Func_Msgboard: Games With Feeling. "Mood Factor?"

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

|  | Games With Feeling. "Mood Factor?"

Posted by ELEK [24.50.194.71] on 2003/01/20 12:24:52

Okay, this might sound a bit odd but I have been spending alot of time lately analyzing games trying to figure out what the magic hook is that separates really atmospheric games from games which are simply like running through a series of rooms. Why have I become so attatched to the Quake feel? What is the source of the Quake feel? What are the "mood factors" in games? I came up with a couple more questions.
What is it that makes a game have a feeling? Or overall mood? Is it lighting? Is it color? In some ways Quake's limited color pallete is frustrating, yet in another way it is the one element which is unified throughout the game, thereby possibly making it a "mood factor"
I was recently looking at pictures of Unreal2, and while there is tons of detail in many of the images, and the landscapes look pretty, there seems to be no interlocking design concept. Everything appears to be slapped together, okay these purple lights will look cool here! I felt similiarly about Unreal, UT, and later Quake2 maps. Of course I will have to play the game to make final judgement, this is only a pre-conception based upon the images.
How does one go about establishing a world theme? I compare this to LOTR, the designers came up with a basic rules or relationships in design of the architecture of each race and stuck to these rules. These rules spread to effect everything from clothing, to weapons and armour. Therefore Gimli's armour, axes and clothing look like they could have been forged in the depths of Moria itself. The character of Gimli appeared to belong to his surroundings, much as the hobbits, elves, wizards, and humans fit their surroundings. These ideas are applicable for movies, but how does it work in terms of game design? How can we include these concepts in the designs of our "modifications" to make the existing game architecture better?
More later?.......I love the pimp icon

On The Other End Of The Spectrum...
#1 posted by necros [172.167.76.204] on 2003/01/20 18:37:37
i've been playing morrowind recently, and the game's areas are built with prefab objects which are glued together to form the environment. not just candle holders and torches, i'm talking the entire environment. doors, tunnels, structures, etc... this makes everything very consistent... deadric shrines look deadric, with all the common telltale signs: funky angles, purple textures, strange arches, cramped outside terraces and spherical suspended things. the dwemer ruins all look dwemer, there are tall towers with peaks, and rusty tubes, pipes, etc...
same thing for the interiors, all daedric shrines have the same sharp, menacing walls, sudden drop offs, and angled stairways. dwemer ruins all have rusted, ancient looking walls, pipes running through them, etc...
basically, it works really, really good to provide a consistent atmosphere and look to the respective areas... for about the first four hours. the thing is, this game is so huge, and there are dozens of daedric shrines and dwemer ruins to find, (this is not the main plot of the game, btw...) and this results to the "you've seen one daedric shrine, you've seen them all" types of things. i'm sure it sped up the build process but damn, it's gets repetitive.
sticking to the same architechture can get very boring after a while. in one map releases, or a half-dozen map unit, that's ok. just make sure you've got enough variation in your style for an entire game.
(not only that, but i could pick out certain underground tunnel sections... there was this one prefab, that had a curving walkway which would curve downward a level, with a stalactite in the center of the curve...)
so i'm sort of happy that games are making much more variety in their building. obviously, this will lead to the 'slapped together' feeling, because sometimes that's probably what they did (maybe, i dunno for sure...) to keep things different.
dunno if this is what you were talking about or anything, but... <shrug>
Title Goes Here
#2 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/01/21 00:31:26
"Quake's limited color pallete"
Technical limitations often lead to style. Tron is my favorite example, but there are others.
Quake
#3 posted by nitin [202.161.105.218] on 2003/01/21 01:01:14
just my take on quake. IMHO, strong art direction usually leads to game's style and if its good art direction, to its mood. Quake was peculiar because IMHO the art design wasnt very coherent and consistent but it still worked. There were a lot of different styles used (base, medieval, gothic, metal, whatever epsiode 4 was) without any real coherency, yet it all seemed to work. The same can be said of the monsters, who although being a good set of enemies, are not very consistent in their design. Obviously this has contributed to the extraordinary custom lifespan of the game, creating flexibility an versatality, but imagine Quake without any mapping tools. If it was just the retail game with the ID set of levels. They game would still be moody yet inconsistent, fun without being great. I'm at a loss to explain why it's art direction works when something that's been worked on for years (eg Unreal 2) doesnt show much style/mood (albeit in screenshots).
I've seen some of the concept art for U2, and it looked very stylized and moody, the modellers, skinners and mappers have done a damn good job recreating that concept art, but all put together, it just doesnt look as good as the original pieces. I'm still looking forward to U2, mainly because of Rorshach's skinwork and Legend's awesome set of Unrealed level designers, but it's not something that draws you in straight away (like say Alice).
Alice is a game IMHO that had very strong and successful art direction. It creates a mood and style seamlessly throughout the various areas in the game andis well complemented int eh sound/music department to enhance this too. If the gameplay was slightly better and mapping tools were available, this would be a fantastic game for the custom mapping scene.
Q2
#4 posted by daftpunk [147.197.236.119] on 2003/01/21 05:48:12
lets face it quake was flawed from the start. you just gotta admit that when you read any of romero's rants about what was missed in the game. fact is, it was ambitious at the start and the way it came out (with a leg chopped) was unusual and set the start for good dm play (doom2 was never as good in dm) and radical new sp maps by unknown authors.
i find other games just as good. they just came later. i dont think they are worse. it's like a catchy song. another one in the same pattern may not be catchy at all, just because it came AFTERWARDS
quake 2 IS GOOD. just i dont like the original sp maps in some of the bases. the textures are cool, just people sometimes use the wrong ones. i love retinals maps for example
.
#5 posted by Aardappel [217.7.138.114] on 2003/01/21 08:42:44
I think it gets harder and harder in games to define a particular "mood style" as more becomes possible.
One game that does this insanely well recently is warcraft 3, the style of all geometry and texturing in the game is so consistent and has its own style, which elevates the atmosphere to higher levels.
Doom funnily enough has very inconsistent graphics, but the technological limitations make it coherent again, compared to modern games.
Oh And
#6 posted by Aardappel [217.7.138.114] on 2003/01/21 08:48:14
another game with a consistent own style is gothic (I am now playing gothic II). I can safely say this game has some of the most "styleful" geometry I have ever seen... the large landscapes in this game are all handcrafted polygon by polygon, and it makes it endlessly atmospheric.
Really?
#7 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.12] on 2003/01/21 15:16:23
pre-drawn by artists or am i misunderstanding it...?
Also
#8 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/01/21 17:12:02
Serious Sam is another game (pair of games) with a consistant style. Massive well lit levels and hordes of enemies.
Maybe you could create style simply by crafting the game engine to have an unusual set of stengths and weaknesses. Like RedFaction should have been created to allow long draw distances so that the blowing up walls could be used to great effect, rather than being the gimic it is in a par for the course fps.
Yeah
#9 posted by nitin [202.161.105.92] on 2003/01/21 19:43:11
but serious sam doesnt really have any mood IMHO, it's mindless fun but not too atmospheric despite consistent style.
As for warcraft3, many skinners have criticised the skins in that game on a technical level, and I'd have to disagree with you on the consistent style in that game. Some skins look downright cartoony whereas others like the orc warlord have been done in a more realistic sense. But again IMHO it works.
Mood
#10 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/01/21 19:53:17
I would say Serious Sam does have a mood. It's just a light hearted mood, rather than the dark moods we so frequently encounter in fps games.
Perhaps
#11 posted by nitin [202.161.105.92] on 2003/01/21 20:24:06
I guess it just doesnt strike a chord with me. Light hearted mood and FPS dont work well with me, except NOLF/NOLF2 which were light hearted in the right places.
Nolf
#12 posted by daftpunk [147.197.236.119] on 2003/01/22 07:28:09
havent played it yet but i really want to. from mag and net reviews it totally convinced me. i guess i like some of the realism in it (less monsters, more "spy" and "secret agent" activity)
Nolf/nolf2
#13 posted by nitin [202.161.111.199] on 2003/01/22 09:14:25
it's one of the best FPS's even though it's set in a relaistic environement. Some of the level design is very innovative and atmospheric, it has animation to die for and it's damn funny. Well worth getting.
How About Daikatana
#14 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.12] on 2003/01/22 11:24:42
no, i dont mean it was fab or anything. i mean what do you guys think about the stile and "world" of ion's game?
heh, romero put all the things he wanted in quake into daikatana. pity he took bloody ages to make it and then it sucked...although i LOVE some of the textures. what on earth is going on with duke4? can someone at least put big thing in the news (CNN BBC everywhere) to say it's dead so nobody will worry about it anymore? if it's alive then 3drealms must be a bunch of self indulgents. like ferrari taking 8 years to design their new model. pah!
R
#15 posted by mr [217.195.70.230] on 2003/01/22 23:26:16
Mixing up consistency, mood and style aren't we
H
#16 posted by nitin [203.45.32.191] on 2003/01/23 00:38:26
well,
I think there has to be some consistency in style for there to be mood so they are overlapping qualities.
Quake 1: The Perfect Combination?
#17 posted by underworldfan [172.154.108.123] on 2003/01/24 15:59:45
dont really know if this fits in here, but its seems ok...
i was just playing a Q1SP map today...and i was suddenly struck by one of the reasons quake 1 has such a strong atmosphere.
Its has an almost perfect combination of abstract nightmarish elements and real world physics reality.
think about old games (really old) like Outrun or R-type or space invaders. They were completely abstract, you had no illusion the game was real, but it was still fun; but gamers wanted something more real (note not *totally* real).
Now think of games today eg Medal of Honor, BF1942, Grad Prix 4, they are the other end of the spectrum, almost (only limited by current technology) totally realistic, and almost constricted and hampered by that reality, so that the gameplay looses some of its fun.
Now think of Quake, released in 1996, in many ways its right in the middle of the abstract/reality spectrum. This works on two levels, both in terms of the graphics/architecture and the gameplay.
As i was playing today i was struck by how ID took totally "unrealistic" things, eg large floating weapons, shamblers, quad power ups, flying gibs, but THEN APPLIED "real world physics" sounds etc to them, this is IDs genius, not to be constrained either by reality but at the same time to make there make-believe abstraction follow real-world physcis and rules, and so make the player feel he is really in a *make-believe* world.
Its just like the actual architecture of a quake 1 map: the map itself is not "realistic": you dont have things in real life made of metal, or floating in space, or a castle with lots of weird lifts where monsters just sit and wait for someone to try to kill them. And yet the architecture of a quake 1 map is realistic in a way say ..doom, never was. Its true 3d, rooms above rooms, you can look up and down, proper physics, sound that is sourced etc etc.
So it seems to me quake is the perfect combination of abstraction and reality.
Um
#18 posted by nitin [203.45.32.191] on 2003/01/24 19:38:47
underworldfan,
you could say that about any non-realistic FPS with a 3d engine couldnt you?
O_O
#19 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/01/24 22:22:25
"this is IDs genius"
Didn't you just spend half of that post saying Id was simply in the right place at the right time?
As Has Been Said 10 Before
#20 posted by Vodka [81.3.153.4] on 2003/01/24 22:37:33
Don`t make game worlds realistic, make them belivable.
Nitin
#21 posted by underworldfan [172.142.117.68] on 2003/01/24 23:25:32
Well possibly, but i just feel the balance is perfect in Quake. See unreal (for example) is (ironically enough) too "unreal" for me, its too cartoony, bright primary colors, wimpy weapons, its doesnt feel as realistic/believable as quake to me.
IMHO
#22 posted by nitin [203.45.32.191] on 2003/01/24 23:37:26
wimpy weapons and bright primary colors is more a personal taste matter rather than a believability/realism matter. I mean you could easily argue the opposite and say that unreal (or any other game) is much more believable/realistic than quake.
I still think that it was a fluky fusion of perfect amibent sound and music, excellent but incoherent art design (leading to increased versatility), nice blend of different types of monsters and more unrealistic physics than are present in modern games.
Go On Underworldfan
#23 posted by Snaga [217.211.219.80] on 2003/01/25 16:41:33
I think you're on to some thing here.
I lost interest, and was really disapointed in Q2 for the reason that it was to cartoony coparing to Q1. The game had lost it's salty feeling, maby meaning the feeling of "reality"...
Magic Reality?
#24 posted by Fat Controller [203.98.50.150] on 2003/01/25 17:48:20
I haven't tried determining what made Quake work so well, but I'm beginning to suspect that it's some element of the fantastic that I can't quite define yet.
The weaponry is certainly eclectic - high-tech lightning guns and rocket launchers, paired with shotguns and a bloody great axe.
Perhaps it's the environments. The lighting is not particularly realistic, but, as Underworldfan suggests, you have little or no idea what to expect next. The maps have a grim, dark, inhuman ambience.
The monster selection is equally eclectic: modern, medieval, and bestial, yet they all work well.
Comparing to Q2, part of the problem seems to be that Q2's gameworld is too well defined. It's quite unequivocally a sci-fi adventure, so all the weapons are suitably futuristic, the structures are all futuristic (and not particularly alien,) and what's waiting around the corner? Oh, some robot with human bits attached. What's waiting at the end? Another, bigger, robot with human bits tacked on.
I guess part of the problem with the latest crop of games is that their worlds are too well defined: Here's a WWII game with zombies. Here's a WWII game with soldiers and tanks. Here's a game with monsters overrunning a modern research lab.
The magic's gone: you already know what's likely to be around the corner, so no cause for fearful speculation. The only time something comes out of left field is when you set off a teleport trap.
Fatty
#25 posted by nitin [203.45.32.191] on 2003/01/25 21:31:06
yep, that's the inconsistent yet effective art direction (the not as well-defined as modern games bit that you talk about) that I was talking about.
And actually, I'd have to say you got the nail on the head there fatty. It's actually the lack of realism in some parts (ie lighting, strecthed skins etc) which give the game a more gritty and fantastic feel that most modern games lack.
Gritty!
#26 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/01/25 21:41:40
That's an excellent word for it.
The textured grit/rust/deterioration feels more plastic in more modern games than it does in Q1.
I Did? Gawrsh.
#27 posted by Fat Controller [203.98.50.150] on 2003/01/26 03:39:38
I was only guessing... <smile>
My prediction for the next few years in FPS games will be a move away from realism and towards techniques like cel-shading.
I personally feel that the hyperreal FPS market is approaching saturation, and with the argument about videogame violence still raising its head every now and then (GTA3), companies need to look sideways for any potential edge in the genre.
Maybe that's the issue I was trying to raise. Q1 allowed lots of "sideways movement"; Q2 didn't, partly due to tech constraints (*cough* .wal files *cough*) and partly due to direction. Imagine if there had been more wildlife on Stroggos... or if they'd been into biotechnology... or transdimensional steampunk invaders... or a collective of alien races.
The trick being, of course, to work out just how much "sideways movement" is allowable.
Beting My Hat On It
#28 posted by Vodka [81.3.153.105] on 2003/01/26 22:42:15
realism will stay
Music And Mapping.
#29 posted by ELEK [24.50.194.71] on 2003/01/27 00:49:10
I was posting in the music and mapping thread when something that I normally consider when comparing the atmosphere of Quake to other games popped into my head.
The sound effects in Quake are also relatively eclectic/fantastical.....Come to think of it, I recall sitting down in a restaurant with a friend, about a week after Quake came out, we had been playing loads of dm online and the waiter came over.....someone's silverware clanked, and I felt the sudden urge to spin around and see who the hell was firing a nailgun in my direction.
I really think the soundscape in Quake is top-notch. When I consider the explosions in the game, they really seem to fit the spaces which one creates when designing quake maps. The sound seems to reverberrate off the walls and ceiling. Then of course we can talk about the gib sounds all day. I still remember the first time I gibbed a zombie, and got this incredibly organic sound. The one .wav file could be likened to the last gasp of breath escaping a partially blocked airway....
Then of course you have all the idle sounds of the monsters...the shamblers stomp grunts...the dragging chainsaw, so on and so forth.
Under The Skin
#30 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.13] on 2003/01/29 14:04:33
i think what quake 1 has is unrealistic things under a believably grotty, rough and tough outer skin. that's why the lack of polish can look good.
in quake 2 new engine capabilities and other things kinda made the world look too new. like it's never been used before (out of the box).
in quake 1 all the lightning and science fiction in it is covered in nice rusty metal and old oak and flames and all. new games have to TRY to be unpolished by adding things afterwards. i think quake 3 and unreal look too shiny, too smooth, too colourful, and too much like starwars. i have to admit doom was a bit like that but i wont slate it because i still love it. like giger making his art look realistic, so do quake textures, architecture and physics. unreal quake 3 hardly scares me, more like playing paintball with someone who has 10x better vision than me and always seems to hit me first shot (bots)
Suggestions
#31 posted by nane [24.92.226.42] on 2003/02/20 14:24:00
Ockham's Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
I think many of you are overlooking a simple fact.
Quake is fun.
It was a groundbreaking technological innovation coupled with a never-before-seen threshold of a successful, competitive concept; get them before they get you.
The game is now so ingrained into the hearts and minds of many people (especially on this forum) that it has achieved a cult-like status. And as such, games released afterward were and still are very often compared to it. Whether they realize it or not, many people form the opinion that a game is bad simply because it is not like Quake. This is incorrect. Good does not always mean "like what was before". Good comes in an infinite amount of flavors and it is NOT a matter of preference, as so many seem to believe.
Take Quake 2. Quake 2 is a good game. It was again groundbreaking technology, though perhaps not to the same degree as Quake, as the jump from two dimensions to three was substantial. But, groundbreaking nonetheless in a different way then Quake. Quake 2 is oriented around single player campaigns, not multiplay. It was one of the first games to group multiple maps into cohesive units which provided for a massively enhanced ability to generate the feeling and atmosphere of "place", Half-Life later expanded this concept further. Anyway, it's not bad, just different.
I do not care to debate specifics about Quake's atmosphere and themes versus that of other games. Those things are, while they can greatly enhance or detract from an otherwise sound foundation, missing the point. Quake did it well even if it was accidental. But likewise, Quake 2 also did it well. Fat Controller, I don't mean to single you out, but your comments about Quake 2's monsters being uneventful are a perfect example. While in fact I similarly agree with you, those statements are your personal taste and should not be confused with whether or not Quake 2 is good. The monsters in Quake 2 fit the theme and did their job. Simply because they are not compatible with Quake does not mean they are poorly done. In terms of overall cohesion, id software greatly improved in Quake 2 from Quake. But it came at the cost of thematic variety, which many dislike.
Anyway, most people, myself included, are more apt to generate opinions about things based on personal taste and not on "what is good". One must learn not to do this, but instead learn to recognize what is good. This does not mean you have to like it.
Simply put, know the difference between Good and Taste
And finally, I must apologize for the lack of my ability to present a proper definition and understanding of what Good is because often I have trouble figuring it out myself. But understand this: it is the reason why paintings that look like a toddler painted them are hanging in national museums and are worth ALOT.
Because People Confuse Taste With Good?
#32 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.26] on 2003/02/20 14:58:13
Or because there's just a lot of money in "new"?
Toddler-like paintings etc pretend, they emulate quality under a unified theme of gimmicky presentation. It may be "good", but good will never take precidence over taste if that good means nothing to those who must buy it and look at it.
Sure there are lot of different flavors. But the ones like "burnt rubber" and "pickles with mice innards" tend to target a bit more selective audience, rather than the general public. The average guy out there is smart enough not to fill his walls with expensive paintings just because that's what's in at the moment. Especially if the other average guys are coming over for a beer and a game of poker and might see it.
However, Quake2 was good. It wasn't perfect or really that interesting to those who liked the Quake flavor. In that sense, neither was quake3. People who changed games had to change their taste too. The tastes weren't bad, but they were different enough from what everyone had grown to like, that it was next to suicide to put them under the same name.
So, while I don't agree with you on the quality of distasteful splatters of paint on a greasy canvas, I do agree that Quake2 had a great deal of quality that was lost in the conversion it required.
I still didn't like it nearly as much as other games tho. Chock it up to taste I suppose.
Honestly
#33 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/02/20 19:53:38
I cannot remember the last time a game was seriously compared to quake.
Pushplay
#34 posted by nitin [203.185.246.193] on 2003/02/20 21:55:09
you obviously havent been around long enough then :)
Nitin
#35 posted by pushplay [24.86.74.102] on 2003/02/20 22:49:04
I didn't fall off the back of the gaming truck yesterday. :P
Nane...
#36 posted by distrans [203.29.131.3] on 2003/02/21 00:44:41
Let's get it right:
"The simplest explanation tends to be the right one."
Is very different from:
The simplest or most obvious explanation of several competing ones is the one that should be preferred until it is proven wrong
/me takes off his pedantic philosopher's hat
Beep Beep
#37 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/21 01:08:15
http://wotug.ukc.ac.uk/parallel/ww...
Ya Metlslime
#38 posted by distrans [203.29.131.3] on 2003/02/21 02:27:10
killjoy knows:
http://www.planetquake.com/killjoy...
Hehehe
#39 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.220] on 2003/02/21 10:51:13
Smart man, that Ockham. Ahead of his time.
Um..
#40 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.251.42] on 2003/02/21 12:57:45
I'm curious. What does KJDM10 have to do with Ockam's Razor?
RPG
#41 posted by nane [24.92.226.42] on 2003/02/21 18:49:48
Nothing. That's quite obvious.
distrans KISS is not the same thing as Ockham's Razor.
Doh
#42 posted by nane [24.92.226.41] on 2003/02/21 18:56:29
KISS, implies a method for approaching a problem. I am mistaken, according to the link provided by metlslime.
From dictionary.com
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.
I misinterpretted it thinking KISS was something applied to generating a theory, whereas Ockham's Razor was used to determine which, if competing theories were created, to choose.
I apologize distrans.
Q2
#43 posted by daftpunk [147.197.200.13] on 2003/02/21 19:01:46
shoot me with a rl but i like q2 dm (and nail me too for not playing that much q2sp for that matter) as much as qdm. reinstalling q3 reminded me of that. i love q3 custom maps, i should download weapon packs and mods cos i dont like the standard armament.
arguments tend to get a bit strange when half-life is mentioned because it didnt invent 3d, it didnt invent dm, it didnt invent nice browny metaly worlds. it just...was really really good sp. so proves that there is hope for next gen 3d games.
oh, anyone really waiting for doom3? hope its awesome but i wish id did less work on engines and more on levels... /me grumbles too much i guess...
Id Needs To Branch Out
#44 posted by . [172.150.187.87] on 2003/02/21 21:52:58
They do FPS's well but I'd like to see them do some other genre's, or at least crossovers. I'm looking forward to Doom 3, but I'm a bit afraid of the machine req's.
I'm also tired of the fight aliens/evil guys plots. The abundance of military shooters was refreshing but almost too much. We need some more genius stories and gameplay.
How Can Id Be Stuck In A Rut....
#45 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/22 08:47:33
when we're still mapping for Quake 1?
Metl
#46 posted by nonentity [80.40.78.133] on 2003/02/22 10:03:29
Speak for yourself :p
Actually, having said that I am tempted :)
#47 posted by Vigil [193.229.6.165] on 2003/02/22 10:50:39
Good comes in an infinite amount of flavors and it is NOT a matter of preference, as so many seem to believe.
Hmm... I'm now going ignore everything else in that post and concentrate on this one single quote. Good is not a matter of preference, if one believes that Good is entirely objective, that there's some kind of giant sphere with the word "GOOD" on it out there, and that the sphere is the essence of good, and it does not depend on anything else but itself.
However, if we define Good to be entirely subjective, then Good is a matter of preference. Don't you just hate me now?
Vigil
#48 posted by nane [24.92.226.220] on 2003/02/22 13:06:44
I hate you.
Vigil:
#49 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/22 13:22:48
you create a distinction between objective and subjective definitions of 'good.' But you fail to make a more important distinction between "subjective to a person" and "subjective to a large group of people."
That Might Have Had A Point...
#50 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/22 13:24:55
But it didn't. I don't even know what the conversation is about.
#51 posted by Vigil [193.229.6.165] on 2003/02/22 18:59:19
I hate you.
My work here is done.
Vigil
#52 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.29] on 2003/02/24 15:01:18
I hate you. But that's because I hate myself. And clowns. You'd better not be a sad clown.
I have seen the pretty sphere of good. I keep in the fishbowl in my apartment. I know I shouldn't, but every day or so I take a little out to use on myself. Maybe one day there won't be any left...
Oh Dear!
#53 posted by distrans [203.29.131.3] on 2003/02/24 19:58:21
That's where it went. Look Wazat, if you could see yourself free to letting that little bundle out of the bowl the world would be very grateful.
And Nane...
#54 posted by distrans [203.29.131.3] on 2003/02/24 20:07:32
No need for an apo...just me gearing up for the new semester :)
/me ignores RPG
Bundle? Bowl?
#55 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/25 14:29:50
drug culture slang is so confusing.
Quake
#56 posted by Blitz [66.119.33.170] on 2003/02/26 19:13:24
I don't know who mentioned it (Fatty maybe?) but they said Quake is good because it's fun. This is true.
Quake is fun because it has a brooding, underworld theme. It just feels like you're underground in some land that developed deep below the earth. The colors are drab and the monsters are stupid beasts.
I think that where Quake 2 and alot of other games went somewhat wrong was the desire to make the technology shine.
For example, right as you're hurdled into Q2, your space pod has crashed into a pseudo-realistic base. Planes are humming over head and human-looking soldiers are shooting at you with very realistic and very weak guns.
With the advent of the graphics card, I think alot of game developers did try to recreate the Quake feel except with shiny new technology.
The problem is that they forgot that what made Quake shine was its inability to dazzle. The game stands as a monument to the perfect mix of technology and imagination. There is enough technology to immerse, but it is not real enough to make us lose our imagination. ;)
Uh...
#57 posted by nane [24.92.226.40] on 2003/02/26 19:25:52
Blitz, maybe you should reread what I said in 'Suggestions' Post #31.
Quake 2 is not bad.
...and
#58 posted by nane [24.92.226.40] on 2003/02/26 19:30:47
...Quake was shining with technology. Or don't you remember? Truely 3D environments with models and not sprites was unheard of for FPS when Quake was released.
Quake was shiny new technology. The BSP engine.
And how does something being more "real" or vivid cause imagination to dwindle? I feel that it is quite the opposite.
-
#59 posted by Fat Controller [203.98.50.151] on 2003/02/26 21:09:41
Truely 3D environments with models and not sprites was unheard of for FPS when Quake was released.
That was the stun point for me: Being able to look down on a box of ammo and then realising "Hey! That's the top of the box! It actually has a top! THIS PLACE IS TRUE 3D MAN!!"
Yep, that was my lemon-around-gold-brick time.
QUAKE
#60 posted by Vodka [81.3.154.162] on 2003/02/26 22:53:09
quake was just evile
What other game made you jump when a monster suddenly appeared ? Was there anything after the quake that immersed you into nightmareish bloody raw meat outworld ?
Having played e1 the first time I really felt the need to go outside to breathe a fresh air and to check if sun is still shining, just to keep me content. Quake was a damn thriller of a game.
And years later it still was superior to most of the modern games. Thats why I came back to quake in 99 .
What other sp shooter can compare to quake`s atmosphere (and to me it includes all - sounds, music, lighting, world, all art and design) and has really great gamplay ? (except Doom, tho half doom2 maps suck)
Maybe some avp1/2 missions. RTCW zombie dungeons were cool and rather spooky (good sounds and light) but they dint come close to quake.
True quake was frist engine of its kind (full 3d, dynamic lightmaps, polygonal models etc) but it was THE Game.
Speedy.
#61 posted by underworldfan [172.154.151.245] on 2003/02/27 01:55:12
indeed.
Hmm
#62 posted by nonentity [212.140.122.68] on 2003/02/27 02:47:17
"Quake is fun because it has a brooding, underworld theme"
fun = theme (graphics)?
Hum
#63 posted by Vigil [193.229.6.165] on 2003/02/27 05:35:22
What other game made you jump when a monster suddenly appeared?
Doom, Doom II, System Shock, System Shock II, Alien vs. Predator, Alien vs. Predator II, some (sadly only some) parts of Half-Life etc. Hell, even Medal of Honor was terrific when the demo first came out, playing in a dark room with a large monitor and some good speakers. It was intense, it was immersive, and it just oozed atmosphere.
Plenty of other very atmospheric games out there, including shooters, that also have good gameplay.
Okay Wrath, You May Get Your Wish.
#64 posted by metlslime [12.231.113.167] on 2003/02/27 14:30:52
What other game made you jump when a monster suddenly appeared ?
Super Mario Brothers.
Hmmm...
#65 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.27] on 2003/02/27 15:16:51
>And how does something being more "real" or vivid cause imagination to dwindle? I feel that it is quite the opposite.
Agreed. I loved the technology feel of Dino Crisis 1 and 2. It was so believable and real feeling. It was scary. Everyone loved the Resident Evil games but Dino Crisis has an intelligent raptor chasing me through a base that very much resembles todays technology in some ways (as well as allusions to the management system, hehe), and was very much more advanced in others. It was a beautiful, intense, realistic "feeling" game.
I can say the same of metal gear solid.
Quake
#66 posted by Blitz [66.119.33.170] on 2003/02/27 17:24:46
Yes in a sense it does cause imagination to dwindle. Which is more stimulating, television or books?
OK what I mean to say is that Quake does (or did) have cutting edge technology in the sense that it had true 3D and a copious palette. But it does not have the visuals that a UT2K3 has, and that is to it's benefit.
There is room in the mind to "fill in the blanks" when playing Quake. You imagine the Quake world without actually seeing it in expanse or minute detail -- and therein lies the fun of it =)
Strange...
#67 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.220] on 2003/02/28 10:39:58
I just like the way it plays.
Why Quake Has My Mind By The Balls...
#68 posted by Gleeb [217.40.46.243] on 2003/03/07 08:55:53
Originality. That's about all.
The zombies rip flash from themselves and throw it at you... and without explosives/quad, those suckers JUST WON'T DIE!
In the 7/8 years since I first played quake, I don't remember anything as scary as, for example, E1M2's Jumpy Feind... I got killed lots there, until I realised the moving blocks trick...
Now the big teddy... our friend the Shambler... Explosives don't hurt him as bad... just like phil said, '[rockets] kill stuff'. But not our teddy... Those claws... and the lightning! I ran, let me tell ya.
Oh... and I've learned to shoot anything spewing white... friend or foe, I just don't trust it any more.
I still jump...
You just don't see originality like that any more...
Agreed
#69 posted by Wazat [144.38.206.27] on 2003/03/07 15:03:00
It's unfortunate that other games, in the race for originality, have simply given up and taken the more beaten paths.
Still, there are other genres of games that are producing interesting stuff. Even if it's not original, it can play well and scare the hell out of you. :)

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

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