5 ms·

I'm quite curious to see what Quake would look like given a similar treatment as the new Doom games got. That is, distilled down to a pure essence of what the o

I'm quite curious to see what Quake would look like given a similar treatment as the new Doom games got. That is, distilled down to a pure essence of what the original was trying to achieve.

cubefox 3y ago
The new Doom games have little to do with the original Doom gameplay, perhaps because it wasn't that good in retrospect. For Quake there would be more potential for something like a remake.
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  Strongly disagree that the new Doom games have better gameplay than the old ones. Every fight is a giant monster trap. IMO it showcases the worst aspect of the original doom games.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > have better gameplay That isn't exactly what they said.
  - webkike 3y ago
    But gunplay and movement is the essence of Doom, unless you're saying that the best part of the original Doom games were the labyrinthine level design
    - George83728 3y ago
      > unless you're saying that the best part of the original Doom games were the labyrinthine level design Not the best part, but certainly one of the best parts. Doom and Doom 2 did labyrinths really well, much better than wolf3d (wolf's labyrinths were too samey and dull due to engine constraints) and I think better than nearly any game since. Games started foregoing labyrinths around when Half Life 1 came out (see also: Daggerfall vs Morrowind), I think because labyrinths filter plebs. But if you stick with Doom it'll teach you to have better spatial awareness that trivializes level learning in most other games. The new doom games particularly have linear level design very reminiscent of Half Life with some arena sections interspersed; they don't feel like Doom levels at all (except in very superficial ways, like "mars/hell themed".) Such modern games lend themselves to navigating levels without maintaining a working knowledge of where you've been; at each instant your navigation choices may be informed by what you see on the screen right then without regard for what you've seen before. You can play Doom that way too, you'll get to the end eventually through brute force, but Doom does an excellent job of encouraging you to do better and develop your skill. If you remember where you are in relation to where you've already been, you can anticipate when a path is looping around to where you've already been before you actually round that corner. Maintaining orientation in this way, especially in a labyrinth, is a skill Doom excels at teaching. When you get good at it, such awareness of the level instills a sense of presence that just can't be conveyed any other way. Most modern games don't try to teach it; they expect that novice players won't be good at navigation and so, in the name of accessibility and mainstream appeal, refrain from challenging those players.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Many early first-person games (pre Wolfenstein 3D) were dungeon crawlers, not shooters, so the labyrinth design of early Id games reflects that heritage. Modern single player shooters have now very much abandoned this approach in favor of linear level design (Half-Life / Call if Duty approach), or they went straight into the "open world" direction (Farcry approach), which also doesn't feature dungeon/labyrinth levels. Closer in terms of non-linear level design is perhaps Metroid Prime (which recently got a remake), but it focuses more on environmental puzzles than on shooting. There are probably indie games which are close to the original Doom formula. They often feature genres that have been neglected by big studios.
    - TheBigSalad 3y ago
      Gunplay and movement is not the essence of doom, you can't even jump or aim vertically. For me Doom is a monster blast fest on easy difficulty but becomes a strategy game on the hardest ones. A game that seems hard at first but when you find and develop the best approaches it becomes easy.
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  I would say that Doom (1993) is one of the few games of that era still kind of holds up today, the gameplay hasn't aged poorly. Can't say the same about Wolf 3D. Doom 2016 however made the right move. It wasn't out to replicate the old games but take the essence of it and re-imagine it in newer faster terms. It is not a sequel but something that stands next to the original. The focus is almost entirely on the fights but they are stacked that you actually have to plan your attack (figure out which enemy tier is most problematic) while in the middle of near absolute chaos. I get why people didn't like it but I thought it was such a brilliant homage to the original. The sequel, I wasn't too keen on.
markus_zhang 3y ago
The community pretty much brought it to a new height. The custom engine looks cool and the new map packs/mods reflect the height of Quake level design.
xwdv 3y ago
Would rather see Quake as a top down roguelike RPG.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  Doom, not Quake, but: https://drl.chaosforge.org/ https://drl.chaosforge.org/
  - xwdv 3y ago
    Need Quake RL
newsclues 3y ago
Quake Live not taking off as a popular eSports title greatly disappointed me.
- arpa 3y ago
  bethesda helped by nuking it completely.
- tekmate 3y ago
  worse even, it killed off many vibrant quake 3 communities that had been going from 1999 to 2008 because half the people started playing quake live and the other half stopped playing alltogether
  - boredemployee 3y ago
    Exactly that! They just killed a really cool (somewhat toxic) community. To me Quake World is the best multiplayer game of all time. But Quake 3 comes next and was really really fun to play. Quake Champions is a great disappointment.
    - newsclues 3y ago
      Quake Live was just Quake 3. Champions was something different. The community was on life support, and the attempt (Quake Live) wasn't enough to bring people back to good eSports, as the market had moved on from pure skill based games.
      - a_subsystem 3y ago
        It was extremely difficult to play for newcomers. You almost didn't even get a chance to frag old school players once because of the skill discrepancy. I could hang with most of the higher tier guys, but there were some that just seemed nearly invincible. They should have had more resources for developing skills. After I stopped playing, I discovered that some were playing Q3 at ramped up physics speeds in single player. When going back to playing at regular speed, it feels like you're playing in slow motion.

I'm quite curious to see what Quake would look like given a similar treatment as the new Doom games got. That is, distilled down to a pure essence of what the original was trying to achieve.

cubefox 3y ago

The new Doom games have little to do with the original Doom gameplay, perhaps because it wasn't that good in retrospect. For Quake there would be more potential for something like a remake.

TheBigSalad 3y ago
Strongly disagree that the new Doom games have better gameplay than the old ones. Every fight is a giant monster trap. IMO it showcases the worst aspect of the original doom games.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  > have better gameplay That isn't exactly what they said.
- webkike 3y ago
  But gunplay and movement is the essence of Doom, unless you're saying that the best part of the original Doom games were the labyrinthine level design
  - George83728 3y ago
    > unless you're saying that the best part of the original Doom games were the labyrinthine level design Not the best part, but certainly one of the best parts. Doom and Doom 2 did labyrinths really well, much better than wolf3d (wolf's labyrinths were too samey and dull due to engine constraints) and I think better than nearly any game since. Games started foregoing labyrinths around when Half Life 1 came out (see also: Daggerfall vs Morrowind), I think because labyrinths filter plebs. But if you stick with Doom it'll teach you to have better spatial awareness that trivializes level learning in most other games. The new doom games particularly have linear level design very reminiscent of Half Life with some arena sections interspersed; they don't feel like Doom levels at all (except in very superficial ways, like "mars/hell themed".) Such modern games lend themselves to navigating levels without maintaining a working knowledge of where you've been; at each instant your navigation choices may be informed by what you see on the screen right then without regard for what you've seen before. You can play Doom that way too, you'll get to the end eventually through brute force, but Doom does an excellent job of encouraging you to do better and develop your skill. If you remember where you are in relation to where you've already been, you can anticipate when a path is looping around to where you've already been before you actually round that corner. Maintaining orientation in this way, especially in a labyrinth, is a skill Doom excels at teaching. When you get good at it, such awareness of the level instills a sense of presence that just can't be conveyed any other way. Most modern games don't try to teach it; they expect that novice players won't be good at navigation and so, in the name of accessibility and mainstream appeal, refrain from challenging those players.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Many early first-person games (pre Wolfenstein 3D) were dungeon crawlers, not shooters, so the labyrinth design of early Id games reflects that heritage. Modern single player shooters have now very much abandoned this approach in favor of linear level design (Half-Life / Call if Duty approach), or they went straight into the "open world" direction (Farcry approach), which also doesn't feature dungeon/labyrinth levels. Closer in terms of non-linear level design is perhaps Metroid Prime (which recently got a remake), but it focuses more on environmental puzzles than on shooting. There are probably indie games which are close to the original Doom formula. They often feature genres that have been neglected by big studios.
  - TheBigSalad 3y ago
    Gunplay and movement is not the essence of doom, you can't even jump or aim vertically. For me Doom is a monster blast fest on easy difficulty but becomes a strategy game on the hardest ones. A game that seems hard at first but when you find and develop the best approaches it becomes easy.
NovaDudely 3y ago
I would say that Doom (1993) is one of the few games of that era still kind of holds up today, the gameplay hasn't aged poorly. Can't say the same about Wolf 3D. Doom 2016 however made the right move. It wasn't out to replicate the old games but take the essence of it and re-imagine it in newer faster terms. It is not a sequel but something that stands next to the original. The focus is almost entirely on the fights but they are stacked that you actually have to plan your attack (figure out which enemy tier is most problematic) while in the middle of near absolute chaos. I get why people didn't like it but I thought it was such a brilliant homage to the original. The sequel, I wasn't too keen on.

markus_zhang 3y ago

The community pretty much brought it to a new height. The custom engine looks cool and the new map packs/mods reflect the height of Quake level design.

xwdv 3y ago

Would rather see Quake as a top down roguelike RPG.

duskwuff 3y ago
Doom, not Quake, but: https://drl.chaosforge.org/ https://drl.chaosforge.org/
- xwdv 3y ago
  Need Quake RL

newsclues 3y ago

Quake Live not taking off as a popular eSports title greatly disappointed me.

arpa 3y ago
bethesda helped by nuking it completely.
tekmate 3y ago
worse even, it killed off many vibrant quake 3 communities that had been going from 1999 to 2008 because half the people started playing quake live and the other half stopped playing alltogether
- boredemployee 3y ago
  Exactly that! They just killed a really cool (somewhat toxic) community. To me Quake World is the best multiplayer game of all time. But Quake 3 comes next and was really really fun to play. Quake Champions is a great disappointment.
  - newsclues 3y ago
    Quake Live was just Quake 3. Champions was something different. The community was on life support, and the attempt (Quake Live) wasn't enough to bring people back to good eSports, as the market had moved on from pure skill based games.
    - a_subsystem 3y ago
      It was extremely difficult to play for newcomers. You almost didn't even get a chance to frag old school players once because of the skill discrepancy. I could hang with most of the higher tier guys, but there were some that just seemed nearly invincible. They should have had more resources for developing skills. After I stopped playing, I discovered that some were playing Q3 at ramped up physics speeds in single player. When going back to playing at regular speed, it feels like you're playing in slow motion.