I see where he's coming from, but I feel patronized by the article. There's a point about putting too much focus on "unnecessary" (debatable notion to begin with) detail at the cost of gameplay. Yet, just because the players may not see or appreciate certain details, or because they may not add to the gameplay, it doesn't mean it's bad practice. Besides, the On A Rail chapters doesn't work as a general example for all kinds of games and maps like he seems to be doing. 

In a nutshell, the point he's trying to make is that details shouldn't interfere with the overall theming of a level's design.

But he focuses on pointless detail (funny considering that's what he's trying to write about) and doesn't resolve the topics he's bringing up.

Yes ok, On A Rail was bland but it worked. You could say that about most of Half Life. Why not mention that software improvements allow us to have better graphics without sacrificing game play?

Yes ok, LDs shouldn't waste their time sticking doorknobs on things. Why not discuss using prefabs or other tools? 

It's worth noting though that the page was written in 2001. Some angst from back then about aesthetic fiddling getting in the way of playability is understandable (especially from someone working against commercial deadlines). 

 

 

There is also a follow-up at http://johnsto.co.uk/blog/116 

That's better. 

I remember this when it first came out, and it was definitely controversial because it's hard to accept what he says if you believe in cleanly built maps.

The non-controversial part is that an increase in visual detail does not always cause an increase in quality of experience -- an obvious example is high-res replacement textures in quake. The harmony of many different ingredients is more important.

The controversial part is "misaligned textures can be better." I think the best way to re-state this so that I can accept the idea, is to say "impressionism can be better" -- this could be because the "magic" of quake and doom is the low-res, low-poly filter that we see that world through, which gives the player room to imagine the rest. It's hard to do this in high-res, high-poly. At low res, 8-bit lighting, there are so many filters that muddy everything up that you can't always see the texture misalignments, they are hidden by dithering and aliasing and palette banding. These filters help the player experience the whole and not focus on the details, since you can't see the details very well anyway. 

The higher fidelity and realism of the graphics the more visible the flaws, not only technically, but artistically.

Maximum realism is the goal of most modern games, but I don't think we're quite there. IMO, it would better better if designers worked within the boundaries of the tech and made cohesive, artistic interpretations instead of attempting realistic duplication. "pushing the boundaries" is not the safest route, as I feel people push them too far. 

How do you make them constantly fire? 

Use trap_shooter instead. 

 

 

Just use trap_shooter. For trap_spikeshooter I think you can set its target to a info_notnull. 

http://quakewiki.org/wiki/Entity_guide wants the answer. 

yeah! 

If memory serves I believe that trap_spikeshooter uses a rotation flag or a up or down firing flag and is dependent on what type of level it is in the worldspawn (lasers in tech levels and spikes for everywhere else).

But I might be wrong on that, it might be possible to put spikes in any level or lasers in any level. I never really played around with them. The timing just seemed a bit too fiddly to get right without a lot of blind tries and recompilings until you got it right. 

Do I remember someone having some rope and/or chain models, and if so, can I pick them up somewhere? 

they were actually .bsp, but does that matter?
Just look into the file at quaddicted.
And Ijed has some chain models, hanging from ceilings, maybe he�s so kind to distribute them? 

are also to be found on the tome of preach, its the cable model with skin set to 0.

Here:

http://tomeofpreach.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/cable/ 

Thanks to both 

is there some sort of specific reason to use plats instead of doors?

I ask because I have a use for one but the plat is a bit finicky so I'm using a door instead. Is this ok or is there something more to plats that I'm missing? 

Plats are slightly easier to set up in an "inactive, then autonomous" way, but when you need better control then a door is the standard solution. 

thank you 

do you set the gravity in a map? I want a low grav map in my quake episode....