Quake IV, the best MechWarrior ever...?

Some new Quake IV footage has been released. There’s some awful hot Mech on Mech action:
http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=7676

hmmm… I wonder what res/texture depth they took that footage at… just doesn’t look nearly as good as the screenshots or previous video footage

Gotta’ love those side-stepping tanks.

They’re Hover tanks. D’uh! :P

I find it’s usually hard to judge graphical quality from video clips – they’re always compressed to something a fraction of the resolution you’ll eventually play it at.

Having gotten to playtest the game this week, I’ll say – looks will not be Quake 4’s problem. It looks and sounds fantastic, and the engine feels as tight as any today. The real question will be whether the gameplay can maintain interest over the course of the single-player campaign, and whether people still want to play Quake 3 multiplayer brought into a new engine.

Very silly question to ask since people still play Quake 2 in its original engine, let alone Quake 3 (1,000 active players at any given time of the day in my area) and the new multiplayer ONLY games that have come out since.

furthermore this new engine actually provides real gameplay changes if the map desingers take advantage of it (specifically shadows and multiple translucencies). If I hear that they get the weapon balance right Quake 4 will be a must-buy for me, regardless of its multiplayer.

id software has never made a single player campaign that was interesting all the way through, ever . Raven has though. These gameplay modifications like mechs could break up the monotony so who knows?

There’s still a thriving Quake2 multiplayer community? Is it mostly deathmatch?

Very silly question to ask since people still play Quake 2 in its original engine, let alone Quake 3 (1,000 active players at any given time of the day in my area) and the new multiplayer ONLY games that have come out since.[/quote]
I’m not sure I follow. Is it a silly question because 1,000 people are still playing Quake 3? Are you saying that’s a big number?

And how does the success of other multiplayer-only games factor positively into Quake 4 MP? if anything, the 5-10K people playing Call of Duty teamplay, the 25K playing Battlefield 2, and the 50-100K playing the Counter-Strike games imply that gamers have gotten tired of basic DM.

I have a hard time gauging whether gamers will come running back to Quake 4’s MP, or if many of them have moved on and are waiting for stuff like Quake Wars.

And how does the success of other multiplayer-only games factor positively into Quake 4 MP? if anything, the 5-10K people playing Call of Duty teamplay, the 25K playing Battlefield 2, and the 50-100K playing the Counter-Strike games imply that gamers have gotten tired of basic DM.

Not me! :P Give me DM or give me death…or something like that.

For MP wake me up when Enemy Territory: QW comes out. For SP I think that Q4 will do just fine. Raven has made some dandy ones in the past.

For a six year old game, you damn right it is!!! :P

Very silly question to ask since people still play Quake 2 in its original engine, let alone Quake 3 (1,000 active players at any given time of the day in my area) and the new multiplayer ONLY games that have come out since.[/quote]
I’m not sure I follow. Is it a silly question because 1,000 people are still playing Quake 3? Are you saying that’s a big number?
.[/quote]
I never said 1000 people play Quake 3, I said 1000 people playing at ANY GIVEN TIME - in my particular area - using common sense thats around 25,000 active players at least, and thats a multiplayer only game (plenty of people bought quake 3 and dont play it today). Quake 4 has a new engine that actually affects gameplay, not just better graphics, and a single player component

Thus its a silly question to ask if people are tired of standard DM.

btw both Quake 3 and Quake 2 have active communities mostly for CTF, or TF and its variations. Its true that DM isnt expanding in popularity, but when you say “Quake 3 style” multiplayer your not only talking about DM. Dont use those terms as synonyms.

Look at Doom3, terrible singleplayer and undeveloped multplayer, small community and its still sold about half a million to this day.

Look at the multiplayer charts right now. Quake 3 barely cracks the top 10. Its numbers are DWARFED by team-based games like Counter-Strike, Battlefield, CoD, Enemy Territory, and America’s Army. Its numbers are great for a 5-year-old game, but the more important thing to notice is that it’s the only DM game in the top 10.

If DM isn’t dead, why isn’t everyone playing Painkiller? Why isn’t the World Cyber Games having a 1v1 deathmatch tourney this year? Why are the majority of people playing UT 2004 playing team-based games?

There’s no question people have turned away from deathmatch in favor of other modes in recent years. The overwhelming majority of gamers ARE tired of DM. My question is whether Quake 4 will get people excited about it again. If you think that’s a silly question, you’ve had your head in the sand for a few years.

Uhh why do you keep saying its a silly question? So what maybe 25K total all over the world play it still? big deal. His point of lisitng the top games that arn’t DM based that dwarf Quake in player base show to me that DM is mostly old hat. Its fun once in awhile but as a staple its just doesn’t cut it anymore.

whats nice about this is the potential for a decent Battletech mod which no one has seem to have gotten out in all these years. Two things that will make this (Q4) ideal are 1.) torso twist independant of mech turning 2.) locational damage. I’m assuming the latter since it seems to have a functional damage indicator on the dash. Even if its a simple Solaris/Arena type thing I’d be happy.

The massive logical flaw your question is based on is twofold: That Quake 4 will have no single player component, and that people wont buy the same exact thing recycled in a new graphics engine.

By this logic Doom 3 wont sell any copies. OH WAIT it was a best seller.

Quake 3* was a besteller too, OF COURSE six years later it can’t compete with todays games - so what? Slap a new id software state of the art engine on and add a decent single player game and anybody who asks “will it be enough to get people interested” is being silly. Its a dumb question with an obvious answer

Look im sick of the unoriginality in FPSes as much as or more than everybody else, but its totally ridiculous to ask “will people be interested in Q4? Will it hold peoples attention?” If a ‘game’ like Doom 3 gets the attention, sales and rave reveiws it did and does then you knwo what to expect from Quake 4, which will almost certainly be a better game unless Raven fucks up biblically.

*(PS perhaps im not making myself clear, these types of games get modded quick, Quake 3 has a huge community of people who probably dont even play DM at all. Saying Quake 4’s multiplayer will be ‘Q3 with a new engine’ DOES NOT mean DM only even if thats all that gets released out the box)

Finally! Something I agree with! :)

As I’m writing this, there are about 10,000 people online playing vanilla DM and CTF. By comparison, 150,000 are playing CS and BF2 and ET and CoD and AA. That’s 15 out of 16 people collectively giving the finger to DM. DOOM 3 indeed sold through the roof, and yet its multiplayer has been largely ignored online. Why should anyone be so positive Quake 4 multiplayer’s will be received so differently?

Who cares about Quake 4 multiplayer? If it’s good, then great, if not, then we still have Enemy Territories, which is where I’d expect multiplayer to shine. C’mon, people, get with the program. :P

That’s not what sluggo asked. He asked if people would be interetsed in Q4’s multiplayer. Specifically, if they’ll stay interested in Q4 after completing the single-player game. He then presented evidence that people aren’t interested in Q4’s style of multiplayer by citing the limited number of people playing both Q3 and newer deathmatch-only games and by citing the wild success of both old and new games with other kinds of gameplay.

You, in turn, just started calling people “silly” without really addressing the question or points. Your pointing out that some games have sold well based on the merits of their single player game is largely irrelevant unless you think that lots of people will play the multiplayer just because they happen to have the game installed after finishing the single-player game. Is that what you think?