Func_Msgboard: I Dont Geddit

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | I Dont Geddit

Posted by monsto [66.170.5.18] on 2003/05/04 21:09:06

whats the appeal of Q1 for mapping? when Quake was first released, i thought the SP was manageable, and had a lot of fun with DM, but since then in the last 7 years, ive not given it much of a 2nd thought cept for playing in a nostalgia frame of mind. It was fun back in the day, but anymore its kinda <so what> imo, for play and for mapping.
[19:40:16] <DaZ> gameplay:)
[19:40:41] <inertia> dm is actually really interesting
----
[19:41:31] <inertia> sp has a harder bar to map for; youre expected to make something awe inspiring to look at; its less about play imho
[19:41:37] <inertia> harder = higher
[19:41:50] <monsto> Q1 sp is supposed to be pretty?
[19:41:58] <Killes> hmmm, there pretty sp maps and theres good sp maps
[19:42:06] <Killes> gameplay si important
[19:42:06] <inertia> atmosphere in general is the focus of q1sp... dm is gameplay first
[19:42:10] <monsto> how the fuck do you manage PRETTY in q1sp?
[19:42:21] <AD5|ds> lol
----
[19:42:44] <Killes> dosnt have ht be that way, it makes such a difference to the fun of a sp map if the gameplay is done well
[19:43:03] <monsto> Killes, yeah i understand about gameplay...
[edit] yeah i understand that gameplay is pretty much a given in ANY sp, no matter how ugly or simple the engine.
----
[19:45:08] <Killes> well, tru that q1 is more about the ambiance given off than the pure eyecandyness of it
[19:45:20] <Killes> but its engine allows certain atmospheres not really achievable in newer engines
[19:45:37] <Killes> its oldness plays in its favor in some way, the rough hard solid look of it u know
- - - -
I dont get how poly counts in the low hundreds, and lack of colored lighting and map models can create much atmosphere... then again, i thought the retail map <wizards manse> was just DARK, not <atmospheric>.
Im not bashing anyone, i just dont get it and seek TO understand.

Its Like Metls Hockey Outfit Thing
#1 posted by wrath [195.58.111.103] on 2003/05/04 21:14:37
if you get it you get it, but wish you didnt.
if you dont get it - thats even better.
My Take On It
#2 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.188.180] on 2003/05/04 21:40:50
First off, a question: Monsto, have you actually PLAYED any Q1SP maps in the last couple years? Specificly such acclaimed pieces as APSP1, Koohoo, or CZG07? You cite The Wizard's Manse as being dark instead of atmospheric, but that's not fair because that map is 7 years old and shipped with the original game. Try comparing with more recent maps that were made by the people you're so confused about.
Most Q1SP maps released these days have r_speeds peak at around 600 to 700. I don't feel that Q3 maps really have a lot more detail aside from curves, shaders, and transparencies. Much of the extra polys that you get in Q3 are also attributable to the increased proficiency of the BSP process (for example one rectangular wall in Q1 can easily be 8 polys, while the same wall in Q3 would be 2).
I also quite feel that there has not been a decent SP FPS game released since Quake. There have been several good games, but none really have both decent gameplay and good visuals. Alice and FAKK2 came close, but Alice's gameplay wasn't quite good enough (plus the tools were never released grr) and FAKK2 was just a bit too restrictive IMHO.
Many of the factors that led to Q1 being so good have yet to fully be reproduced in other games. Q1 had great monsters that you can put together in a map in almost ANY combination, unlike games like RtCW which are specificly themed and not compatible. The monsters would also go well with nearly any texture theme, be it industrial, base, medieval, sci fi, surreal, egyptian, or all of the above. Q1 had good progressive weapons. Q1 let you package custom textures with the .bsp, which was not really reproduced until Q3. Q1 had various quirks (such as no-bounce lighting) that lent it an arcane air and theme of its own.
Furthermore, Q1DM is just plain fun. CPMA is really the only other DM game that has since come close to dethroning it, and it would except for the poor theme of the Q3 items.
I'm very interested in mapping for Enclave, but Starbreeze hasn't released the tools, and wrath is getting more and more vitriol with my incessant pestering.
Nice Post RPG
#3 posted by underworldfan [172.137.154.56] on 2003/05/04 21:54:15
i definitly love you now.
Okay, One More
#4 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.188.180] on 2003/05/04 22:01:49
It was mentioned heavily in the "Why Don't You Lot Map for More Recent Games Then??" and I mentioned it briefly in my post above, but another reason I map for Q1 is because it is not restrictive in the themes that are possible. HL, NOLF, etc, are fun games but restrict you severely in the themes that you are allowed to create. It restricts you in what the player/enemies fit in, but also in what the items and other things fit in. Q1's low pallete and gritty feel creates a vagueness that allows you to use almost anything, as long as it's still gritty.
Here`s My Take On It
#5 posted by inertia [24.164.72.38] on 2003/05/04 22:02:26
[21:59:44] (!inertia) k this discussion is foolish: if you dont recognize that q1 is actually DRIPPING with atmosphere, then you wont ever understand the arguments presented here. it`s a "you either get it or you don`t" kinda thing, and one can only rationalize and quantize something like atmosphere so much, until you reach a point in which its just THERE
Elaboration
#6 posted by inertia [24.164.72.38] on 2003/05/04 22:07:47
[22:01:33] (!Speeds) inertia: why not discuss
[22:01:52] (!Speeds) "u either get it or not" is kinda arrogant
OK. Well my take on the issue of atmoshpere in q1 boils down to the apparent fact that, yes, issues such as lighting, color pallete, game physics, game models and textures, et cetera, contribute to the atmosphere... but in my opinion it is the sum of all these parts that creates a game`s atmosphere. The sum of these parts in q1 is of such a high quality that many of us are still mapping for the game 7 years after its initial release. I know that we are a minority on the internet, but can anyone think of any other games with such a dedicated (fanatical?) and skilled community? I cant either, and I think that there is a very, very persuasive reason for us to still be here: love of the game. And part of the game is its atmosphere.
fin
Addendum
#7 posted by inertia [24.164.72.38] on 2003/05/04 22:09:25
<quote>I know that we are a minority on the internet, but can anyone think of any other games with such a dedicated (fanatical?) and skilled community?<quote>
Sorry, I meant to include that I`m talking about games that have moved past their prime in popularity (most of the time after the game`s release).
Also
#8 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.188.180] on 2003/05/04 22:11:16
Doom has a very loyal fanbase. They probably continue on for much the same reasons we do.
And
#9 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.188.180] on 2003/05/04 22:16:46
monsto is not flaming or trolling. He's just honestly trying to understand. So please don't be hostile, mmkay?
Good Thread...
#10 posted by Shambler [210.86.119.68] on 2003/05/05 00:01:55
...that`s all.
Sv_flamage 0
#11 posted by Kell [82.41.48.30] on 2003/05/05 00:52:41
This is a very difficult thing to answer. It does pretty much come down to 'you either get it or you don't' - and that's not meant to be harsh or dismissive; it's an expression of the intagability of Quake's achievement. inertia talked of the 'sum of its parts': I have always talked about Quake, and mapping in general, in similar terms. Any great individual map, game or any piece of art for that matter instills in us a sense of something, some quality, that makes the whole *greater* than the sum of its parts. Quake ceased to be a game almost immediately upon its release - Quake is not a game, it is a phenomenon. That I define as a conglomeration of specific pieces of work and a multitude of concepts, all of which can be endlessly contemplated and expressed well beyond the initial experience. As a tangent, I offer Star Wars as a prime example: how many characters, planets, vehicles, stories etc. are there that not only *have* been invented within that diagesis, but *could* be.
The most affecting result of the combined elements of an invented world is its overall *subliminal* impression on the audience - what, for want of any other word, can be called atmosphere. And Quake shovels on the atmosphere like dirt on a grave.
Atmosphere is that which evokes a non-specific feeling of time and place; it is not conveyed solely via the particulars of theme, style or detail; it is a combination of elements that conspires to elicit a completeness so that the viewer/player no longer responds intellectually to one part after another but instead completes the illusion of reality with *their own imagination* - and therein lies the key. When one's subconcious is actively participating in the conspiracy of illusion, only a handful of polys and a limited color palette are enough to convince us that this is not merely a 'monster' - a thing to be moused at until it activates its death animation - this is a *shambler*: a hulking, lumbering parody of human form, a thing "not wholly ape and not wholly insect" undilluted by such comforting familiarity as facial features or recognisable speech. It spreads its blood soaked talons ( blood; not red pixels....blood ) impossibly wide as it reaches with terrible strength to tear our body apart. Fight it, quickly and fearlessly, lest you join the sodden chunks of flesh that already litter the ground. That's what makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. That's Quake.
Indeed, Quake is not the only game that bears this out; I would personally cite Half-Life as having the same effect on me. And many other games, not just FPSs: Elite and Dungeon Keeper being two that spring to mind. The attraction to Quake is the unusual psychological depth at which this quality is grounded.
I think a clarification is needed: your question is not "why do we play Quake" but "why do we *map* for Quake". And that's a significant difference. As Phait now relentlessly quotes me as saying, mappers are all raving egotists really. I think I speak for most custom mappers when I say that we aren't mapping to satisfy anyones' inspiration but our own. If other people get something out of what we do, even better. Obviously, if you write a book you want it to be read; shoot a movie and you want it to be seen; build a map and you want it to be played. But first and foremost, we have our own creative compulsion to answer. The more subconcious and vaguely defined a phenomenon is, the easier to create within it.
With Quake, I can dream in many shades of dark and gory and give them tangible form with essentially no restrictions. Limited poly/brush count and an indexed color palette are only restrictions if that is what you measure your experience by. I don't, and given the indisputable impact of Quake on so many minds I'm confident that it isn't really what makes a memorable experience for others. If it were, the only motivation anyone would have would be the ascension of technical achievement. And if that was the only motivation, no-one would have made Quake in the first place.
Quake, by a combination of its true 3D rendering and inventive setting, opened up a limitless realm of possibilities into which we can pour our imaginations without fear of ever reaching the end.
Kell
#12 posted by inertia [24.164.72.38] on 2003/05/05 01:13:36
A little melodramatic, but I agree. This is one of the more intelligent and deep-thinking threads I have seen recently.
I Had Told Rpg . . .
#13 posted by monsto [66.170.5.18] on 2003/05/05 01:45:50
. . . that what he'd said about "quake is without a doubt the best fps ever made" is quite a fanboy statement. . . but i'm not calling him a fanboy.
?? does that make sense? saying that Quake is a phenom expresses "your" attachment to the game which would express why "you" map for it, but it doesn't explain the general appeal to mappers.
Best i can figure is that it's like ludes or mushrooms on pizza. Some like it, some dont.
Btw...
#14 posted by monsto [66.170.5.18] on 2003/05/05 01:46:26
i hate ludes on pizza
Monsto
#15 posted by inertia [24.164.72.38] on 2003/05/05 02:37:11
wtf is a lude
Monsto
#16 posted by nitin [61.9.128.173] on 2003/05/05 02:51:18
this is as simply as I can explain it without sounding too fanyboyish/melodramatic:
DM mapping - this is simply because some mappers prefer the DM of Quake/QW over the more recent Multiplayer games. If you like the gameplay, there`s more incentive to map for it.
SP mapping - you can get away with any sort of setting for quake and usually the monster set doesnt look out of place. More recent games can be restrictive in terms of theme (eg RTCW and HL only really cater for realisitic or crypt/xen settings) or simply dont have enjoyable enough gameplay to map for (eg Alice). On top of that, more recent games are more time consuming and difficult to produce a quality map(s) for. Single map releases are quite common for Quake but dont seem to be the norm for HL or other mission/episode based games.
As far as visuals go, they really depend on the quality of the mapper and the experience with the engine. As has already been pointed out, some spectacular mappage has been produced over the last year or two despite the age and limitations of the engine.
Maybe that helps, that`s about as simply as I can explain it.
Monsto
#17 posted by nitin [61.9.128.174] on 2003/05/05 02:51:29
this is as simply as I can explain it without sounding too fanyboyish/melodramatic:
DM mapping - this is simply because some mappers prefer the DM of Quake/QW over the more recent Multiplayer games. If you like the gameplay, there`s more incentive to map for it.
SP mapping - you can get away with any sort of setting for quake and usually the monster set doesnt look out of place. More recent games can be restrictive in terms of theme (eg RTCW and HL only really cater for realisitic or crypt/xen settings) or simply dont have enjoyable enough gameplay to map for (eg Alice). On top of that, more recent games are more time consuming and difficult to produce a quality map(s) for. Single map releases are quite common for Quake but dont seem to be the norm for HL or other mission/episode based games.
As far as visuals go, they really depend on the quality of the mapper and the experience with the engine. As has already been pointed out, some spectacular mappage has been produced over the last year or two despite the age and limitations of the engine.
Maybe that helps, that`s about as simply as I can explain it.
:)
#18 posted by Vondur [195.128.65.237] on 2003/05/05 03:18:42
what kell said...
and monsto, if you`re unable to create atmosphere with limited technology it`s your problems (weakness?). go map for your u2 engine and don`t disturb our gloom keep.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
#19 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/05/05 04:16:33
What the hell is this RTCW is realistic crap? You don't have to play it very long to get the kind of feel it's looking to create. It's kind of a comic book style, where americans are heroic, nazis are either faceless or evil, and the good guys win in the end. It's no more realistic than Indiana Jones, and I like it.
Personally, I intend to make my pushcoag map and then move on to Q3 until Doom3 comes out.
Me Likes Doom
#20 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.13] on 2003/05/05 10:36:05
but boy does it look ugly after playing q3. but my eyes adjust after a bit. like turning a light on at 3 am.
same for quake.
Realism
#21 posted by nb [203.109.254.49] on 2003/05/05 10:55:38
Fall a hundred feet in RtCW and you die. Fall a hundred feet in quake and you take five damage. Such is the measure of realism.
I Think Nitin Hit It.
#22 posted by monsto [66.170.5.18] on 2003/05/05 12:54:45
an explanation that doesnt get technical... so lemme see if i got it straight:
1) nearly universal-use monstoers
regardless of the tileset (custom or retail) the monsters tend to work without much work.
2) low quantity expectation
you can release a :10 sp and not get panned for a short map.
3) short dev time
the lack of sp features means you don't spend a week scripting one room. Q1 sp can be knocked out in fairly short order.
ok THAT i understand. these are SIMPLE things that keep mapping SIMPLE. and any mapper should be able to appreciate that.
Also...
#23 posted by Auhsan [62.43.17.162] on 2003/05/05 15:29:36
You can do a lot of different gameplay situations, without making scriptted scenes/situations that tend to look to much like "look what I can do with this scripting language and how liitle it adds to the gameplay". With q1 it is easier to make fun maps and not boring maps full of gimmicks...
IM A FANBOY! :D
Yet More
#24 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.188.180] on 2003/05/05 15:48:53
All mappers are like this: they get a map idea and then make a map around it. Some ideas are more like adventrures and are better for SP, while some are better for arenas and thus DM is the choice. Now you get down to "Why Q1 and not something else" and that reason is probably because of the aforementioned abundance of Q1 texture sets and the ability of the Q1 monsters to fit in there.
Also, I continue to map for Q1 because I have at least 9 maps that I've either started and want to finish or want to start. The number of maps for other mappable games combined is something like 3. I credit this to the abundance or Q1 textures and themes, plus the great baddies.
I'm sure that many other people (such as metlslime) are like me in that they have lots of maps they want to make, but not enough time.
Nothing Left To Say
#25 posted by Leafface [213.197.84.195] on 2003/05/12 22:51:44
I can`t say anything more, I have lots of strong thoughts and opinions about this topic, but i could only repeat the posts above. These thoughts above are the same that i formulate in my mind each and every day. Now i`m glad to read them posted by other people! :)
Summed up: the title of this thread can be answerred based on 3 general topics. If one person would write a 1000 paged book about Quake, maybe these 3 topics should be the 3 chapters of the book:
#1: The base singleplayer game in Quake is very extensive, each monster is different from the other, which enables infinite possibilities for making any kind of levels, and that`s that best way to set imaginations and creativity free. (The rest above.)
#2: The physics in Quake, the harmony of the weapons enable endless joy in playing, and makes quake deathmatch the best multiplayer game ever. (The rest above.)
#3: The main purpose of Quake was to create a real 3D fps-game, which should have been very amusing too. And therefore Quake is not an everyday industrialized money-eating spectacularity-trendmassgame, but it's a whole new world. It`s not a GAME. Every map for Quake itself is a unique GAME.
Of course these topics accord to each other in some ways, but it`s a good way to analyze the gift of Quake in all spheres.
.
#26 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/05/12 23:14:45
"It`s not a GAME."
It's only a game.
...
#27 posted by underworldfan [172.170.46.150] on 2003/05/13 23:32:15
Quake is not an everyday industrialized money-eating spectacularity-trendmassgame.
i like that, and whats more, its true. :0)
It's Good
#28 posted by spentron [66.33.195.194] on 2003/05/14 12:04:08
Yes it's only a game but are all levels part of the same game or are they really all unique games? It's really a slippery slope with no definite answer. Just a different level is still unique and it did not exist when the original "game" came out. On the other hand, is Unreal 2003 even a different game than Quake? They're both FPSs based on the same thing (basically the obvious combination of DooM and full 3D), the only difference is that everything is rewritten and replaced and some new stuff has been added and some stuff has been removed. Maybe it's partially intent that make the difference. Many Quake levels, for example, flaunt their similarities to the original levels more than the differences. Even this is not clear, since often the idea is to combine similarity and difference.
It'd argue that it's possible for a Quake level or mod (DMSP maybe) to be more of a new game than some new "games"... at least regarding positive differences ;) .
Spentron
#29 posted by underworldfan [172.200.41.70] on 2003/05/14 23:20:31
you make a valid and well explained point. ;)
No
#30 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/05/15 01:02:16
It's only a matter of semantics masquerading as a matter of philosophy.
Pushplay.
#31 posted by underworldfan [172.150.46.223] on 2003/05/15 03:27:38
No its not!
[ok, we can stop now]
Pushplay
#32 posted by wrath [217.211.83.31] on 2003/05/15 08:19:19
that should be the tagline of the entire internet.
Yes
#33 posted by spentron [66.33.195.194] on 2003/05/15 11:39:42
It's semantics but semantics are usually used to trivialize levels and mods compared to "games" ... a difference suddenly overlooked in the eyes of certain media as soon as the add-on is of commercial origin.
...
#34 posted by om9zer [208.180.249.170] on 2003/05/16 00:12:27
ah lets all go outside and get some fresh air shall we?
Mmhm
#35 posted by Kell [82.41.48.30] on 2003/05/16 00:21:46
good call...
gah! green shit everywhere and...no roof!!
Besides
#36 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.13] on 2003/05/16 08:47:47
it's raining in the fucking uk
R_speeds...
#37 posted by Drannerz [213.123.142.221] on 2003/05/17 14:58:41
If you're looking for maps with high poly counts, download dranzdm7. I went a bit wild with the brush work.
I Agree
#38 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.13] on 2003/05/21 07:08:20
i was gonna mention it in the r_speeds discussion in the other thread. my pc seems to slow down A LOT on the dynamic lighting, guess my cheapo Geforce replica is a bit shit!
Daftpunk
#39 posted by Mr Fribbles [203.20.229.2] on 2003/05/21 07:14:59
Not really, I think its more to do with the fact that dynamic lighting (at least with the way it is implemented in glQuake) has a massive performance hit; it would cut my frame rate down by like 50% on my older cards (TNT2, Geforce2) whenever there were any dynamic lights active.
I assume that's why glquake included gl_flashblend, even though it looked crap; much faster than enabling dynamic lighting.
And it might also explain why the dynamic lighting in Q3 is done differently; its much faster, but it doesn't seem to light world geometry (doesn't affect the lightmaps?).
Orb's Consideration
#40 posted by MadFox [217.121.107.58] on 2003/05/22 23:19:08
Pfew, that's a lot English for an Outlander...
Have read all above becomes almost to much,but...first let me be the ButHead who says,I don't get it, how do you win.
I am almost constantly mapping the last seven years for Quake1, for the only reason
I must be Q1SP-warped.
All games are great, but there is only One Quake! And that's Quake1. Forget the lather.
Never seen a good medieval monster in a cleenswept castle, and if I did, I stopped believing.
Quake2 made it so future-alike, as wearing Visors.
The reason I can't stop mapping is because I can't forget the Q1Single Player event.
All right, go for Dm, but it's lost for me.
Sometimes have the feeling,
Deathmatch killed the SinglePlayer Star.
Great cheer for Kell there, explaning lots of
intuïtive passion.
Running to get my bunch of singleplayer maps toasted and beta tested.
Great thread!
Greetings , MadFox

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2011 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.