GoldenEye 007

 Nintendo 64
User Score
8.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 870 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 764 out of 870
  2. Mixed: 70 out of 870
  3. Negative: 36 out of 870
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. JoannaD.
    Aug 24, 2009
    7
    Actually, Mr. Bond (and John P.), Goldeneye is not the reason Perfect Dark and Timesplitters exist. The reason Goldeneye/PD/TS exist is because of Doom/Wolfenstein. You can thank PC developers for what was accomplished by Goldeneye (as far as gameplay elements go, anyway). However, I still think that Goldeneye improved on the forumula with great graphics and decent multiplayer (for its Actually, Mr. Bond (and John P.), Goldeneye is not the reason Perfect Dark and Timesplitters exist. The reason Goldeneye/PD/TS exist is because of Doom/Wolfenstein. You can thank PC developers for what was accomplished by Goldeneye (as far as gameplay elements go, anyway). However, I still think that Goldeneye improved on the forumula with great graphics and decent multiplayer (for its time). On the contrast, PD brought to us multiple weapon modes (that were actually awesome), an interesting storyline (unlike Goldeneye), great music (Goldeneye was OK here), the 'laptop gun' (Goldeneye/other FPS titles had NOTHING like this), Psychosis gun (Again, GE/other FPS had nothing like this), bots (not in Goldeneye either--and, with some degree of uncertainty, other PC FPS's preceding PD), etc etc etc Goldeneye was great, but it wasn't the template for FPS's succeeding it. Rather, it was merely a way for console gamers to access what PC gamers had been playing YEARS prior. Perfect Dark blew Goldeneye out of the water because it was a new template for following FPS's, and because it extended FPS's into dimensions BEYOND gameplay (with its great story, voice-acting, and music). Try bringing a cogent argument to the table next time, Mr. Bond/John P...you know, other than 'Goldeneye is a superior game because mommy wouldn't let me play M-rated titles when PD came out'. Again, not denying that GE was a good game, but that it wasn't what following shooters were based on (THAT argument only holds true if you really ARE waste of genetic material).… Expand
  2. thejonez
    Feb 2, 2013
    7
    GoldenEye 007 is a prime example of a game that aged terribly. Through no fault of its own, more advanced and evolved games have been made in the first-person-shooter genre since 1997. So, on its own, if it were released today; it would not stand a whole lot of a chance. For the time, though, it was pretty legit. The story mode kept true to the great movie and was also fun for the mostGoldenEye 007 is a prime example of a game that aged terribly. Through no fault of its own, more advanced and evolved games have been made in the first-person-shooter genre since 1997. So, on its own, if it were released today; it would not stand a whole lot of a chance. For the time, though, it was pretty legit. The story mode kept true to the great movie and was also fun for the most part (excluding the missions "Silo", "Train", and, "Control") The graphics were decent and it is relatively replayable to an extent. The multiplayer was varied and makes for a good time. The music is genius and sets an appropriate atmosphere. All of this, though, does not negate the fact that the game is way too overrated by nostalgia-blind fanatics. Some of the missions were repetitive and bland, such as "Silo". It wasn't very easy to keep track of health during gameplay because it would only show up when you were hurt and it wasn't very precise with its unshaded coloring. The friendly AI is infamously poor and made a few missions feel broken. Furthermore, the awkward Nintendo 64 controller made the controls feel lopsided, but GoldenEye 007 can't change the controller, so no blame to the game there. Overall, I would not suggest this game to someone today, but it has a good deal a moments to be played, though. The story, music, multiplayer, and impact are all of its key points to be enjoyed.… Expand
  3. JimmyThickNThin
    Dec 22, 2014
    5
    Without benefit of nostalgia goggles, a perfectly mediocre game.

    The AI is as crude as, say, Doom's, but much less responsive. Never seen characters flatly ignore so much carnage around them. Plus, the AI lacks any features that lead to interesting mechanics (c.f. Doom's monster infighting). They run up & shoot & no more. While it gets the job done, it's bizarre to see the AI praised.    Without benefit of nostalgia goggles, a perfectly mediocre game.

    The AI is as crude as, say, Doom's, but much less responsive. Never seen characters flatly ignore so much carnage around them. Plus, the AI lacks any features that lead to interesting mechanics (c.f. Doom's monster infighting). They run up & shoot & no more. While it gets the job done, it's bizarre to see the AI praised. GoldenEye did nothing to advance the art.

    Shooting is surprisingly satisfying for a game with no gore, thanks to varied, hilariously flamboyant hit reaction & death animations, yet the extraordinarily rapid infinite respawning of enemies quickly sucks all the joy out of dispatching them. Run-n-gun is quite fun here except that it's trivial, and the only real threats are (spawning forever) behind you. You need eyes on the back of your head. Stealth elements feel tacked-on, and just bog down the game. The counter-intuitive marriage of arcadey shooting (GoldenEye's light-gun game roots show) with stealth may be possible, but Rare botched it.

    Level design has a couple high points but through most of the game it's either too linear or pointlessly expansive, in the latter case mostly via extremely repetitious, boring, & constricted 90-degree-angle interiors. It's so easy to get lost, because everything looks identical. The few moments where there's real room for flexibility are welcome. GoldenEye kicked off the unfortunate trend of "realistic" level design and is one of the worst examples of its use. Objectives are mostly unobtrusive thematic fluff, but some of them are vague (copy the key?) or frustrating (the ole' escort-the-dumb-bullet-sponge objective again & again). Doesn't help that there's zero saving within missions, automatic or manual. Oh, and unmarked exits that abort your mission and force a restart, they're fun too.

    A constant bugbear is a low and wildly inconsistent framerate, where the drops often have nothing to do with the on-screen action. Even in 1997 this was no technical masterpiece. Aesthetically it's a mixed bag. Some environments play to the strengths of the hardware, while others are just awful. Throughout, the artistry behind textures is mediocre.

    Many fondly recall GoldenEye for its multiplayer. Can't comment on that. For certain, the single-player is far from timeless, versus its contemporaries & ancestors. GoldenEye's innovation and influence can't be denied, but glowing praise of its quality per se is even more dubious today. A console FPS, what'll they think of next!

    FWIW I first played GoldenEye around 2003, having been an FPS fan since the early 90s. I came in with enthusiasm & high expectations due to so much lavish praise, and left disillusioned. It's an instructive example of naivete about other peoples' opinions. There were legitimate reasons why people loved GoldenEye. Quality is bottom of the list.    … Expand
  4. Toothlessninja
    Aug 28, 2014
    7
    This game WAS good. The keyword being WAS.
    Back then, it was a really amazing game with stellar graphics, but today they look like polygonal versions of puke.
    Back then, it had revolutionary controls, now it's about as controllable as a wolverine with rabies. Back then, it had amazing multiplayer that was very competitive, but now you have to use a PC mod for HL2 to make sure your    This game WAS good. The keyword being WAS.
    Back then, it was a really amazing game with stellar graphics, but today they look like polygonal versions of puke.
    Back then, it had revolutionary controls, now it's about as controllable as a wolverine with rabies.
    Back then, it had amazing multiplayer that was very competitive, but now you have to use a PC mod for HL2 to make sure your buddies don't screen-cheat on a 20 inch TV.
    Back then, it was difficult and challenging to beat some of the levels, at least THAT hasn't changed.
    Back then, I would have given this game a better score, but now it just can't hold up. Basically, I'm saying that this game WAS good. It has a lot of things wrong with it. Fortunately though, it's still a good game. It has a lot of good things for the time. I give this game a 7 for the sakes of nostalgia.    … Expand
  5. MrKoolaid
    Oct 22, 2007
    6
    Perfect Dark has a much better storyline, far more multiplayer options, much more innovative weapons, and better music than Goldneye..it's not so much as Rare's fault as it is that it's a James Bond game. If your mommy didn't let you play Perfect Dark and you are thus biased, then get a life and quit spewing misinformed crapiola on the netz.
  6. DanielP.
    Jun 20, 2006
    7
    This game is okay, but it is oershadowed sooo much by Perfect Dark it's not funny. Perfect Dark's multiplayer KILLS Goldeneye's. It's single player is a bit better though.
  7. JoshH.
    Oct 22, 2007
    7
    It's a fantastic game, but Perfect Dark is still, to this very day, a much more enjoyable experience.
  8. Incarta
    Feb 7, 2014
    7
    Personally, I found this a bit boring. Maybe it just didn't hook me in like other more exotic and fantastical shooters were doing at the time. People who like a pure no nonsense FPS will enjoy this more
  9. Brentinitis
    Jan 24, 2019
    5
    This game is only worth playing for the multiplayer, the campaign is kinda terrible. Campaign mode is extremely frustrating to play. There's little to no direction on what to do or where to go at any time. I spent sometimes over an hour just wondering through overly large maps trying to figure out what to to. The enemies are also extremely annoying. There were plenty of times when I wasThis game is only worth playing for the multiplayer, the campaign is kinda terrible. Campaign mode is extremely frustrating to play. There's little to no direction on what to do or where to go at any time. I spent sometimes over an hour just wondering through overly large maps trying to figure out what to to. The enemies are also extremely annoying. There were plenty of times when I was in a empty room with only one way in or out and when I go to leave, I get shot in the back of the head and get insta killed. It's not that the game is hard necessarily, so much as it's unfair and frustrating to have enemies constantly spawn behind you all the time. I wanted to like this game but the campaign is just no good. I'd give it like a 3/10 without the multiplayer, it's the only thing that makes this game worth owning.… Expand
  10. JimB.
    Mar 31, 2005
    7
    First half decent FPS on a console. Highly ovverated compared to PC games of the same genre, level design and gameplay is 2 dimensional compared to Half-life.
  11. GoldenSilver
    Aug 23, 2022
    7
    One can't fault the game for its tightly programmed stage layout, flexible controls, or its multiplayer mode, all innovative for their time. In objective terms, there is some needless frustration in the higher difficulty settings, which will stifle unlocking secrets and cheats—the only reason to play this game once its story mode has been completed. Barely repelling the infinitely spawningOne can't fault the game for its tightly programmed stage layout, flexible controls, or its multiplayer mode, all innovative for their time. In objective terms, there is some needless frustration in the higher difficulty settings, which will stifle unlocking secrets and cheats—the only reason to play this game once its story mode has been completed. Barely repelling the infinitely spawning battalions of enemies is made worse by a stuttering frame rate, obviously the result of eschewing sprites in favor of polygons at the conceptual stage. Despite the highly praised effort from British developer Rare, it is clear that Konami would have done better with this material.… Expand
  12. nintendo-sekta
    Nov 7, 2018
    6
    Игра к себе не притягивает. В игре управление средние и не удобное. Игра может удивлять или удивила бы только графикой. Есть само наведение что делает игру более удобной.
  13. bigchocolate69
    Jun 28, 2022
    7
    The first great first-person shooter game ever made, but gameplay doesn't hold up anymore.
  14. JakubTyszko
    Feb 14, 2021
    5
    Was fun to play against friends. Story and missions are very simple and boring however.
  15. soler2121
    Apr 29, 2023
    6
    When I was young, I was left with an n64 hand me down console. I hadn't ever played a fps to that point as I was 8 years old, And I felt how bad this game controls and didn't like it, I have given it some more chances over the years but till this point I still see it as clunky especially looking back. pretty cool tho
  16. CodaHensley
    Mar 26, 2023
    7
    A shooter this old should not hold up as well as Goldeneye does, but this game is still incredibly satisfying to play, even more entertaining than most modern shooters on the current market. I think it accomplishes this due to the diversity of locations and objectives, sound design, and npc animations. While a few segments don't live up to the legendary status of this game, the highs itA shooter this old should not hold up as well as Goldeneye does, but this game is still incredibly satisfying to play, even more entertaining than most modern shooters on the current market. I think it accomplishes this due to the diversity of locations and objectives, sound design, and npc animations. While a few segments don't live up to the legendary status of this game, the highs it offers even to this day are incredibly commendable.… Expand
  17. CGPLAYZ
    Mar 1, 2023
    5
    The game was a huge stepping stone for fps and multiplayer but the controls and A.I just failed to deliver, making it a deal breaker
  18. dylansgaming48
    Jul 1, 2023
    5
    not that fun of a game very boring after a little bit the controls are very clonke just not fun

Awards & Rankings

1
#1 Best N64 Game of 1997
1
#1 Most Discussed N64 Game of 1997
1
#1 Most Shared N64 Game of 1997

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
96

Universal acclaim - based on 21 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 21
  3. Negative: 0 out of 21
  1. Weekly Famitsu
    78
    7 / 8 / 8 / 8 - 31 silver
  2. Nintendorks
    90
    Its strategy and story mixed in with the action make it a fantastic gaming experience.
    Read full review
  3. Da Gameboyz
    100
    This is probably the best game you can get on the Nintendo 64.
See all critic reviews »