@robloxtxt/@tf2_txt would happen.

Also that railgun camping attitude has been really part of the playerbase since Quake2. There's always that one person (and more!) diving into the water in Q2DM1 for it. those camping llamas

This thread. 🤣 http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/703504-call-of … ghosts/68933820 A lot of people accuse the OP of being a troll, but he actually makes a lot of very good points.

also things will be different if they reach OA. The art direction will put them off before the gameplay does. This is arguably more true for the reboot since the detail will be 'under control' (as in reduced to consistency). This matters as graphics quality means a lot to them, even if it's a gloss shader applied to roblox like standard D3D Retained mode vertex shading.

Though, someone did make nuketown for OA once, and Metro even.

Between Q3 and OA I'm not sure which one I prefer the art direction on. Q3 has cooler-looking weapons and I like some of the player models better, but many of the maps look boring, except for the ones that have like colorful neon pulsating lights. OA generally has cooler looking maps, and I like some of the anime-esque models that it has, though the amount of boobage can be a little distracting. 🤣

OA is a mess technically and graphically. There's a lot of art in there that exists just to shut up warnings and to blatantly mirror Q3 archetypes. This is Bad.

It's not even good to try on retro PCs either, it's not very compatible with the vertexlight fallback and there are some models that use way too many textures so it's also a nightmare for newfangled GLES-based devices 🙁

and the player animations range from wendyvainity to Casina777 and have poor visibility.

Is it just me, or does that one spider chick have a bigger hitbox than the other player models?

No one has different hitboxes, and some models are too 'small' to fit them. Some are worse (Ayumi, Sorceress)

Here follows a screenshot trying to address this.

Whenever someone has legitimate points and questions that people don't especially like, they call them a troll. However, to play the devil's advocate, as much as I love the Quake games, around 1999-2000 we were in a pretty similar position. Most FPS games on the market were just trying to imitate the fast paced nature of these games. This lead to saturation and overall hatred towards these games, much in the same vain as today with CoD. I remember reading an article on some magazine and the title went something like this : "For the love of god, no more strafe-jumping in video games! ". That was around the same time that the Medal of Honor and eventually Call of Duty games rose to fame.

What I'm trying to say is this. Once a new idea is implemented in the design and is successful, it is imitated by most people until saturation kicks in and eventually everybody hates it. Take a look at 3rd Person Action games for example. Designers always aim for an open world experience with tons of collectibles and progression bars (not to mention mostly useless skill trees or traits) and side missions. Or QTEs. I replayed Fahrenheit a couple of months ago with my girlfriend and I kept apologizing, because I remembered the game to be vastly superior to sequences of button pressing.

If you want my opinion, I don't want to see games play like Quake again. That was a fun era and I can now easily enjoy the very best of these games. I certainly want games to stop playing like CoD, that means slow pace, waves of enemies, scripted exposition sequences with QTEs. I prefer diversity and in the age of digital distribution, I believe we've come very very close to this. That's why I don't really care anymore, because I can always get the kind of game that speaks to me nowadays. 😀

There's also new games that promise to be 'old school' (and market heavily on that) but completely miss the point and just play like modern games but without regeneration. 2005-2007 is the new "oldschool", which isn't really much different than now except with less DLC paywalls and gratuitous materialism guised as "full player customization".

See: Serious Sam 3 BFE, Hard Reset, Rise of the Triad, Toxikk. Toxikk's not out, but it's literally a painting-by-the-numbers clone of UT3 (on UE3 at that!) marketed as some '1999 arena shooter' so we know they miss the point from the get-go already.

Back in the day, when I didn't have an internet connection, I could only play with the bots. So here's a simple fact I had to face: Quake 3 was a continuous battle with the same goal all the time. Yes, there are different maps, different difficulty levels, different modes but the bottom line is: you run around shooting at everything that moves, unless they are on your team.

That's not to say that's not fun but it's fun for like an hour at a time, tops, at least for me. Now, games like Call of Duty actually have a story. with each mission, your goal is different. Yes, you still achieve it by running around shooting at everything that moves but now you need to be careful, take cover, listen to the guy giving you orders and objectives. The point is, there's more strategy to it, more realism. I remember the first Call of Duty game taking up hours of my time.

Now, if we are talking online multiplayer, the Quake-like games are an obvious winner, right? Well, not for me, they are not. It may be that I'd gotten used to certain things in the years of having no internet and I just do better when the map is fairly big and when you can hide and take cover and what not.

For me, Quake-like games are just a contest of who can aim their mouse at the opponent's head while running around and jumping like a madman. I know this is blasphemy for many people but that is how I feel about that. It is a fun adrenaline rush, that's for sure, but when I'm to play a game in which reflexes and speed are the most important things, I think arcade racers are a more sensible choice.

I think the 'pro' divide is a whole another issue. Quake was popular online in 1996 when most still played it with the keyboard, and "ez rocket jumping alias's!!!" was more reserved for the cliques (despite what that Call of Quake video tells you how 'back in the day' was). Quake3 also had a popular casual audience early on when 'pro' players hated it for its slowness, until they dealt with it and upgraded, then found out there's a physics exploit for very high framerates. Cue high picmip vertex lighting pro subculture killing off the game's audence...

Call of Duty suffers the issue of hacked lobbies and high level players that seemingly call out bomb killstreaks like it's nothing after a minute of straight sniping with a fully upgraded high level sniper rifle. Not exactly fair either, and Cod kiddie refers to the kind that would send death threats over a patch changing damage on a fictional weapon.

btw, OA counters the "pro issue" with new server-based videoflags to lock fov, picmip and vertexlight usage and fixed player movement physics options making it the most 'fair' fork of Q3A there is, and that's only up to the server's discretion :>

I know most of this thread is concerned with multi-player, but I wanted to chime in about modern FPS games...

I'll be honest, I haven't played a lot of more modern games. My computer is always somewhat outdated and I can't get used to playing FPS games with a gamepad if my life depended on it. I do watch a lot of videos of newer games and I hate the way the game industry is headed.

You "buy" a game and the first thing you need to do is register it with some online service like Steam or Origin. Then you're required to download a ton of patches.

Once the game is patched, registered and activated, you can play it. While playing, you get instructions flashing on the screen for what to do. "Smash the window to escape!" "Climb the ladder to evade the zombies!" "Use fire extinguisher to put out flames!" Plus you get popup messages telling you what key or button to press to open every door or interact with every object. "Press 'E' to open door!" "Press 'E' to answer phone!" "Press 'E' to search body!" Are gamers today really that stupid that they can't figure out how to play a game without onscreen instructions?

Every time you do something new you get an "achievement". "Achievement Unlocked: Walking ten steps!" "Achievement Unlocked: Switching weapons!" "Achievement Unlocked: Firing your first shot!" "Achievement Unlocked: Standing around like a dumbass for ten seconds!" "Achievement Unlocked: Getting your head blown off!"

Then there's all the DLC, which half the time is stuff that should have come with the base game, but didn't because they know they can squeeze a little extra money out of you.

So you start playing the game, walk into a room and you get a 2-3 minute, unskippable FMV. Once it ends, you get to play for a minute or two before the next 2-3 minute, unskippable FMV. There's virtually no exploration allowed, no need to find health since it regenerates, no deviation from the set level path allowed.

Sure, they look nice, but does that make up for everything else that has been lost?

leileilol wrote:

I think the 'pro' divide is a whole another issue. Quake was popular online in 1996 when most still played it with the keyboard, and "ez rocket jumping alias's!!!" was more reserved for the cliques (despite what that Call of Quake video tells you how 'back in the day' was). Quake3 also had a popular casual audience early on when 'pro' players hated it for its slowness, until they dealt with it and upgraded, then found out there's a physics exploit for very high framerates. Cue high picmip vertex lighting pro subculture killing off the game's audence...

Call of Duty suffers the issue of hacked lobbies and high level players that seemingly call out bomb killstreaks like it's nothing after a minute of straight sniping with a fully upgraded high level sniper rifle. Not exactly fair either, and Cod kiddie refers to the kind that would send death threats over a patch changing damage on a fictional weapon.

btw, OA counters the "pro issue" with new server-based videoflags to lock fov, picmip and vertexlight usage and fixed player movement physics options making it the most 'fair' fork of Q3A there is, and that's only up to the server's discretion :>

Being able to change your FOV is a pretty big deal on Quake 3 from what I understand, and ever since I've learned how to do it I've always played with a higher FOV than the default. I know some newer games allow you to change your FOV through a GUI slider, so why not OA? I'm just thinking it would be a good way to make it easier for new players to access, so it doesn't seem so "secretive" and "cheaty".

I don't know about CoD vs Quake 3, but I can say what would happen if a DOOM player tried to play CoD.
The last FPS I spent any time with was Unreal 2004, but I wasn't competitive online. Before that.. Quake 1, and DOOM.
I tried playing one of the recent CoD xb360 games with my nephew 1 or 2 years ago. It was a disaster. My "goal" for each round was to get 1 kill. Sometimes I pulled it off.
But to put the shoe on the other foot, he sucks at 2D platformers. Almost as shockingly as my suckitude at FPSes.

Rekrul wrote:

<snip>

I approve of this post. When I try a modern game, I frequently end up annoyed with it's design mentality and start to lose interest.
I'm just glad I never had to register my older games on Steam. No matter who goes out of business, I can always play those. No activation, no bogging down in tutorials, just Go. The modern game business seems to be stuck on some college educated singular rote about what defines "good" and "bad" game design, and their idea of "good design" is mind numbingly dull IMO.

When I was in high school Quake 3 was the new thing and we played a bunch of it during lunch. It was and still is a great game IMO. Regarding the COD series, I can't put my finger on why I don't like it. I played a bit of COD3 and a tiny amount of Modern Warfare 1 and neither clicked with me. I'd much rather play any Source based game. I'd guess that a modern user could pick up the older games quite easily, they were fairly simple after all.

There's also the mods. Q3 has plenty of mods that introduce more tactical gameplay, Superheroes Q3/Arena is a good example, which hasn't been attempted in any game since 2002 because people get confused and witchhunt over 'no u will make marvel skins youl be sued' (after The Sims Resource incident), despite the core part of the mod being the selectable power system and not the intellectual property, as it can be done perfectly without the copyright infringement

I never played Quake or COD online, until I tried Black Ops II on the PC. I was always a Battlefield fan and everyone told me that COD is crap. But I really liked Black Ops II. At first I just got dominated. These COD kiddies are quite good, especially on the PC the gameplay is frantic. What I liked was that you didn't have to search for fights like in BF with re-spawns always miles away. The battle was just around the corner.

What I took away about COD is that it has the formula of that all good games have: easy to learn, hard to master. I kept playing, did the unlocks, got gold and diamond and over time got better. Towards the end I would often win rounds which, for my age and reaction time, is quite cool. I also live remote so got higher ping compared to people in Sydney.

Ghosts on the other hand: The PC version is utter garbage.

I miss playing BLOPS II. The servers have really died down and that was the end of it. I had so much fun with the shotguns and lmgs, what a blast. The game was really FUN.

There are many things I disagree with the OP.

MrDragonzord wrote:

I want to know why people think this game is so good though. It destroys the competitive nature of the shooting genre. The focus has shifted away from skillful, balanced, and intense competition as well as teamwork over to mere spectacle and the wow factor of gaming. Video gaming used to be an elite skill. Now since Call of Duty is plastered in every casual's face, people see gaming as a joke and this series is to blame. If that's all you have to say you really don't have much faith in this game either.

Let's go back further in time, before Quake came around and certain people suddenly labeled themselves "hardcore games". Let's take a look at games like Star Control II and Ultima Underworld, where "wow factor" (at that time) was actually part of the game's appeal. Yes, such games doesn't require "elite skill" as the OP mentioned, but they are still great game nonetheless, and they still require skill - although not exactly "arcade skill".

I'm not saying games should put wow factor over gameplay. In fact, the 1995 FMV era was something I wish I'd never see again. But there are certainly other types of skills besides quick-action skill. I'd really like to see the OP apply his so-called "elite skill" in Delta Force or Falcon 3.0, and let's see how things turn up.

Besides, before Quake era, I believe what so-called "hardcore gamers" were those who play PC games - games that requires wider array of skills than just quick draw skill. "Mainstream gamers", on the other hand, were those who played console games, who obviously excelled in the so-called "elite skill" required to complete Mario Bros without the ability to save games. But then again, I'd like to see how Mario players would apply their "elite skill" in Sword of the Samurai.

Me, I was one of those who got bored with Quake after its wow factor (true 3D, as opposed to 2.5D) got old, and I enjoyed this game instead when those self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" boasted their multiplayer Quake sessions. Does it make me "less hardcore" because I played a very detailed role-playing game instead of multiplayer Quake?

So excuse me if I laughed everytime the Quake crowd or Command & Conquer crowd proudly proclaimed themselves "hardcore gamers". I mean, where were they when we were playing this game? Or how about this game? It should be noted that I don't proclaim myself a "hardcore gamer"; in fact, I'm not. I enjoy Their Finest Hour more than F-16 Combat Pilot (although both games are enjoyable). I'm not saying Quake or Command & Conquer are bad games either; they are good games in their own right. However, calling oneself "hardcore gamer" simply due to her/his "elite skill" in a specific kind of genre is ridiculous.

Next.

MrDragonzord wrote:

•In Quake, there is no proning, encouraging players to get in their face of their enemies and fight directly.
•In Call of Duty, the proning feature encourages you to hide from your enemies instead of getting up close and personal like a man

Hello? It's called realism. I would like to see the OP and his "hardcore gaming fellows" survive the first five minutes of Delta Force. Even Dennis "Thresh" Fong, the most famous professional gamer, admitted in a CGW issue that he had trouble playing Rainbow Six. And no, he didn't complain that Rainbow Six' gameplay is being unfair to his "elite skill"; he honestly admitted that Rainbow Six requires different kind of skills than Quake. And IIRC I never read Thresh self-proclaiming himself as "hardcore gamer" either, despite he's a pro.

MrDragonzord wrote:

•In Quake, there's no reloading whatsoever. It's a good thing as if reloads are too long, they can break the pace. Picking up and swapping weapons is also instantaneous.
•In Call of Duty, reloads take forever. The game encourages you to hide in the middle of a battle as you replace your empty clip, rewarding p**** players who keep their distance and stay away from the action instead of those who are up close and personal and fight their enemies directly. It also serves as a major pace killer. Switching weapons may also take a while.

Again, it's called realism. And again, I wonder how would the OP survive the first five minutes of Delta Force.

MrDragonzord wrote:

•In Quake there is an emphasis on map control, which is the act of securing all goodies that spawn on the map as well as controlling power positions. As stronger weapons and powerups spawn on the map, there will always be opposition when you're trying to get them, rewarding more skilled players with better equipment. It also encourages map memorization and it means it's possible to predict where enemies will be. You also have to to master trickjumps, exploits in the physics engine that allow you to navigate the map more effectively but require tons of practice, timing, and concentration. Also in Quake, your starting equipment is weak. You have to gear up in the battlefield as fast as you can, then battle. Nothing is handed to you at spawn.
•In Call of Duty, there's no structure whatsoever due to the lack of equipment that spawns on the map. Everythings just a mess of scrambled chaos. You don't have to memorize spawn times, and there's no trickjumping. Instead all weapons and items can simply be handed to you at spawn.

So the OP's idea of good gameplay is map memorization, jump memorization, and where-to-grab-the-weapon memorization?

MrDragonzord wrote:

•In Quake, weapons are usually balanced and are to be used in different situations, requiring extra strategy. Kill times are also slow, making it more about who has consistent aim instead of who shoots who first. 1sks are very rare, even with rockets (Q3A requires a direct hit on an unarmored target to kill).
•In Call of Duty, SMGs and especially Snipers overpower other primary weapons due to extremely fast kill times. SMGs have fast reload and fast ads times and Snipers are also easy to use at any range. All weapons kill in less than .5 seconds. Attachments further ruin balance. Pistols are underpowered secondaries.

Untrue. I only played the first Call of Duty, but I can say with a straight face that bolt-action rifle is such a pain in close-quarter combat, that finding an SMG in such situation is really a treat. Heck, even a pistol is better in such situation than the slow-firing bolt-action rifle. On the other hand, having only SMG in open air while the Germans uses Kar98k is an equal pain.

...or you could've saved yourself some time and typed 'get off my lawn'.