there is quite a difference in people who code for quake... and people who can actually play it
That's true! I'm highly employable, and you're a smelly, overgrown teenager who works in retail.
In Q2, I don't really care for BFG or Invul.I tried Q3 for short time many years ago, I did not really care for it. I can't remember specifically why though...
That quote makes no sense.
Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy.
Who makes personal attacks against someone they say they don't care about?
Quote from: VaeVictis on January 14, 2012, 12:32:58 AMthere is quite a difference in people who code for quake... and people who can actually play it That's true! I'm highly employable, and you're a smelly, overgrown teenager who works in retail.
Quote from: Sgt. Dick on January 08, 2012, 07:05:28 AMIn Q2, I don't really care for BFG or Invul.I tried Q3 for short time many years ago, I did not really care for it. I can't remember specifically why though...I think Quake 2 got it 95% correct right out of the box. It was well paced, balanced with the emphasis on gameplay.I would drop the BFG competely. It is never used in 1 vs 1, and is too strong a weapon in FFA. I would also re-think the chaingun. Maybe less powerful so that tourney matches aren't so reliant on it. The small shotgun is very seldom used and often ignored. My first impression of Quake 3 was it was an overdose of glitzy colors and gimmickry. Because graphics cards were rapidly improving at the time, the game design seemed to slant in that direction just for it's own sake. Bouncing colored balls of health and whatever, were pointless and distracting. And the player movement was sluggish.I prefer Quake 2 as is, but with better graphics and models. But then I guess that might be Quake 4.
i honestly dont think your work is very impressive, if you want to be employable use a newer engine than idtech2 for your modding purposes... idtech4/5, source, or unreal engine 3 will all treat you much better in the industry cause people actually care about them but if your coding skills arent up to par with dealing with newer engines, its ok we understand
I think Quake 2 got it 95% correct right out of the box. It was well paced, balanced with the emphasis on gameplay.I would drop the BFG competely. It is never used in 1 vs 1, and is too strong a weapon in FFA. I would also re-think the chaingun. Maybe less powerful so that tourney matches aren't so reliant on it. The small shotgun is very seldom used and often ignored. My first impression of Quake 3 was it was an overdose of glitzy colors and gimmickry. Because graphics cards were rapidly improving at the time, the game design seemed to slant in that direction just for it's own sake. Bouncing colored balls of health and whatever, were pointless and distracting. And the player movement was sluggish.I prefer Quake 2 as is, but with better graphics and models. But then I guess that might be Quake 4.
I would be interested in contributing to this project but I'm far less of a coder than you. I'm go for mapping, making my share of textures and testing though.As for why I play Q2, I don't know. I think it has the best balance of movement physics but the weapons aren't as well balanced as Q3 or QL. I don't like QW's walls of glue and while I do really like Warsow, there are some oddities like the two movement styles thingy that make it just shy from being very awesome.I do think that you need to start with either the gauntlet/MG combo or the gauntlet with a Buffed-up Blaster. Removing some useless or redundant power-ups would also be good.