qw netcode is king among netcodes. 

Maybe it was because Q2 didn't have a lightning gun. In QW and Q3 especially, the lightning gun always felt like shit to me (on dialup) whilst all of Q2 felt smooth as hell. The prediction in Q2 also seemed far better than either of those other games so the movement felt the same as it did in the single player game assuming I had a reasonable 48kbps with no background downloads.

QW was shite on dialup. Q3 was even shitter. Other games I could barely play - just Q2 and eventually CS when Valve upgraded the original HL netcode. 

Using dialup to judge netcode is like using an amputated leg to play golf! 

was superb for DM. No accuracy weapon has ever beaten the Q2 railgun for sheer satisfaction, and the rocket launcher is just different enough to the QW one to be appreciated for its own merits.

The BFG and Hyperblaster let it down somewhat. BFG was overpowered and HB really showed the lag.

The maps were pretty much perfect for the most part, in my opinion. Nothing's ever beaten The Edge. It's numerous remakes [even the official ones] just don't come close.

Hmm. Yea', I've got to admit I'd have trouble choosing which is the better multiplayer, between Q1 and 2. 

you are forgetting the time q2 and q1 was made

And plz dont start quakes holywar again.

(me still plays q2) 

anyone up for it, or shall I just add it to my list of Q1 maps that I want to do but never will?

Seriously, it could be teh r4wk. 

I think Edge needs a railgun, really. 

Edge doesnt work w/o doublejump
proven in q1, q3 and q4 :|

oh wait SP? not too small? 

q2dm1rmx: DO IT

(the pimp hat is also sort of a Godfather hat) 

you have a good CRT at over 85 hz, QW running at solid 77 fps, ping 13 (this should be possible nowadays in most places with an ADSL), a good mouse (I have mx300) with 500 Hz or more rate, qw feels quite smooth. And crisp. You're in control.
And I suck as a qw player.

Have you tried it? Cause when you have, going back to worse doesn't feel very good. Other games can still be fun, but they feel slow and lazily controlled. I've heard this from the guy who was in Q3A european champs back in the day. He stopped Q3 and moved back to QW.

Of course, faster server fps (qw has only 72) and many other things would very make it even better. Probably 100 fps would be good. Then the lowest ping could be in the 10 millisec ballpark.

Q2 runs the server in 10 fps. Uh. It's of course not differentiable if you have a modem and 100 ping. Q2 is also slow by design.
Q3 is 30 fps.

It's when the designers decide what is "good enough for the average player" when they fuck up seriously. That's why it is how it is Blackdog. I have never been able to convince a single non-qw playing person why it would be good to have a faster than 30 fps server. You have to experience it by yourself. And qw is a bit difficult to set up correctly. And the other high Hz environment parts too.
"30 fps, it's what Q3 does so it must be enough". So in other words, everybody is just badly misguided. Even the honorable mr Carmack is completely clueless on this.

Movies run in, what, 20 fps? It'd be too expensive to upgrade. It's a consensus. Nobody really cares. They make their money (or then not). It's all about other things anyway in movie making.
Nobody's ever really tried (Well there was mr Trumbull and the Luxor thing, haven't seen it, but according to description it is very lifelike at 60 fps).
It's weird to hear "but nobody would notice a difference". How do you know? It'd change a lot of things. Surely, slow dramas with talking heads could stay mostly the same. But many other things could be done very differently. Fast camera pans with no blur. The possibilities are intriguing. Wouldn't even people seem more lifelike?


If these high fps interfaces and other stuff happens someday, it's of course "why didn't we think about this earlier!? OMG what a ground breaking innovation!" Blah.


I've heard there are televisions where a laser scans the screen, and they have much more vivid colors than current techniques. Of course, now people claim that current tv:s and whatnot have very crisp colors, they couldn't imagine better ones. Most can't even see the bad block mpeg artefacts in football broadcasts. But I bet if they tried the new tech for a week, then going back would feel like a big downgrade. DVD:s replaced videos, easier to use and no fast forwarding/rewinding, but the picture quality also improved, and that was probably some factor in upgrading. And now there are bigger high definition TV:s. Then there's blu-ray etc coming.

There's some gold to be mined here if somebody cares someday. Low latency high bandwith shooter. Quality can be improved in places where most people currently settle for the average since they don't have any comparison points. But if they try the better tech, they can feel the difference. 

Ping has nothing to do with server fps. At all. 

None of that has more than the most tangential influence on actual gameplay. gg.

As for netcode, of course I've tried qw and it's simply not that much better. q3 cpma is more playable for my money. It hardly matters in any case as modern games require things like client side prediction of physics that the qw (or q3) approach just doesn't handle, as well as using tech like lag compensation to improve playability without massively increasing server load.

Prefer whatever you please, I guess. And hey, magic net code would be nice. 

server fps has no influence on gameplay. Play with 1 fps server to get less net costs. :)

Only thing that would settle this would be a blind test with lots of people. Set them on a good computer, good display, good mouse, and a good client and gamecode, and vary the server fps and see what they notice. 

Do you even know what "gameplay" is? Perhaps you don't care that a game is radically different in form and flow from qw as long as the fps is 72 and no less? :) 

It is quite obvious by now that you are just attempting to be sarcastic because you cannot appreciate a "way higher than you are used to in modern games" level of control and are thinking that people who do are somehow silly and need to be mocked.

Now if you can name an FPS game where high server framerate and high speed mouse refresh rate makes as big of an impact on the control, feel and flow of the game as in QW while still not forgetting the other parts that make a game enjoyable, feel free to do so, I'd be honestly interested. 

It's because when I say gameplay I mean gameplay and not net playability. 

Is net playability (which QW is all about anyway) not gameplay? 

I hate you all. Die. 

Why am I arguing with qw fanboys who refuse to acknowledge basic distinctions?

czg called it.

/me dies (in a fire) 

i don't understand the distinctions yall are trying to make. 

the appropriate thread for not recognizing distinctions is the philosophy thread. 

I might have been misusing some words. But read the following clarification.

Since qw has fast gameplay (is this correct use?) and fast games have better playability with high refresh rates, and if people can't anymore for their life make games with high refresh rates, doesn't that mean that either you can't make a game with fast gameplay or then you make one but the playability will suck.

Of course maybe slow ass low bandwith high latency games for now and eternally (except for qw) are good, but I don't like that gameplay, and many would actually like fast gameplay too.

And it is possible that high bandwith etc benefits playability in slow gameplay too, not just as much as in fast gameplay. 

This has nothing to do at all with what was the original point of discussion.

Stop it.
You're the reason there is no peace on earth. 

Playability would be fine because modern connections are so good, because qw netcode isn't actually all that much better except in your mind (unless you are considering some awful shite like bf2), and because this discussion is a waste of time why am I posting again oh god no. 

...but this thread is even cooler than cowboys.

http://pjw.planetquake.gamespy.com/grafix/cowboys.jpg