Mikeaveli
Registered User
Between Mahvel and Majora's Mask I went with Majora's Mask. Quite easily my favourite game in the Zelda series
HF Retro Game of the Year - 2000 - Diablo II Wins!
- Thread starter SniperHF
- Start date
That's a curious statement because Counter-Strike was (and still is) immensely popular largely because it was much more hardcore than other shooters, including Quake, thanks to headshot kills, realistic weapons, having to reload, no health packs scattered around, no powerups and having only one life per round. It really allowed the best players to shine and exposed the bad ones. If you weren't good enough to stay alive and kill others before they killed you, you went and played other shooters, instead, where you could take lots of damage, run around without any concern for your own safety and simply re-spawn 15 seconds after you died. Don't get me wrong; I loved multiplayer Quake in the early years of the first and second games, but, once Counter-Strike was released, the gameplay of Quake III and other online shooters of its kind just seemed, well, juvenile, to be honest. That's not to put down anyone who played Q3 or UT, but players who weren't very good in those games would've been even more terrible in Counter-Strike.
Last edited:
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 26,395
- 33,542
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
- Jul 13, 2007
- 29,239
- 12,861
It's immensely popular because it's lowest common denominator garbage that anybody can pick up and play thanks to the low skill floor. At a high level it's obviously still better than most other modern shooters, but it is and always has been a game for people who couldn't handle the speed and mechanics of the faster games of that era.
I'm interested in hearing your definition of what a "low skill floor" is. In CS, if you were low on skill and smarts (ex. you ran out ahead of your team and around a corner without looking and/or without a fresh magazine), you could find yourself dead before you realized what hit you and then have to spectate for 2 or 3 minutes until the round ended.
To me, a low skill floor is having lots of health and heath packs scattered around, so that bad players can stay alive; carrying half a dozen weapons around at once and having ammo packs scattered around, so that bad players can waste ammo on "spraying and praying" and rarely run out; never needing to worry about reloading, especially before going around a corner or entering a room; and respawning shortly after dying, so that bad players aren't punished too much for getting themselves killed.
Features like those made Quake accessible to bad or novice players. Good players could still shine, though, by handling the speed and mechanics, as you said. Id created a game that was accessible to the greatest range of players. That's what they did with all of their games and there's nothing wrong with it, especially since it's good business. Counter-Strike, on the other hand, started out as a mod, not a product for sale, so they didn't need to worry about scaring away the "lowest common denominator" (customers who might be bad or new to online shooters) by stripping out the safety nets that I mentioned. They designed it the way that they did because they wanted something more hardcore than the Quake-style multiplayer that was around at the time.
The Quake you think and "remember" is from the stone age of that game. Quake is raw skill, there's no chance, no accidents. The better will prevail - even in 4 vs 4 team games.
Funnily enough I can't compare it to CS as I've not played that, but you should stop disrespecting Quake.
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
- Jul 13, 2007
- 29,239
- 12,861
You sound like somebody who never played Quake beyond FFA, and even then, some of the things you're describing are a higher skill component than anything in CS.
Respawning with nothing is an extreme disadvantage, especially considering starting weapons in Quake were historically awful. In Quake 3 you were one to two shots away from death upon respawning, depending on which mod you played. If you lost map control you were likely going to die several times in a row, because your opponent would have control over the armor and weapon spawns and you would have nothing. As opposed to CS, where everybody usually spawns with something useful outside of when the economy occasionally gets lopsided.
Even the movement alone in Quake 1-3 took more skill than most of Counter-Strike, and if you couldn't move well you weren't going to win. So new players (who didn't understand the movement systems well enough to control a map) had their opponents run circles around them while also cleaning up the map so that there was nothing available for them to pick up. You will never see another shooter where the skill gap is capable of being so large, and that's precisely why Quake is dead now. The entry barrier was too severe, so it never acquired new players, because new players would join a server and lose 50 - (-3) and never play the game again, whereas anybody can at least get a gun and get some kills in Counter-Strike, due to how easy it is to kill people and how the game levels the playing field in terms of equipment.
Quake had CS-like mods all along (sans bomb sites), and they were generally thought of as what the weaker players who didn't know how to control armor/health/weapon respawns would go play--which isn't to say I dislike elimination modes in either case. Things like CS and Rocket Arena are fun, but they're definitely easier to play.
Respawning with nothing is an extreme disadvantage, especially considering starting weapons in Quake were historically awful. In Quake 3 you were one to two shots away from death upon respawning, depending on which mod you played. If you lost map control you were likely going to die several times in a row, because your opponent would have control over the armor and weapon spawns and you would have nothing. As opposed to CS, where everybody usually spawns with something useful outside of when the economy occasionally gets lopsided.
Even the movement alone in Quake 1-3 took more skill than most of Counter-Strike, and if you couldn't move well you weren't going to win. So new players (who didn't understand the movement systems well enough to control a map) had their opponents run circles around them while also cleaning up the map so that there was nothing available for them to pick up. You will never see another shooter where the skill gap is capable of being so large, and that's precisely why Quake is dead now. The entry barrier was too severe, so it never acquired new players, because new players would join a server and lose 50 - (-3) and never play the game again, whereas anybody can at least get a gun and get some kills in Counter-Strike, due to how easy it is to kill people and how the game levels the playing field in terms of equipment.
Quake had CS-like mods all along (sans bomb sites), and they were generally thought of as what the weaker players who didn't know how to control armor/health/weapon respawns would go play--which isn't to say I dislike elimination modes in either case. Things like CS and Rocket Arena are fun, but they're definitely easier to play.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
Personally I sucked at both, and from what little I played don't really remember much difference in difficulty. I mean to flip things around in CS you just need to get in a lucky shot to kill someone. But either for someone like me to jump into a random server game I'd have little to no chance of getting the better of a good player while if I happen to come across another low tier there's a modest chance I could come out on top.
@syz Very much agreed. If you don't know how to bunny hop and hop over to get shortcuts (of each map), you're basically dead. Not to even mention rocket jumping or using a rocket as a speed boost to your bunny.
Basically, the only randomness in Quake came from respawns. You could get lucky with a RA spawn on DM4, but the other dude is already throwing grenades in your RA Spawn and the teleporter you come out of.This is where aim really came through, with rockets and specifically Lightning Gun "Shaft".
Likely you won't win the first 5 fights with only one decent weapon, but you keep chipping at the other guy and when you get him, then you rule the map, until he does the same.
Basically, the only randomness in Quake came from respawns. You could get lucky with a RA spawn on DM4, but the other dude is already throwing grenades in your RA Spawn and the teleporter you come out of.This is where aim really came through, with rockets and specifically Lightning Gun "Shaft".
Likely you won't win the first 5 fights with only one decent weapon, but you keep chipping at the other guy and when you get him, then you rule the map, until he does the same.
I didn't disrespect Quake. I corrected someone who was disrespecting CS. I have played and enjoyed both games, so I think that I'm qualified to give an honest comparison of them. I, too, thought that Quake required the most raw shooting skill until I played CS and realized that there was a whole 'nother level. That's not to say that Quake doesn't require skill, but the skills are not shooting or self preservation skills. As you just pointed out, you need to be good at bunny hopping, rocket jumping and other things that are more of exploits than any skills that translate to real-life combat.
In contrast, skills and habits required to be good in CS--ex. aiming for heads, sticking to cover and reloading before leaving cover--are very much skills that do translate to the real world. They also translate to other games. My general shooter skills are even better today because of habits--like using cover and frequently reloading--that I learned while playing CS. This may contribute to why so many people consider CS to require so much skill. It's not that other shooters don't, but the skills required are deemed more general and applicable outside of the particular game.
I see this as making the opposite argument that you intend. If a player hogs all of the health, armor, weapon, ammo and power-up (quad) spawns, using each little advantage to give him even more of an advantage, the playing field becomes tilted towards him. It takes skill to tilt the playing field like that, but it quickly becomes an unfair contest as the other players face an uphill battle to un-tilt it. CS has more of a level playing field, particularly because there are no health, armor, weapon, ammo or power-up spawns, which allows skill to be a more determining factor in each outcome.
Bixby Snyder
IBTFAD
Rodgerwilco
Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
- Feb 6, 2014
- 7,350
- 6,661
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
Born & raised, how could you tell?
I like how spread out the vote is this year, aside from Diablo II. Had hoped MvC2 would get more votes, but I guess I really was one of two or three Dreamcast junkies here. I'm always amazed at how much time I spent with that game, considering almost no part of that game should have appealed to me (I generally dislike fighting games + the Marvel license was and is meaningless to me).
That ****ing sprite work. Still one of my favorite looking games ever, and one of few fighting games that really let a godawful button masher like myself actually have fun.
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,150
- 10,629
Diablo 2 won, by the lowest percentage in a while though.
Do we keep going into the 90's or wait a while? Yes/no and if yes suggest some games
I think we should keep going until at least 95 or so.
Some notable candidates, good luck trying to condense this list (I didn't even include every big game, lol):
-Super Smash Bros
-SimCity 3000
-Silent Hill
-Mario Party
-Final Fantasy VIII
-Heroes of Might and Magic III
-Pokemon Snap
-Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance
-Everquest
-RollerCoaster Tycoon
-Team Fortress Classic
-Super Mario Bros Deluxe
-Midtown Madness
-Driver
-Mario Golf
-System Shock 2
-Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
-Syphon Filter
-Soulcalibur
-Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
-Homeworld
-Age of Empires II: Age of Kings
-Crash Team Racing
-Final Fantasy VI (PS1)
-Grand Theft Auto 2
-Jet Force Gemini
-Rayman 2: The Great Escape
-Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage
-Medal of Honor
-Donkey Kong 64
-Unreal Tournament
-Quake III Arena
-Planescape Torment
-Gran Turismo 2
-Harvest Moon 64
Just my opinion, but I think the bolded have a strong case to be included.
Holden Caulfield
Eternal Skeptic
Heroes of Might and Magic 3 would easily get my vote from that list.
I've been eagerly the 98 poll to see how badly Starcraft crushes all the other games.
I've been eagerly the 98 poll to see how badly Starcraft crushes all the other games.
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,150
- 10,629
Do we keep going into the 90's or wait a while? Yes/no and if yes suggest some games
I've been waiting for the 90s and 1999, in particular, all of this time. If you stop now, I'll be very unhappy and I'll find you. There aren't many places to hide in the desert, remember
.If I stop, I'll pick it back up again later around the start of hockey season when more people are frequenting the site.
There aren't many places to hide in the desert, remember
You'd be surprised, I know where some mines are.
List looks good to me, just add Heroes of Might and Magic and X-Wing Alliance.
