Quake clone, like that hasn’t been tried to death, acQu, here’s another quote
Quote: o0MrCheesy0o
"Quake’s gameplay was a mistake. Rocket jumping was a mistake, strafe jumping was a mistake, air-control was a mistake, etc. - all the things that make Quake great were unintentional :<
The main problem developers face is that they do look at Quake as the definitive model for an arena first-person shooter, and what they end up churning out is a Quake-clone. Though to try and prevent that they feel forced to make needless changes, and/or add in gimmicks to differentiate it from Quake and give their product its own sense of identity. Warsow is a good example of this, but players don’t flock to it because Quake already exists. The things the developers had added to it in order to differentiate it from Quake have their own problems, so even if Warsow fixed issues players complained about in Quake they’re faced with new issues, and on top of that a very low starting population. Players won’t migrate from Quake to a Quake-clone, no matter how “good” it is, because the effort required to do so doesn’t justify the results.
The developer of Warsow has admitted his mistake of making it too much like Quake, and I’m sure every major developer realizes they can’t make a Quake-clone successful too. So they target a different audience, e.i., not Quake players. I’m sure they want their game to go mainstream, and that means the product can’t be too complex. If you go up to the average FPS player and ask them what they think of bunny-hopping they’d probably say it’s silly, and a sprint mechanic would be better suited as a means of faster travel. Furthermore most consumers don’t bother themselves thinking about FoV, visual noise, or the rest of the stuff more “hardcore” players do. They just want to jump into a game and have fun. They could care less about e-sports or ‘skill’ in a video game, so developers have to carry that mentality to a degree if they want a successful product.
As silly as it seems, I’ve talked to people about wanting FoV sliders in games that don’t have them, and I get told, “it’s cheating to be able to see more”. Players don’t even like asymmetric maps for gametypes like TDM, because “one team gets different advantages/disadvantages to the other and it’s not fair!” Map-spawned powerups have vanished from the modern FPS as well, because the average consumer mentality is that they’re unfair and promote powerup camping/hording which is “noobish”. Players also cry to spawn in the game-world with the gun they choose, because hunting one down is unfair and unfun. Face it, the idea of a deathmatch game is outdated in the consumers’ minds, and if you make one you’re marketing it towards a dated demographic that won’t budge from their Quake. So developers make lazy games that caters to the modern day FPS player mentality in the hope of a quick buck. Old time players of these kinds of games may notice glaring issues, but that’s because the game isn’t being targeted towards them. Perhaps that’s why engine issues are being ignored in favor of making more DLC, because the devs know the casuals will run to the next cool thing: they’re trying to make as much money now whilst they have their attention. "
But somehow SD doesn’t want to recognize this. Imo they should hire people making the netcode just as idTech3. That is one of the things i wish for DB