|
|
|
|
|
|
by Impossible
3422 days ago
|
|
|
That comparison is at best a stretch. It makes sense if you're young, but at the time of release Quake was the one of the most graphically and technologically advanced games available. One of the first truly modern FPS games, one of the first fully 3D texture mapped games, one of the first real-time action games to be widely played on the internet, one of the first to take advantage of 3D acceleration, etc. At release Dwarf Fortress was talked about in the exact same way it is talked about today... The mechanical depth you're talking about is a lot less like the depth people talk about when talking about Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity, and closer to emergent complexity of found in any good multiplayer video game. If you're talking about the Quake family tree, some of the most played current day first person shooters (CS:GO, COD, TF2) are direct ancestors of Quake, sharing some of Quake's source code. I have a ton of respect for Quake, its movement mechanics and its influence, but I don't really get the comparison. |
|
|
I would argue that Quake has a lot more emergent complexity in its mechanics than a lot of other FPSes. Deathmatch has elements of territory control - moreso than in the Halo/COD lineage, as I understand it. And because you have to control territory and stay alive, there's an incentive to go fast. Very fast.
As a result, the more advanced mechanics of Quake (once bugs, now hallmarks of the series) have a very steep learning curve that hides an ocean of depth.
And yes, it is closer to the emergent complexity of an online shooter than the simulation complexity of DF, but the theme of depth hidden behind extreme complexity is the same.
>If you're talking about the Quake family tree, some of the most played current day first person shooters (CS:GO, COD, TF2) are direct ancestors of Quake, sharing some of Quake's source code.
I was actually talking about Quake's lineage in gameplay: Q3A, UT, and the rest of the arena shooter subgenre.
Given, this is an odd comparison, and I don't blame you for disagreeing. I'm not 100% sure I agree with me, and I am me.