Pooky. Stop. You look like an idiot.

1. What you said implies that Goldeneye was somehow a precursor to Quake II. It came before, yes, but it had no bearing on its development as it was under way before Goldeneye even hit the shelves. Furthermore, Quake II came out only three months later. It was developed roughly during the same time as Goldeneye; you think those last three months were spent dreaming up the game mechanics and features? You brought up a comparison that basically has no meaning to this conversation-why bring Quake into this if not to imply that Goldeneye influenced it? Had Goldeneye not come along, we would have still ended up with Quake II just the same. This goes back to what I mentioned in the "PSA" thread: you, specifically you, are incapable of reading your own posts and deducing their actual meaning. You need to be able to put yourself into your audience's shoes and read it as they would. Proof-read for logic. Make connections to ideas within a conversation and understand them. You can't mash out responses and make an effective argument.

2. You clearly know diddly-squat about game design. Now you're bringing in location based damage and that's great because you're finally starting to talk about play elements rather than plot elements disguised as play elements...not that they really change how you play the game all that much because, say, a sniper rifle is still a one-shot kill and people instinctively aim for the head anyways when presented with a high-powered, scoped weapon. It does add an element of knowledge to be used by more experienced players in multiplayer, but then so do all of the crazy moves in Quake. Quake II also had damage "models" for NPCs. I'd call that an equivalent effect to location-based damage as far as advancement in features goes.

3. You are missing *my* point. I never called it out for not being innovative, which is essentially what you are accusing me of. Nothing I said even close to implied it. All I did was say that as a shooter, it wasn't that great. It lacked the thrill of racing through Quake II, getting your timing perfect in Halo, or having an engrossing environment like Half-Life (1 and 2). It didn't take the same amount of skill/practise as Counter-Strike and thus didn't grant you as much satisfaction when you consistently pull that 180-headshot with the Scout.

So before you reply, first get a grasp of English comprehension. Then, remove your rose-tinted goggles and go educate yourself on game design. Finally, stop engaging in debates where you have no basis for debating in the first place.

Practise what you preach.

Thanks.