Why is this game so fast paced?

#1 Edited by Mikemcn (7007 posts) -

Having not played quake, and because I wasn't into multiplayer games then like I am now, I have trouble understanding why the players move so fast in that game compared to games like CS:S, TF2, and Call of Duty.
 
Was there a technical reason why the game had to move so fast? Had the more complex mechanics of modern shooters (Reloading, Crouching, view bob, cover, inaccurate weapons) not been put into practice yet? So all they had was the ability to move the camera, run around, pickup weapons and shoot them?

#2 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were made
you cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome !

#3 Posted by Mikemcn (7007 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were madeyou cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome ! "
It was awesome,but shooters have all pretty much stopped doing that level of madness.
#4 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters.

#5 Posted by EpicSteve (6495 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This is an awesome answer.
#6 Edited by MuttersomeTaxicab (668 posts) -

Well, I think it's a little of both. Historically, id has never really been concerned with "realism" when it came to their games/weapons/etc. Even when those more "complex" mechanics like headshots, reloading, cover, etc. were starting to come into play, id released Quake 3, which was still pretty fast-moving arcadey madness.  
 
Also, with Quake, the mere fact that they were able to put together a fully-3D engine that didn't rely on sprites was an achievement in and of itself. 
 
But, it's true what they said in the Bombcast, I don't think anything has been as fast in subsequent games as Quake 1 was. Personally, I think it's amazing. I mean, I was shot full of adrenaline for a good while after participating in the TNT last night, and that was just for a couple rounds. 
 
Also, most of id's games up until that point were largely showing off their tech. So, while Quake contributed stuff like mouselook and circle strafing, other mechanics were left on the backburner. The game was specifically geared towards ludicrously frenetic action. 
  

#7 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

I'm just saying. Shooters were originally this speed. That's the speed they started at. Then they slowed down. And now you jog from cover to cover at a leisurely pace. Even in PC versions (frustrating).

#8 Posted by evanbrau (1162 posts) -

Yup it was just a different time. Keep in mind that while people were playing 4 player multiplayer of Goldeneye with it horrendous framerate and pace people were playing 16 player matches of Quake tearing around the place at insane speeds. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are probably the last big super fast deathmatch games I can remember. 
 
This is my 1,000 post and I got to make it in a thread about Quake, that makes me feel pretty good.

#9 Posted by punkxblaze (2990 posts) -

War has changed.

#10 Posted by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This is an awesome answer. "
this is 100% the actual reason.
#11 Edited by Mikemcn (7007 posts) -
@punkxblaze said:

" War has changed. "

War? War never changes.......
 I had to do it, sorry.
#12 Posted by Krisgebis (222 posts) -

They could take that formula further, so they startet making them more tactical.
The old relics are still fun to play, but I really enjoy the modern games more. It's far easier to get involved in the setting, if you arent skating around on a jet missil.
 
@ryanwho: The games are more technical nowadays, so your comment doesn't even make sense. An the shooters didn't start out as fast. Look at Wolf3D and Doom, they were not as fast and hecktic as Quake 1. But they were fasten then later games.

#13 Posted by JamesBoyce (295 posts) -

The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow?

#14 Posted by TekZero (2686 posts) -
@JamesBoyce said:
" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "
This. 
#15 Posted by impalerXZ (85 posts) -

Unreal Tournament 3 came out on the PC in 2007 and that was fast as hell.  Its just everything is a "tactical" shooter these days and no one cares for the old quake/UT/Doom days. But then again back in the day we also had tactical shooters, but in those you would die in 1 or 2 bullets.

#16 Edited by Mikemcn (7007 posts) -
@evanbrau said:

" Yup it was just a different time. Keep in mind that while people were playing 4 player multiplayer of Goldeneye with it horrendous framerate and pace people were playing 16 player matches of Quake tearing around the place at insane speeds. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are probably the last big super fast deathmatch games I can remember.   This is my 1,000 post and I got to make it in a thread about Quake, that makes me feel pretty good. "

Im glad i gave you a thread to make your 1000th post, congratz!
 
That is a good point though, Goldeneye didn't move anywhere near as fast as Quake, which goes back to Ryanwho's point of them (PC shooters) being dumbed down because of games like GoldenEye. Maybe GoldenEye was an example of that but most shooters today are great on Console even compared to PC. I wouldn't say shooters have dumbed down much, I would say Modern Warfare 2 is infinitely more complex on 360 than Quake 1, 2 or 3 ever was on PC. TF2 is an example of a great modern PC shooter, sure it may not move at the same speed but it is just as good as Quake ever was.
 
@TekZero said:
" @JamesBoyce said:
" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "
This.  "

I think the answer to that is that people have gotten tired of the Quake style of shooter, its awesome to go back and visit but it isnt going to be something you play everyday unless your a crazy person. Quake is basically run around, spam the shoot button till you die. Rinse and repeat. its epic, and is great fun but it takes alot out of you and doesn't give alot back. (Im basing this off of my UT3 experience, which is prehaps not accurate to Quake itself but its similar in alot of ways.)
#17 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Supermarius said:
" @EpicSteve said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This is an awesome answer. "
this is 100% the actual reason. "
i must admit that blew my fucking mind
#18 Posted by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This.
#19 Posted by destruktive (1069 posts) -

That's how FPS games were.
And I really miss that. I still take quake over any new multiplayer fps games out there.

#20 Posted by Flaboere (344 posts) -

I think Team Fortress 2 brought a little bit of that back, as it can be pretty fast paced if you're playing the light classes, but thursday proved that there's still a long way to go, even for the scout!

#21 Posted by atomic_dumpling (2477 posts) -
@impalerXZ said:

" Unreal Tournament 3 came out on the PC in 2007 and that was fast as hell.  "

Yeah, until you ran into an impassable obstacle, like, say, A ONE FEET HIGH PEDESTAL. "Surely I can jump over this? *weak hop* Oh noez …"
#22 Edited by riffingt0n (157 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:

@TekZero said:

" @JamesBoyce said:
" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "
This.  "
I think the answer to that is that people have gotten tired of the Quake style of shooter, its awesome to go back and visit but it isnt going to be something you play everyday unless your a crazy person. Quake is basically run around, spam the shoot button till you die. Rinse and repeat. its epic, and is great fun but it takes alot out of you and doesn't give alot back. (Im basing this off of my UT3 experience, which is prehaps not accurate to Quake itself but its similar in alot of ways.) "
I think it's very easy to lump in Quake's speed with the chaos of FFA games of that size (which Quake raised the bar a big way on).  I played Quake 3 for ages but generally didn't care for the chaos of FFA (which is exhausting), but I loved its control and speed in CTF.  Speed doesn't exhaust you on its own.
 
Yes there's a lot of 'spam until you die' in big FFA, but other gametypes that were also popular were fast without being so chaotic.  I used to play a lot of duels and CTF matches in Quake 3 and while nothing slowed down about the characters/projectiles footspeed, if you just spammed until you died, you'd get murdered. 
 
It doesn't really play in crazy FFA matches, but in Doom and Quake, your speed WAS your cover.  You're fast so you can dodge projectiles (rockets, grenades, plasma spam) since you can't hit a button to 'cover' out of them.  In most modern FPSes, you're basically a goner if someone gets an accurate shot against you with a weapon like that.  In Quake in less chaotic gametypes, being able to dodge was just as important as being able to hit  - and being accurate while moving erratically added challenge to the shooting as well.
#23 Edited by JamesBoyce (295 posts) -
@Mikemcn:  Are you crazy if you play Modern Warfare 2 or whatever else is the standard all the time then?  It's just a case of having your own taste and your own opinion.  The fact that there's still a dedicated Quake community tells me that people obviously aren't sick of it, it's just people are used to the more accessible stuff like Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2.  That's all there is to it really.  But yeah, I kinda wish the FPS world was still as frantic as it used to be, s'alot more fun that way for sure.
 
But for me, the real reason games like Quake and all have 'died' is purely laziness.  People would rather pump x amount of hours into Modern Warfare 2 or whatever, to get better guns, better perks, better loadouts to be slightly better than others than putting hours into a game like Quake, which requires an unparalleled level of skill and strive for something like that.  It's not like that kinda thing can't be done properly and made accessible for the modern market.  Look at StarCraft 2's success...
#24 Posted by L33tfella_H (901 posts) -
@JamesBoyce said:
" @Mikemcn:  Are you crazy if you play Modern Warfare 2 or whatever else is the standard all the time then?  It's just a case of having your own taste and your own opinion.  The fact that there's still a dedicated Quake community tells me that people obviously aren't sick of it, it's just people are used to the more accessible stuff like Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2.  That's all there is to it really.  But yeah, I kinda wish the FPS world was still as frantic as it used to be, s'alot more fun that way for sure.  But for me, the real reason games like Quake and all have 'died' is purely laziness.  People would rather pump x amount of hours into Modern Warfare 2 or whatever, to get better guns, better perks, better loadouts to be slightly better than others than putting hours into a game like Quake, which requires an unparalleled level of skill and strive for something like that.  It's not like that kinda thing can't be done properly and made accessible for the modern market.  Look at StarCraft 2's success... "
*nod*
 
Saying that people got "bored" of Twitch games just means that people will get "bored" of games like Halo and CoD aswell. The way i see it, the latter are more accessible, but Quake is still one of the most fun games i've ever played online, and it's the game that encouraged me to give online gaming a shot.
#25 Posted by MuttersomeTaxicab (668 posts) -

I'm just gonna say it: I loved Unreal Tournament 3. I took a hiatus from gaming essentially around the time Morrowind hit. School, life, etc. 
 
When I finally got back into it, it was with UT3, and it had the same feeling: the psychotically fast, buried-in-the-red gameplay in relatively brown, but damn pretty environments and generally nonexistent plot. It felt like waking up as Rip Van Winkle to see an old friend's grandkid offering a hand to help me back up. 
 
And, yeah, I mean, there's still stuff like Left 4 Dead that maintain that ludicrous pacing, but also overlay a level of strategy and planning, and, yeah, reloading.
#26 Posted by RVonE (4683 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
"Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

Accurate. I would love to see a proper PC-based UT4 with original UT speed.
#27 Edited by RVonE (4683 posts) -
@MuttersomeTaxicab said:

"I'm just gonna say it: I loved Unreal Tournament 3. I took a hiatus from gaming essentially around the time Morrowind hit. School, life, etc.  When I finally got back into it, it was with UT3, and it had the same feeling: the psychotically fast, buried-in-the-red gameplay in relatively brown, but damn pretty environments and generally nonexistent plot. It felt like waking up as Rip Van Winkle to see an old friend's grandkid offering a hand to help me back up.  And, yeah, I mean, there's still stuff like Left 4 Dead that maintain that ludicrous pacing, but also overlay a level of strategy and planning, and, yeah, reloading. "


Except for the fact that UT3 is not as fast as classic UT or UT2k4 and is overall nothing more than a poor shadow of those games.
#28 Posted by ajamafalous (12121 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
Others may laugh, but this is the correct answer.
 
 
Scout is about the closest modern thing you'll get to the fast-paced twitch-shooter days of Quake and UT.
This is why I play Scout.
#29 Posted by Jadeskye (4368 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This is an awesome answer. "
It's awesome because it's true. I swear my reflexes are much better in the old days of crazy ass FPS games.
#30 Posted by hedfone (1751 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were madeyou cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome ! "
#31 Posted by Cr0ssbow (102 posts) -

Fast != better far as I'm concerned. Much like sex. And les please not turn this into a console vs PC thing 'cause it's totally not.  1.6 wasn't fast as balls.
#32 Posted by TMThomsen (2080 posts) -
@ajamafalous said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
Others may laugh, but this is the correct answer.   Scout is about the closest modern thing you'll get to the fast-paced twitch-shooter days of Quake and UT. This is why I play Scout. "
So true. First time I tried Scout I immediately recognized it as UT gameplay.
#33 Posted by OldGuy (1571 posts) -
@Cr0ssbow said:
" Fast != better far as I'm concerned. Much like sex. And les please not turn this into a console vs PC thing 'cause it's totally not.  1.6 wasn't fast as balls. "
Okay, for YOU fast!=better (more acurately fast is not necessarily better).
 
But as for console vs. PC, um it is a console vs. PC thing. Shooters slowed down because of consoles.
 
You cannot play a super fast paced FPS on a console because of thumbsitcks. Does that make console shooters bad? No. Just different.
#34 Posted by Falx (347 posts) -
@OldGuy said:
" @Cr0ssbow said:
" Fast != better far as I'm concerned. Much like sex. And les please not turn this into a console vs PC thing 'cause it's totally not.  1.6 wasn't fast as balls. "
Okay, for YOU fast!=better (more acurately fast is not necessarily better).
 
But as for console vs. PC, um it is a console vs. PC thing. Shooters slowed down because of consoles.
 
You cannot play a super fast paced FPS on a console because of thumbsitcks. Does that make console shooters bad? No. Just different. "
True that console shooters are different (personally i find them inferior), but it would be great if they made some fps games focused around the PC again, like COD4 is still reasonably fast-paced in PC play but still reasonable for consoles. Whereas, MW2 is so fucking slow for me it's almost unbelievable. PS. Please can we have fucking lean back in our PC shooters, it doesn't make the games unbalanced it just adds an extra gameplay element to learn how to use.
#35 Edited by mikeeegeee (1575 posts) -

I used to be so damn good at Unreal Tournament... damn, those were the days. A different breed of skill. Skill that transferred to any FPS: reflexes, awareness, crazy accuracy, courage, to some extent. Nobody camped in those games. It wasn't a viable strategy. It was out into the fray every time, mono a mono in a true test of skill. There's something pure about that.

#36 Posted by Jimbo (9931 posts) -

Anybody that says pads are 'almost as good as a mouse' for FPS should be forced to play this with a pad, against mouse players, until they accept that they are wrong.  Pads only seem capable today because modern games are designed to take their weaknesses into account.

#37 Posted by MuttersomeTaxicab (668 posts) -
@RVonE said:
"@MuttersomeTaxicab said:

"I'm just gonna say it: I loved Unreal Tournament 3. I took a hiatus from gaming essentially around the time Morrowind hit. School, life, etc.  When I finally got back into it, it was with UT3, and it had the same feeling: the psychotically fast, buried-in-the-red gameplay in relatively brown, but damn pretty environments and generally nonexistent plot. It felt like waking up as Rip Van Winkle to see an old friend's grandkid offering a hand to help me back up.  And, yeah, I mean, there's still stuff like Left 4 Dead that maintain that ludicrous pacing, but also overlay a level of strategy and planning, and, yeah, reloading. "

Except for the fact that UT3 is not as fast as classic UT or UT2k4 and is overall nothing more than a poor shadow of those games. "

Yeah, see, I never played UT, but it seemed close enough to UT2k4 for me. (Assuming we're talking about actually playing with players and generally ignoring the bot-mode.)  Then again, I also really enjoyed Warfare mode and apparently nobody else does. The maps were pretty cool, though.
 
I, for one, am fine with shooters going to consoles for the most part. I still can't fathom how anyone could use a sniper rifle with any gamepad, but I imagine there are some mutants that are capable of it. 
 
#38 Posted by DragonBloodthirsty (470 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "
This is an awesome answer. "
Both awesome, and true.  The analog input device (mouse) on the computer makes for better control.  I recall that there was an Xbox/PC cross over competition that got killed because the Xbox controls were simply not capable of keeping up with the PC controls.  It has everything to do with the input devices available.
#39 Posted by bellmont42 (325 posts) -

Did anyone play the dreamcast port of quake 3 team arena? The one where the DC players were on the same servers as PC?.. that sucked for the poor DC players :(. 
Quake 1 is only insane fast because the levels are so cramped. There have been games where the character moves as fast if not faster. But again..smaller maps. 
and the 90s wasnt just about super fast hardcore deathmatch. We had Rainbow Six around the time of Quake 2.

#40 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5359 posts) -

I don't know if you know this but games change over years.

#41 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

early twitch shooter.

#42 Edited by Cr0ssbow (102 posts) -

I still don't understand why ppl are blaming console shooters for this. Can someone enlighten me on the causality here between slow console shooters cropping up that spelled the death of fast PC shooters?  I'd like to think CoD and CS had a bit more to do with that than, say, SOCOM and Halo. 
 
I don't even know why ppl are arguing about gamepads vs mouse/keyboard in this thread. Are you lost?
#43 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@bellmont42 said:
Did anyone play the dreamcast port of quake 3 team arena? The one where the DC players were on the same servers as PC?.. that sucked for the poor DC players :(.
Yet, I kicked ass on the DC against PC players all the time before I had a PC able to play Quake 3 proper.
 
It's more than just a change to console focus, generally more people can handle slower paced games.  Cover systems let people aim without having to move, slower games like Counterstrike became immensely popular because more people were able to handle that pace.
 
It all has to do with getting more people to play.
#44 Posted by OneManX (1693 posts) -

Well if you want blame something try consoles AND PCs, as graphic cards got better and more complex, it became more about having good graphics and paring it with good gameplay and less about all out insanity.
 
And sooner or later you have to take into account, running Crysis 2 at 60 frames... is gonna be next to impossible for most people, running Crysis at 1000+ frames is NEVER gonna happen... EVER! yet you can uses some crappy middle school computer to run Quake at it's full insane potential.
 
Faster paced games can  and do exist (TF2, hell even Monday Night Combat is kinda of a twitch game), but they aren't money makers like they used to be.

#45 Posted by Trilogy (2682 posts) -
@Cr0ssbow said:
" I still don't understand why ppl are blaming console shooters for this. Can someone enlighten me on the causality here between slow console shooters cropping up that spelled the death of fast PC shooters?  I'd like to think CoD and CS had a bit more to do with that than, say, SOCOM and Halo.  I don't even know why ppl are arguing about gamepads vs mouse/keyboard in this thread. Are you lost? "
Just PC gamers blaming everything on consoles. Nothing new really.
#46 Posted by Shadow_Drone (29 posts) -

Quake was the King of adrenaline-based gaming. Always has been, always will be.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.