Why are you asking Preach for permission to upgrade your Quake?

Idea: Upgrade your Quake without Preach's permission? 

I came to this thread with a simple engine-related question and got bullied for even daring to ask it.

Please stop trying to rewrite the history. The only reason you got bullied is because you started accusing people of fanatism and backwards thinking out of the blue. People don't like such arrogance no matter how "delicately" you express it. 

Writing engines is a hobby, so it's about the author's vision for what the engine should do. If you want them to add a feature for you, then you're talking about something larger than yourself. 

Baker, I don't ask him permission, I'm replying to his last message to me.

Preach, I don't recall asking anyone to add that feature, I just asked if it existed.

Dwere, who's rewriting history here? Comments like "acceptably Quakey aesthetic", "your opinion is wrong" and other bullshit like that ARE fanaticism and THESE are the arrogant attitude, certainly not calling people out on it. People may not like having their shit shoved in their faces but the shit is theirs, not mine. 

is this discussion seriously ongoing? 

Continues to be is wrong. 

...a bit like post-mortem flatulence. 

 

"Acceptably Quakey" is a valid term when talking about an engine that's supposed to improve on the original aesthetic without replacing it with something else. If you got set off by such a vague (and most likely unintentional) hint at superiority, then perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that your own sermon about what's "better" led to unpleasantness. 

How surprising...

@Shamblernaut When people talk to me, I reply to them. That's how communication usually works. Preach talked to me (see post #2277), so I replied. A bit late, I admit, but I've been busy mapping and playing Quake.

@Kinn I bet you know all about flatulences with that potty mouth of yours... 

AFAIK, I've never stated my opinion of what's better as an undisputable fact. On the contrary, I've underlined that it was my personal preference. 

 

You argued that Quake's art is not pixel art, despite the fact that it obviously is. The result of 2+2 is not a matter of taste, it's always 4. 

It's not as obvious as you think. 

Ah, glad to see you decided to ease up on the trolling, OTP. Pixel art is a modern style designed to emulate the look of early textured 3D games. Though id carefully crafted their art direction, it was not what is called pixel art. Yes, it was art and yes, they used pixels, but the comparison stops there. 

Pixel art is a modern style designed to emulate the look of early textured 3D games

Wow. 

It's like he's not even trying anymore. 

 

Mugwump and OTP are my OTP. 

"early textured 3D games" Please read "oldschool pixellated games" instead. Though I mentioned Wadjet Eye earlier, here I overlooked the fact that the term is also used for these 2D games that emulate the look of the 8/16 bit generations. 

 

Well yes, 2D productions a la Wadjet Eye and 3D productions a la Minecraft are both called pixel art. 

Let's put it like this: it's the 3D games I'd use "also" for.

Also:
http://www.wadjeteyegames.com/wp-content/uploads/UV-shelter.png

I can clearly see the use of soft brushes on the background. Looks like you tolerate "mixed style" games after all. 

I would also like to add that even though the term "pixel art" seems to be a relatively recent invention (correct me if I'm wrong), it still applies to older games retroactively. 

Did I ever say otherwise? After all, I do use hi-res textures on simple 20-year-old geometry. Question: how do you infer the use of 3D brushes from a fixed image?