don't you get?

To answer you questions:

1) Try and see if I'm wrong. I'm not. The game definitely speeds up when you do it.

2) I get your analogy, you didn't get my one either. For me anyway Goldeneye is the silent movie where this sub genre 0f FPS is just finding its feet.

Stoner

Jebus, I don't which would take longer finishing goldeneye on expert or reading all these posts.

For me I don't think it is a good game at all anymore.

However It provided me with as much fun as any game ever did at the time. I never finished it on expert either, it was truly great value, and a super game It's just not something I'd ever go back to now.

On a different note, my pile of gamecube games is only 1.5 games short of going from the floor to the ceiling, I bought some filler sports games on adverts to to make the pile bigger.

landsleaving

We need pics of the fort when you finish it!

You are building a gamecube fort, right?

Stoner

well due to the almost perfect materials at hand I was going for a palace using the consoles with an outer defensive wall made of Fifa 2002 games.