My problem with Quake/Unreal were those desolate maps. With Doom and clones most rooms were filled with enemies and a lot of hectic action, but in those first 3D games the maps were mostly empty with only 1 or 2 enemies attacking you at any given time. Understandable considering the hardware limits of that time, but it took away most of the scary parts and general feel of panic.

Errius wrote:

I don't know about 'charm' but Doom sure was more frightening to play than Quake.

To me, Doom is exciting, but not frightening at all.

Quake, on the other hand, is really creepy. I remember the first time I played Quake; I wasn't familiar yet with Lovecraftian Universe at that time, but the game has very creepy atmosphere, from the monster's shapes to the sound effects. While Doom gives you cliched monsters like imps and demons, as well as cliched icons like inverted cross and pentagrams, Quake has totally alien, unfamiliar universe which contributes greatly to the creep factor.

In fact, it's Quake and Alone in the Dark that drove me to know more about Lovecraftian universe.

Joey_sw wrote:

i like that BUILD by Ken Silverman, its allow creation of Levels that would be impossible with a pure 3D geometric system,
such as moebius like spiral level, where you seemingly can move spirally downward infinitely but only to realize the place you arrive to is a place you have already visited.

It's not that you can't have geometry tricks in 3D engines. Just think of Portal.
And American McGee's Alice had an underground maze level that seemed "impossible". Or maybe it was an
illusion made with identical-looking rooms?

My problem with Quake/Unreal were those desolate maps.

Haven't played Unreal. Quake has nice maps but they're all brown.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

To me, Doom is exciting, but not frightening at all. […]
Show full quote

Errius wrote:

I don't know about 'charm' but Doom sure was more frightening to play than Quake.

To me, Doom is exciting, but not frightening at all.

Quake, on the other hand, is really creepy. I remember the first time I played Quake; I wasn't familiar yet with Lovecraftian Universe at that time, but the game has very creepy atmosphere, from the monster's shapes to the sound effects. While Doom gives you cliched monsters like imps and demons, as well as cliched icons like inverted cross and pentagrams, Quake has totally alien, unfamiliar universe which contributes greatly to the creep factor.

In fact, it's Quake and Alone in the Dark that drove me to know more about Lovecraftian universe.

I kinda get what you're saying - but to be honest I read pretty much all Lovecraft's stuff around 1980 but I never really saw much that felt especially Lovecraftian in Quake or Doom. On the other hand Silent Hill on PlayStation did feel Lovecraft-like to me: claustrophobic, creepy, an unfathomable sense of horror.... Guess it depends on what you identify as Lovecraftian,

I always thoughts the parallel between Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead 2 and the ogres in Quake was cool but I think it turns our that Evil dead was an influence on id? Chainsaw strapped to wrist, shotgun, and blam blam blam. It's weird how time seeems to go much faster for games than films - eg. I tend to think of AvP as being from a similar era to Quake, when the original Alien film was what - 1979 or therabouts?

Sorrry for offtopic ramble 😜

ratfink wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

To me, Doom is exciting, but not frightening at all. […]
Show full quote

Errius wrote:

I don't know about 'charm' but Doom sure was more frightening to play than Quake.

To me, Doom is exciting, but not frightening at all.

Quake, on the other hand, is really creepy. I remember the first time I played Quake; I wasn't familiar yet with Lovecraftian Universe at that time, but the game has very creepy atmosphere, from the monster's shapes to the sound effects. While Doom gives you cliched monsters like imps and demons, as well as cliched icons like inverted cross and pentagrams, Quake has totally alien, unfamiliar universe which contributes greatly to the creep factor.

In fact, it's Quake and Alone in the Dark that drove me to know more about Lovecraftian universe.

I kinda get what you're saying - but to be honest I read pretty much all Lovecraft's stuff around 1980 but I never really saw much that felt especially Lovecraftian in Quake or Doom. On the other hand Silent Hill on PlayStation did feel Lovecraft-like to me: claustrophobic, creepy, an unfathomable sense of horror.... Guess it depends on what you identify as Lovecraftian,

Well, Quake isn't really claustrophobic (some levels are spacious), but the game radiates a very strong sense of 'otherness' --something truly alien, unlike Doom's cliched setting of devils and demons.

Alone in the Dark also gives similar sense of 'otherness', especially since I haven't been familiar with Lovecraftian universe at that time. I mean, Cthulhu? What is Cthulhu? What is De Vermis Mysteriis? Why isn't it called 'Satanic Book' or something? What is this tree-man? See, it's such things that makes me intrigued to discover more about Lovecraftian universe.

ratfink wrote:

I always thoughts the parallel between Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead 2 and the ogres in Quake was cool but I think it turns our that Evil dead was an influence on id? Chainsaw strapped to wrist, shotgun, and blam blam blam. It's weird how time seeems to go much faster for games than films - eg. I tend to think of AvP as being from a similar era to Quake, when the original Alien film was what - 1979 or therabouts?

Sorrry for offtopic ramble 😜

Too bad Evil Dead 2 is too gory and too cheesy to be a true Lovecraftian experience. But it's half-comedy anyway.

Doom shareware creeped me out. I bought Doom 2 and loved it but half of the fun was level editing, not just playing.
Quake didn't hold my interest nearly as much. Didn't seem as much fun to play, and Quake level editing wasn't as understandable either (never really figured it out - and soon decided I didn't care to).
I have some yearning to go back and play through Quake sometime - I never got very far in it. I think I might have finished the first episode/quest/whatever and that's about it.
I don't understand what the world in Quake is supposed to be. I don't know if the developers did either.

I'm awful slow and methodical in how I play these games, and yet I think I still prefer the more hectic levels in Doom over how slow everything is in Quake. It seems like in Doom there was more going on, more possible ambushes and traps to think about and be ready for. But maybe Quake gets more exciting when you aren't running it on a Cyrix. 😀

I'm not an FPS guy so I don't know how much of my opinion actually relates to the quality of the games in question, and how much is just because of me losing interest in the genre.
DOOM was a novelty for me and I had fun with it. After losing interest in Quake I lost interest in the genre and never really came back to it. The next FPS I played was Unreal Tournament 2004, and I never got deeply into that game either.
I don't really understand how modern multiplayer FPSes have been so popular for so long, with every release of "Mouseclick Showdown 20xx!" seeming like the same game to me, but the same could easily be said about games that I like (particularly old platformers). And it's what lots of people say about sports games. When you don't care for a genre I guess it's easier to perceive it as highly repetitive.

Joey_sw wrote:

i like that BUILD by Ken Silverman, its allow creation of Levels that would be impossible with a pure 3D geometric system,
such as moebius like spiral level, where you seemingly can move spirally downward infinitely but only to realize the place you arrive to is a place you have already visited.

A moebius spiral is not even the most impressive example. Think Tier Drops (4 different rooms occupying the same physical space connected via portals) or Lunatic Fringe (a 720 degree circle).

I remember when Wolf3D came out, we played it a lot on a friend's 386 (I didn't have a computer at that time). I was hooked. Then, shortly after we bought our first PC, Doom came out and I got the 2-disk shareware version from a friend at school... even though performance was not great on my 486SX with 4MB I spent lots of hours on it, and it was the game that got me into the whole hardware upgrade thing 😁

But my favorite of the non-3D shooters has to be Dark Forces, diverse environments, cool weapons & enemies, Darth Vader and a compelling story with cutscenes, that game had it all!

However I cannot say that I didn't enjoy the first 3D shooters... loved Quake I & II, Unreal, Half-Life, Jedi Knight and so on. I think that the fact that those were actually good games got augmented by the awe I got from early 3D accelerators (Voodoo2 in my case).

The last 3D shooter I fully enjoyed was probably Return to Castle Wolfenstein. That one kind of marked the end of an era to me, as most of my friends either got into console gaming or just stopped playing altogether, and I turned into other types of games like RPGs and 3D person.

I really liked Doom 3 though, I'm one of the few who prefers slow paced 3D gaming with scares rather than running all the time while shooting. That's why I've been reluctant to play the new Doom, in fact I played the original one quite slowly and had fun so it kind of grates me when people say Doom is all about "never stop moving and shooting".

Azarien wrote:

Haven't played Unreal. Quake has nice maps but they're all brown.

I was mainly referring to a lack of enemies, but in Unreal there are these open areas that are really nice to look at, but with very few enemies dropped here and there it all just seems pointless and dull. Quake does have similar feel to it, but the maps are more indoor type so it doesn't bother me as much.

TheMobRules wrote:

I'm one of the few who prefers slow paced 3D gaming with scares rather than running all the time while shooting. That's why I've been reluctant to play the new Doom, in fact I played the original one quite slowly and had fun so it kind of grates me when people say Doom is all about "never stop moving and shooting".

That's me too. I'd much rather play System Shock 1 or 2 then run around like a chicken without a head.

Anyone find early 2.5 shooters had more charm than early 3D shooters?

Yes, absolutely. To me, late 2D shooters, dungeon crawlers (think Lands of Lore or Ultima Underworld) and even some simulators aged a lot better than early 3D-accelerated games. I still enjoy Quake and Unreal, but mostly for gameplay, not look'n'feel.

Then again, I know people who are barely 5 years younger than me (around 20 yo or so) who look at original Doom and can't really see how one can play it. Maybe that is the why modern "pixelated" shooters are so different from the authentic 2.5D titles.

Doom and Duke were great but Quake was something else. You probably missed the Quakeworld fun at the time, hence you can't really understand what it meant to play Quake multiplayer with a Voodoo card at stunning 640x480 and 30fps+.

Most 2.5D shooters used keyboard for input which gives a drastically different dynamic to the game. Come true 3D, mouse was the input device of choice. More emphasis on accuracy, actual projectiles in some cases which meant you could actually get a "head-shot" o.0. A friend of mine was pretty much untouchable on DukeNukem3D, however come UT/Q2 (when aiming counts 😉) not so good.

Descent could be a weird exception to this being pretty much true 3D (albeit with billboarded power-ups and other stuff), but still played with a keyboard. Maybe it could get away with it since its flying a ship as opposed to running around on a ground plane (atm can't think of any others though tbh).

Personally, I prefer true 3D games, but agree 2.5D shooters have a certain 'charm'. They felt very fast in comparison to the early true 3D games, but also restrictive (probably due to the inability to naturally look up or down).

spiroyster wrote:

Most 2.5D shooters used keyboard for input which gives a drastically different dynamic to the game. Come true 3D, mouse was the input device of choice. More emphasis on accuracy, actual projectiles in some cases which meant you could actually get a "head-shot" o.0. A friend of mine was pretty much untouchable on DukeNukem3D, however come UT/Q2 (when aiming counts 😉) not so good.

They all allow you to switch to using the mouse, much like modern 3D games. Some of them have no (or limited) free look, but you still can enjoy the fast turning (compared to the keyboard) and easier strafe-running. It is true, though, that the mechanics are different. Especially the presence of vertical auto-aim, to compensate for lack of free look. If you are used to relying on that, then going to full 3D with no auto-aim will certainly be more challenging.

spiroyster wrote:

Descent could be a weird exception to this being pretty much true 3D (albeit with billboarded power-ups and other stuff), but still played with a keyboard. Maybe it could get away with it since its flying a ship as opposed to running around on a ground plane (atm can't think of any others though tbh).

You would think that given the full 6 degrees of freedom, which make it a lot like a flight simulator, many will play Descent with a joystick/flightstick. Maybe some do. However one of the best players I saw on Youtube uses keyboard only and his runs are very impressive, smooth, and pleasant to watch.

Descent was made for twin analogue sticks before they were a thing IMO..

Once I figured out a good keyboard setup, Descent became very playable and fun. 😀

clueless1 wrote:

Once I figured out a good keyboard setup, Descent became very playable and fun. 😀

Could you share your setup? I'm always curious to learn these things. 😀

dr_st wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

Once I figured out a good keyboard setup, Descent became very playable and fun. 😀

Could you share your setup? I'm always curious to learn these things. 😀

You betcha. 😉

I tried to come up with a WASD-like scheme since that was what I was used to:
accelerate: W
reverse: S
slide left: A
slide right: D
slide up: R
slide down: V
arrow keys for pitch up/down and turn left/right
bank left: Q
bank right: E
fire primary: SPACE
fire secondary: C
flare: F
bomb: B

It takes awhile to get used to, and I still mess up sometimes because I don't play all that often, but it's the most tightly spaced set of controls that I could come up with and seems pretty comfortable for the most part.

Since someone mentioned WASD in Descent, clueless1's scheme is just like mine except for one major difference:

Slide Up: Space
Slide Down: C

I'll have you guys guess why I bound it like that.

DracoNihil wrote:

Since someone mentioned WASD in Descent, clueless1's scheme is just like mine except for one major difference: […]
Show full quote

Since someone mentioned WASD in Descent, clueless1's scheme is just like mine except for one major difference:

Slide Up: Space
Slide Down: C

I'll have you guys guess why I bound it like that.

Because you use R and V fire fire primary/secondary?