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? 

bah who needs closing tags anyway? 

Fun for all the family.

Nitin, I gave it away ages ago... 

Most lag-intolerant weapon ever.

It probably is. The amount you need to lead your target with a 100 ping is rather unfair because of the speed of the game. However, the situation is made a little better if you get into unlagged games. 

But it's not like Q1 - where, no matter how fast you're thrown through the air, you can stop dead with a single keypress. 

you have to evaluate games' gameplay contribution in relation to what it adds to previous games.

In that respect, wolf3d was clearly a milestone. Doom was an incredible step ahead too, given that its vastly more complex level design possibility (which current games still have trouble competing with, think moving sectors, large amounts of enemies, and large open areas) gave us a completely new step in gameplay. Quake was not as big a step ahead, but still significant (personally I think the more consistent physics, allowing grenades, rocket jumps etc. made for an entire new feel of being in a 3d world).

Any game beyond that have progressively smaller gameplay contributions, half-life made a relative big one I hate to say, but not on the same scale as games before it. If you don't recognise half-life is still the same "kill stuff, hit the switch, move on" gameplay of doom & quake, you are pretty much blind and can't be helped.

Thinking half-life 2 will be ground breaking gameplay is even more blind, it is, on the grand scale of things, just a natural progression of HL1. Don't get me wrong, I have seen the HL2 video multiple times and I am STUNNED at the production quality of this game and looking forward to it, but it is not "ground breaking" bar their use of physics. You cannot compare this with the leap from, say, wolf3d to doom. 

but isnt that the question though?

What is it that needs to be done to achieve that next big leap in gameplay? 

Robotic Frogs obviously. 

something that maybe emerging form this discussion is what is the boundary between the two concepts of "gameplay" and "the engine". See now to me, one of the reasons i say Quake 1 was a huge leap in gameplay was becuase it had true 3D and of course you could look up/down and jump.

Now those features i classify as part of "gameplay", but others in this thread might say they are features of "the engine" (which they are as well). But i put them primarily under gameplay becuase they effect the gameplay , ie enemies can attack from above annd below, maps are designed in true 3d etc etc. To me, this is a huge leap in gameplay.
To others its still kill/find key/find exit.
Sure these goals are the same, i agree but the "method of gameplay" to reach those goals has fundamentally changed.
After all the goal of any game is basically the same, survive as long as you can and get the best score/complete the game.

Now me move to half-life. This is where it gets really interesting. See, to me Half-life gameplay is fundamentally no different to Quake 1. You still walk down corridor/kill/walk into room/kill/find exit, basically. Half-life adds a story and scripted events, but to me these things are NOT part of the GAMEPLAY of a game. They are part of "the engine". This was the original distinction i mentioned, its all a matter of where you draw this distinction.

Also, story and scripted events are basically what movies or books have. If i want to read a story or watch people acting in scenes then i will read a book or watch a movie.

To me the pure gameplay experience of actually playing a game is "diluted" by sitting thorugh story telling scripted sequences and cutscenes.
To me ,the train ride at the start of half-life added nothing to the game, fundamentally.
maybe thats narrow-minded of me, i would just say i dont like games being diluted from their "purest form".

In this sense i guess it is fair to say i am an old skool gamer i just want to play the game, not "interact" in what (to me) is a diluted and confusing mix of a book/film/game (metal gear solid would be a classic example).

Its not surprising i feel this way as the first video games i played were on the atari VCS and arcade games like Asteroids and Defender, first impressions count. 

its clear me and Aardappel are coming from pretty much the same viewpoint. 

as far as the advancements of HL was... well, the story is that of Dooms, only now youre a scientist instead of a marine. which doesnt change much in the game at all... the scientists are keys with more animation and sounds... theyre not terribly unique considering in Unreal you had the nali who would lead you to important sections of the game, reveal secrets for you, and could be killed by you or the enemy. but it was generally to your advantage to protect them.
i never really felt like the storyline was advancing, as much as i was getting new shit to kill... it was nice of them to throw in the twist of the marines showing up to kill you off, however they told us about this before the game came out, so the only twist in the plotline was revealed beforehand. and it wasnt pumped much in the game anyways... it was vaguely mentioned some, that the marines were coming, but it didnt feel me with a sense of being helped (partially because the developers made it widely known before hand that they were there to kill you). still portions of it were fun, however the ai didnt stun me, especially after all they promised regarding it... it wasnt as much of the soldiers using squad behaviour as it felt like they were glued together, and they didnt react to the actions of other squadmates usually (one yells grenade and the others stand there as he runs off, or often the case, takes cover ontop of it). true they didnt rush forward and kill me, but they didnt do much else aside from... sit there. so instead of running forward killing stuff grabbing keys and going through doors, i was running forward, waiting for scientists to open doors and killing stuff. and then sometimes waiting for other stuff to kill stuff for me (to which i mention the time where you let the stone titan take care of the kraal elite and then attacked him in the dasa pass of unreal, and the much much more intricate system of monster relations seen in Blood2). and the plot kinda... went away, when i reached Black Mesa. it was, "well, we dont know... but theres new aliens to shoot?". HL was a few steps forward in gameplay, but even moreso if you ignore other games in the period and dont pay attention to how absolutely completely linear the game is for the most part.

as for the quakeworld versus q3a argument... i enjoy both. which is fine by me. i see em as diff types of deathmatch, and i think the q3a bots are weak (model files with high accuracy as the only advancement in skill... and they make em easier by taking away their health instead of making them less skilled at fighting)

rabble rabble 

I personally feel that Unreal was quite a significant intermediary step in the advancement of FPS gaming complexity (which I think is an incremental rather than revolutionary advancement - Quake2 advanced it somewhat too). You had a slightly stronger overall story, various sub-stories revealed via the translator (Bluff anyone?), a coherent backdrop and setting, NPCs that actually did something, scripted events, a few non-fighting scenes, and a sense of discovery at exploring a world around you.

Of course HL did that and more but it wasn't a straight jump from Q1 to HL.