half-life:

possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.

quake3:

well its just seems like perfectly refined DM gameplay to me. Its fast..i just like the feel of it. I love the railgun. it speeds up the DM gameplay mechanism so much, i love insatgib. I dont even like DM gameplay that much (as you have probably guessed by now), but it feels so good to me i play quake 3 with bots just for the hell of it.

I am the first to admit i am not a DM expert though, i know some people swear q1 or even q2 DM is the best, so i am really going on instinct on the DM side of things. :/ 

possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.

Then you are in no position to be judging its gameplay.

What made HL so good was it took the default, plotless/brainless find-the-colored-key gameplay that id 'invented' and used every possible connotation spun together with an actual story. And it wasn't story as in 'excuse us while we yank you out of the game and shove a cliche-ridden cut scene in your face to promote our franchise'. I mean an actual story, with all the plot elements of the genre, dialogue, characterisation and even humour.

I agree with you about Q3A tho. It's immediately gratifying. It's fun. Which is a word that many players' vocabulary lacks. People only say Quakeworld or Q2DM is better because that's all they're used to. There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.
And Q3 weapons are better for DM. Period. 

Oh and; I think you know how much I like Quake and how much I like its SP gameplay. But it wasn't a leap. It was a shuffle. 

Quake WAS a leap in gameplay. 

No, that's a leap gameplay not a gameplay leap.


:P 

But to a good extent that leap resulted from the technological advance. 

There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.

A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel. 

All this leaping reminds me of frogger...
http://www.javascript-games.org/arcade/frogger/
Now thats gameplay!

Sorry for the derailment. 

Sandy Petersen: That we did not move on to another type of game after DOOM II. I think the plotless FPS shoot-'em-up had been thoroughly explored and it was time for "something new."

Might I remind you that Doom and Doom2 and Quake are all the same gameplay model based upon Wolfenstein 3d. There is nothing new in there, just additions and tweaks. Doom added 2.5D and fab lighting, network play. Doom2 added the double barrel. Then Quake added 3d and look up and down, but in terms of actual "GAMEPLAY" the model is the same. It never changed...get the key, open the door, shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key, open the door shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key to open the door and shoot the shit and get to the exit. Please, how is my argument weak? I would even argue that Q2 is the same exact gameplay model, with Hexen style unit based gameplay.

In fact, Half-Life, which I consider to be based on that exact gameplay model imho is more of an advance in gameplay than any of id's post Wolf games. The addition of a storyline which develops as you progress, granted it is not the most amazing story, but a well developed progression, combo'd with NPC interaction, and intelligent monsters who didn't just gang rush you. Add in the scripted sequences, and the interaction of the main character/player in the events which bring down the black mesa complex, and you have real character integration into the storyline etc. thereby influencing the belief in this game environments offered reality. I realize there are alot of people on this board who dislike Half-Life, but to just toss off the obvious influence/advancements because of a subjective opinion of the game is goofy. It is my opinion that pure sales figures, and numbers of users still playing the game are facts that Half-Life was and still is a success. There is no denying it, despite subjective opinions.

AS for gameplay models, IMO a gameplay model doesn't change that much by the introduction of a new technology feature which does not push the storyline, or engage the players suspension of belief more, it changes it yes, but enough to consider it a Leap? I hardly think so. Don't get me wrong, I love Quake, and it was amazing at the time, but I think what made it so fucking great was not the SP gameplay model. I loved the atmosphere. What made the atmosphere so damned good? The limited color pallete. In terms of lighting and texturing. This is part of the reason Doom3 looks so fucking hot, they are not going apeshit with the color scheme. And in terms of playing the game, I played more CTF online in the early days before I began mapping. The big leap for Quake came with the multiplayer TCPIP capabilities, THAT changed gameplay. No longer did we have to set-up a lan, I could go online and DM all I wanted. Cause everyone knows that Coop play always turned into DM with monsters anyhow. 

A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel.

Quake 3 is anything but unresponsive. its beautifully fast, balanced and sensitive. The physics are very good for exciting Dm gameplay. 

A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel.

It's not shoddy and unresponsive - you just suck at it. 

Can we just leave this argument dead and buried and rotting in 1999 where it belongs? 

It's terrible. The movement is terrible, the visibility of other players is terrible, the damage feedback is utterly appalling, the head and weapon bob make me want to puke. It feels light, tinny, and barely in control. It's not the worst out there (Requiem, any Lithtech engine, HL) but it's fucking bad enough given the need for a precise feeling in a DM game.

People who can't see that sort of stuff compared to the simple, direct solidity of Quake confirms my belief that most people (including developers) don't have a clue about the importance of 'feel'. 

You're huffing ether, aren't you? 

the only one who's a fan of hoard based gameplay?

doom3 will probably not be for me... 

the damage feedback is utterly appalling

that's one point I definitely agree on.
Shambler, you should try CPM though, it does fix all of those things you mentioned, that is if you still have a q3 cd left around. 

/me gets the popcorn 

you have to flame. 

Shambler is right.

Stock Q3 DM is almost worthless, given the pre-existing, same-but-better Q1 DM.

The movement in standard Q3 feels so bad its almost unplayable. The engine is fabulous, its just poor design decisions (eg almost nonexistant air movement) which make it feel shithouse.

CPMA on the other hand is awesome; essentially the same game, but done right.

People only say Quakeworld or Q2DM is better because that's all they're used to. There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.
And Q3 weapons are better for DM. Period.

No. Your opinion. Not mine.

In my opinion, Q1 was a far superior DM game. Not just because I was used to it. Because it was better.

Before you claim that my opinion is worthless and I only like Q1DM over Q3DM because I'm more used to Q1, let me put that into perspective: I actually think Q3 with CPMA is a better DM game than Q1. Stock Q3, however, is bollocks.

And while I think CPMA is a better game than Q1, it still lacks that 'solid' feel that Quake had, as Shambler describes. 

I knew I'd fuck up at least one of those tags. 

any chance of getting back to carmack?

i was wondering if anyone cares to discuss basic differences betw HL2 and D3 engines. like lighting techniques (or shades), any info on weapon/model animation. just curious about any material that may be around... 

Entirely speculative summary of lighting stuff:

D3: Trades off number of lights and radiosity for reasonably accurate shadowing and fully dynamic lights (in theory, maybe not in practive).

HL2: Trades off dynamic lights and accuracy for radiosity and large number of lights.

From a mapper's perspective:

D3: Your level with either look a) dark, or b) crap.

HL2: Pretty much the same as HL1. 

so you are claiming that a superb DM map, for example bal3dm2/3/4, or lun3dm1/2/3 is essentially "terrible" and "unplayable"?

[mr fribbles only in vanilla q3, not in CPMA, presumably??].

in fact that all the maps made for Q3A, and all the people who play them, are all crap/wrong[respectively] in vanilla Q3A?

that seems silly.

[who knew i would end up defending Q3A DM against mr fribbles and shambler!!??!!] 

I can somewhat accept that Quake wasn't originally a "leap" forward, but it definitely was once people made maps with a huge amount of vertical enemy spread. When that happened, it became more about looking and seeing than just reacting to obvious monsters. Not a completely different gameplay mechanic, but far greater than the difference between Quake and Half-Life (or should that be far greater than the difference between DooM and Half-Life, since HL isn't about seeing either (although I do like it)).

Q3A I like. Never played it online. The movement and all may not be quite as good as Quake (although the comment about lack of air movement I don't get, since you rely on it so often and it's far in excess of realistic). But, despite many's criticism of the bots, that's the main reason I love it. So much different from any Quake bots (although they're also fun). Beating those bots requires fierce determination and insane speed. I was getting as good a frame rate in Q3 as I was in Q1 and it still wasn't good enough because it's so much faster than any other game -- decent equipment alone has allowed me to go up a notch on the skill.

OTOH, I hate the railgun. Satisfying perhaps when it works for you, but I thought this was a game intended for online play. Most lag-intolerant weapon ever. 

Rail is easier to use with lag than shaft ...... or maybe I'm just imagining that (haven't played anything else than a bit of qw in a long time).

...and it's far in excess of realistic... what does that have to do with anything?