map > entity report > theen you modify the filter, you can search by key/value, class, and select point ents, brush ents or both > then click "Mark", then you close the dialogue and go to the selection tool, you will find all of the marked objects are selected :D 

ftw 

nt 

Fap on! 

don't Prog me RAM!

I know, just foolin'.
But these headlines
looks so stupid. 

yeah, i was thinking of making a program that would just parse the entity list and load it up into some kind of easy to access and modify gui, but since the text editor solution works, i no longer have any reason to do that. :P :P 

I was planning to design a simple language that would allow all kinds of transformations on Quake maps, but it never happened because I didn't know enough about language design. Today that would be called a domain specific language and there are lots of tools that would allow generating such a language very easily... maybe I'll get back to it sometime. 

sounds interesting. look forward to it :) 

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg 

I cannot recognize the map layout: which map is it ? 

Its COD MW2 isnt it? 

I've played a fair share of duty, but that doesn't remind me of any of the maps. 

And they do have cutscenes 

i don't remember that many corners though 

E1M6.

So much sad truth in that image. :( 

that is soooo goddamn true 

.

Simplifying things to that degree always makes it seemingly convincing. I could just as easily montage a 320x200 DOOM screen next to a 1920x1280 Brink/Rage/Singularity screen and say "See?"

That's too simple.

1993 FPS maps have an entry, an exit, and killing stuff in between just like 2010 ones. Lots of Doom and Quake maps aren't exactly complex. Plus, with Doom's sector based engine creating maps was a lot simpler and faster, but I doubt most people today would buy a sector/sprite based FPS if someone made it.

And I drunkenly played DOOM/2 to death in high school in 1993/4. I remember it. It was unnecessarily easy to get lost in and it often took half a keyboard-massaging hour to find where that last button was while the huge brown pixels started making swirling images behind my sleepy eyes. 320x240 pixels on a 640x480 screen. A lot of the areas look the same in DOOM/2 levels. I especially remember the chainsaw labyrinth, the crate labyrinth in e2 I think, and those horrible city levels in Doom 2.

Of course by now, you know where everything is. But back then, I wormed my way through samey-looking brown corridors in the search for identical looking switches with green and red lights on them, running from pixel pinkies that we called "the big ones" and endless hordes of imps and chaingunners while always looking for health but not finding any.

It was awesome, and it still is, but it wasn't all perfect either. New games also have something going for them.

Rose-coloured glasses. 

 

The 2010 pic would probably look more like this:

http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/rome_google_earth.jpg 

Back then you were free to get lost. Nowadays you're forced to find the way. If that makes any sense... 

Back then you were free to get lost. Nowadays you're forced to find the way. If that makes any sense... 

I hardly played Doom2 at all, I got the impression that the level design was very inferior, but the design in Doom1 was awesome, and I don't remember getting lost at all except (lol) in the corridors through slime in the bottom righthand corner of e1m6, in that picture. Doom3 was ON RAILS, a huge step backward. The picture has that exactly right. I realize Doom3 itself isn't that modern anymore and there's newer games that give you lots of freedom (Far Cry), but I agree with that criticism of what's going on. Being free to get lost means the developers aren't spoon-feeding you. 

This is one fantastic tool for 3d data/model/mesh/cloud things: http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ 

In terms of the general quality of scripted sequences, and the quality and detail of every type of artwork, I think that the Modern Battlefield of Duty games are just phenomenal achievements, you can see where every dollar and man hour went.

In terms of gameplay, choice, storytelling, I tend to align with Warren Spector. Incoming paraphrase copied from an article:

It's not just about game developers having a story to tell and letting the player sit through it; it's about having a subject matter to discuss with the player and making the story a dialogue between game and player.

and a quote:

"Other media can create feelings. Movies can evoke emotions. But what we do is we can offer the reality of choice."

The truth is though, that when you script a game start to finish, you get a great trailer, a great show for anyone watching over a player's shoulder, some bankable memorable moments every player will have (have you got to the bit when you hit Fidel Castro with that snowmobile?? That was siccckkk.)

In Black Ops it comes at a massive expense of freedom, an almost ludicrous lack of choice. Even running between points A and B can fail a mission if you are 20 metres ahead or behind an ally. It's hard to feel real achievement in having exploded that bunker with that rocket launcher, because it is fully obvious that you literally could not have done anything else if you wanted to continue the game. 

The problem is that linear is cheapest. Creating a world and a reasonable degree of freedom in that world is, in my view, the strongest experience of gameplay, but it's the most expensive. Some kind of "guided co-op" (including major commitments on the part of both players and developers) might in the future make a lot of money from a small amount of players.

In any case I'm not at all pleased with where the industry has gone, given the potential. But then, everything gets gayer over time.