If Quake was done today

magicsofa said:

The video was funny, but the end where they show speedrunners wasn't appropriate in my opinion. The only 'action' you see there was an expert player flying past everything in the level, rather than a brutal firefight with the monsters.

Yes, but can you do it with a modern shooter?

The simple problem is that there is nothing new to add to the FPS genre. Doom is a proof.

magicsofa said:

The video was funny, but the end where they show speedrunners wasn't appropriate in my opinion. The only 'action' you see there was an expert player flying past everything in the level, rather than a brutal firefight with the monsters.

As much as some people would hate to admit it, that's because your average gamer will tackle Quake and -insert modern game here- in the same way. The only real difference is that most modern games don't allow you to get lost in the maps.

Also, why was "shoot this secret door" not featured in the real Quake footage? Back in my day we didn't need center print text telling us where secrets were! We humped every wall in Hitler's castle and we liked it!

The Quake video was a bad joke that appeals to the masses. ... like Larry the Cable Guy... or like Modern Field 3 that it is making fun of.

Anyway, it is interesting that Call of Modern Battlefield 3 sells millions more copies than quote unquote rocket jumping games. Is it marketing? Rage had a great marketing plan but it is just under the million sales mark and might hit 2 million by the end of 2 years. But COD and Battlefield have already sold millions of pre-orders.

Maybe lead you by the nose hide for energy is what people want. Maybe they feel rocket jumping is too advanced for them or 5 minutes of backtracking is boring. Maybe people just want a shooting gallery with falling buildings.

Oh and LOL @ humping your way to Hitler :-)

Craigs said:

STALKER is awesome

Agreed.

But what it gives you that other modern shooters don't, it lacks the one thing that makes games like Call of Duty and Rage good: well-polished shooting mechanics. When you can pump a guy in a leather jacket full of thirty point-blank shotgun blasts and all he does in response is strafe to the side a little, while a shot from some guy with a pistol standing a mile away from you ensures certain death for the player, something is wrong with your game (yeah, I think Yahtzee said more or less the exact same thing in his Clear Sky review, but I'm saying it here anyway).

Hopefully Stalker 2 (or whatever they decide to call it) will address the rudimentary flaws of the previous games without sacrificing what makes it so special. We'll see I guess.

40oz said:

Are you sure about that?

Sure about what? That there are plenty of games out now and coming out in the future not oriented towards casual gamers? Let me see...

Red Orchestra 2
Killing Floor
Serious Sam BFE
Dead Rising 2
Dark Souls
Demons Souls
Stalker 2
Mechwarrior Online
Magicka

just to name a few

I wonder if people realize Rocket Jumping was a fluke in Quake. Team Fortress 2 has rocket jumping and demo jumping, but apparently a 2 year old game isn't modern enough.

Red Orchestra 2 > Heard pros and cons
Killing Floor > Not heard of it
Serious Sam BFE > Heard the name
Dead Rising 2 > Zombie button mash
Dark Souls > Cement hard with no hand holding and people love it
Demons Souls > Overwhelming amount of enemies and hard
Stalker 2 > Heard the name
Mechwarrior Online > I remember those old PC games!
Magicka > The gathering?

Personally I'd prefer the rocket launcher to be lethal to the kamikaze unarmored player, like in Doom, or just be lethal period. But I'm a single-player. Quake's RL has a contrivance in the code that makes it less harmful for the attacker, and I find it tacky. I prefer wild jumping like that to be handled by a powerup or something, not by an explosion that is by all means expected to crush.

DoomUK said:

But what it gives you that other modern shooters don't, it lacks the one thing that makes games like Call of Duty and Rage good: well-polished shooting mechanics. When you can pump a guy in a leather jacket full of thirty point-blank shotgun blasts and all he does in response is strafe to the side a little, while a shot from some guy with a pistol standing a mile away from you ensures certain death for the player, something is wrong with your game (yeah, I think Yahtzee said more or less the exact same thing in his Clear Sky review, but I'm saying it here anyway).

CS definitely had some dodgy hit detection on human AI for sure, but they're otherwise are pretty much fine so long as you pay attention to the type of ammo you're using(AP vs standard, buckshot vs slugs vs darts), where you're aiming, the weapon's cone of fire, bullet drop, and the "invincibility frames" NPCs have in their "pain recoil" animations. (I think this was fixed in CoP though.)

The only time you're really going to be dying anywhere near that quickly is early-game when your best suit is a leather jacket or bandit jacket.

I always thought that the millions of banners they show before actually launching the game (which is a barely modern feature considering that Descent had it :P) were a lot more animated than that -- usually prerendered or dynamically rendered footage (like the id logo in Doom III and the raven logo in Quake IV), but I guess I was wrong. Instead, it's unanimated, but unskippable, heh. Other than this, I found the video quite good, but do games really actually block out the screen when giving hints? That seems a bit.. unreasonable. but I've seen many a unreasonable thing, heh

Ok, he's not making his point very well, but I think what DuckReconMajor is driving at is that cretin old guard video game types (the kind of person who, say, might use the term 'casual' as an insult.) have this lazy habit of pointing toward realism as the culprit for why a lot of modern AAA titles tend to be samey brown messes often pointing toward Mario, which to many is somehow above reproach, as the perfect retort to the idea that realism has any value in a game at all. The game overthinker (also known as movie bob on the escapist) voices most of there arguments in this video here (though to his credit, does it with a lot more self awareness then your average no mutants allowed poster):

It's a mind set that appears often on forums for older video games and I, for one, really think in needs to be challenged more becasue: a) Realism, or rather, the feeling of realism is a perfectly valid goal for a game to reach for, as the idea of "how would *you* handle this situation if it happened in the real world" is defiantly one of the things video games can explore better then any other medium and b) Modern AAA barely adhere to realism for there settings unless you live in a dumb Hollywood movie.

While the example bob used with the unbreakable wooden door is a likely scenario in a modern AAA game, it's go waaaay more to do with bad game design then 'realism'.


Edit: Oh, they erased the silly fight that was going on that this post was a response to. If I wasn't about to leave for work I'd summarize it here so this big block of words makes seance. If this post is still here when I get back I'll tinker with it some more :/

Oh Christ. Game Overthinker. I used to love that guy, then he got too high on himself and muddled his good work with side story bullshit. Funny I just thought of this episode yesterday (because of Singles).

... if people are questioning people shooting through wooden doors... Doom had giant metal doors. Other games have lockpick mini games... or metal doors. A Half Life 1 expansion has a blowtorch engineer to melt through the door.

Xeros612 said:

CS definitely had some dodgy hit detection on human AI for sure, but they're otherwise are pretty much fine so long as you pay attention to the type of ammo you're using(AP vs standard, buckshot vs slugs vs darts), where you're aiming, the weapon's cone of fire, bullet drop, and the "invincibility frames" NPCs have in their "pain recoil" animations. (I think this was fixed in CoP though.)

The only time you're really going to be dying anywhere near that quickly is early-game when your best suit is a leather jacket or bandit jacket.

Ok, so there's weapon/ammo/armour combos which finally make the game not frustrating to play. But for a shooter that prides itself on leaning towards (pseudo-)realism instead of arcadey action (no regenerating health, bandages to stop bleeding, eating, bullet drop etc), there's no reason why less powerful weapons and ammo should be as horribly ineffective as they are. The over-and-under double barrel shotgun that was in CS and CoP springs to mind; it was literally useless. Why? It uses the exact same ammo types that the other shotguns use?

On another note, I hope Stalker 2 brings back the underground lab levels that were in SoC. Kinda missed those in CS and CoP.

DoomUK said:

The over-and-under double barrel shotgun that was in CS and CoP springs to mind; it was literally useless. Why? It uses the exact same ammo types that the other shotguns use?

It's the most accurate shotgun in the game and with the accuracy fully upgraded it almost doubles as a sniper rifle when loaded with slugs. On top of that it's fairly easy to get and cheap to maintain. It also does slightly more damage than the spas12 or mossberg. If your aim is great it's perfect for taking down mutants with as little ammo as possible.

The only weapon I'd even remotely consider useless would be the RPG. It's blatant overkill and just too damn heavy to even bother carrying around. There's no real reason to bother with it when you can just get a grenade launcher attachment and get pretty much the same effect.

Craigs said:

It's the most accurate shotgun in the game and with the accuracy fully upgraded it almost doubles as a sniper rifle when loaded with slugs. On top of that it's fairly easy to get and cheap to maintain. It also does slightly more damage than the spas12 or mossberg. If your aim is great it's perfect for taking down mutants with as little ammo as possible

Obviously I was doing something wrong then. Or my version of the game was broken.

DoomUK said:

Obviously I was doing something wrong then. Or my version of the game was broken.

Play it on a higher difficulty setting. I don't know what exactly the developers did but they seemed to have kind of screwed up on the difficulty settings, so enemies actually take more shots to bring down on the easier difficulties. I actually found the game a lot easier to play on expert than on rookie.

Craigs said:

Play it on a higher difficulty setting. I don't know what exactly the developers did but they seemed to have kind of screwed up on the difficulty settings, so enemies actually take more shots to bring down on the easier difficulties. I actually found the game a lot easier to play on expert than on rookie.

I could swear I was playing them on the highest difficulty setting. But I'm not disputing what you're saying. Guess I need to go back to these games and experiment more.

I'm still waiting for another no bullshit sci fi action FPS to come out with non linear level design and no regenerating life... any day now.

Captain Red said:

It's a mind set that appears often on forums for older video games and I, for one, really think in needs to be challenged more becasue: a) Realism, or rather, the feeling of realism is a perfectly valid goal for a game to reach for, as the idea of "how would *you* handle this situation if it happened in the real world" is defiantly one of the things video games can explore better then any other medium and b) Modern AAA barely adhere to realism for there settings unless you live in a dumb Hollywood movie.

You also have to accept that there are people out there who actually play games and enjoy the escapism side of them, without being a jerk and calling them cretins. ;) And their reasons for not enjoying realism are perfectly valid.

The down to earth architecture and level design in games like CoD and Call of Battlefield 3 is sterile, unprovoking and boring to look at and makes me feel like I'm in a simulator and not in a game. I'd take abstract level design that broods a more dramatic atmosphere, tickles the imagination, lets the player make his own interpretation of his surroundings, and evokes feeling as opposed to just being there to make sense. With how technology is "advancing" I get disappointed when I see it get wasted on rendering generic photo realistic scenes that I fail to appreciate because I can see real life all the time.

A new game which did the level design quite nicely from the gameplay footage I've seen, I think would be Demons Souls. Which alongside Dark Souls is the reason I'm going to get a PS3.

DeathevokatioN said:

You also have to accept that there are people out there who actually play games and enjoy the escapism side of them, without being a jerk and calling them cretins. ;) And their reasons for not enjoying realism are perfectly valid.

As Captain Red said I did a shit job at making my point last time but now that I've had some sleep I'll try better this time in a way that hopefully won't get helled.

Let's take two games, Tetris, and Ocarina of Time. (I know OoT probably isn't specifically what you're talking about, and it's not everyone's favorite, including mine, but I feel it's a good example.)

Both are very unrealistic, but I hope you'll agree that Tetris has fewer realistic elements in it.

You could play Tetris on the basis that it is very unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with that. But no matter how long they play, most people are not going to feel emotion toward the blocks that are falling, and few will say that Tetris has any sort of 'depth' other than pure gameplay value.

Not everyone, but lots of people enjoyed Ocarina of Time and felt very connected to what was going on in the game. You need some reality to make that sort of connection. The game was filled with creatures modeled after people, who spoke English and did and said things that people on Earth do. There are also many other things in the game that make you feel at home when you are clearly not at home.

Also, I am not attacking escapism at all. Really, all games are escapism. Do they make games modeled after people's jobs, so they can do their job in their free time for no pay? My point is that, if you escaped to a world where nothing at all worked like it does in the real world, and nothing made sense to your human mind, it might not be the first place you want to escape to every day.

I was never a big fan of Tetris. I played it a little, but never went very far, and as a whole the game doesn't appeal much to me. It's just a pass-time if I've nothing better to do, and generally I always have something better to do.

But that said, every time I help someone move and pack crates in a van, I find myself humming or whistling the Peddlers' Song.

DeathevokatioN said:
You also have to accept that there are people out there who actually play games and enjoy the escapism side of them, without being a jerk and calling them cretins. ;)

That was a typo. I was trying to say "certain" but I was in a rush to get to work and had to rely on Mr. Autocorract to proof read and that guy can be a twat sometimes.

Captain Red said:

That was a typo. I was trying to say "certain" but I was in a rush to get to work and had to rely on Mr. Autocorract to proof read and that guy can be a twat sometimes.

Wow, sorry about that, then I'll take what I said back.

The last fps title I recall being very attached to would be Unreal. The whole universe that game created and the atmosphere really sucked me in. I don't know how much realism you'd find in that, but the human created places, such as the opening when your on the prison ship gave me a strong sense of place and felt believable so there's that I guess.

DeathevokatioN said:

A new game which did the level design quite nicely from the gameplay footage I've seen, I think would be Demons Souls. Which alongside Dark Souls is the reason I'm going to get a PS3.

I've put close to 200 hours into Demons Souls and 60 or so hours into Dark Souls since it came out. Easily two of the best games I've played in..shit, almost a decade easily. They're both brilliant, and brutal.

I'm going to get a PS3 and get those games as well... one day.

geo said:

I'm going to get a PS3 and get those games as well... one day.

In ten years I'm gonna buy one real cheap, and all you people are gonna be like "Ah, I wish I waited".

Heh heh.

You'll probably buy one when Doom 4 releases as a PS3 exclusive.

DuckReconMajor said:

You'll probably buy one when Doom 4 releases as a PS3 exclusive.

Nah, I'm going to buy a rushed PC port so I can bitch about id when the game is borderline unplayable.

I haven't parted by ass cheeks for id since Doom 3, so I wanna make it something special.

You know Technitian I bought my first PS2 this past summer at a garage sale. Not kidding. Then I bought up all of the PS2 games I've heard about... I buy all of the best games 1 year old for $20 or wait for a Steam sale for $5 games from 2 years ago. As I keep saying I'm still playing Half Life 1's expansion packs for the first time 15 years after anyone cares.

I did buy Doom 3 day 1... could barely play it. I've gotten my $53 out of it... yes it was $53 at Walmart for some reason.

... on the plus side there is an indie game dev (with 1 game under their belt) that have gone on record as to now be making a new Doom like / Quake like game. So I wrote a 2 page letter full of ideas and game mechanics (mostly from Half Life 1) and I got a very polite... no we're making Doom. There is hope for old school after all.

geo said:

... on the plus side there is an indie game dev (with 1 game under their belt) that have gone on record as to now be making a new Doom like / Quake like game. So I wrote a 2 page letter full of ideas and game mechanics (mostly from Half Life 1) and I got a very polite... no we're making Doom. There is hope for old school after all.

Sounds interesting enough.

Anyways, if quake were done today, it'd be more like resistance. That was the very first game that popped into mind for some reason. Of course, I mean the later levels of it.

Queake Live proves what Quake would be if it was made today.