I agree. Casual fags, Blizzard/Valve fans and mainstream gaming sites love dat shit. So yeah its needed to increase popularity :(

I love a great story (hi Bioshock), but it has nothing to do in Arena FPS' imo.

Why not? What could possibly go wrong?

It's not that something could go wrong, I just think it's totally irrelevant for the genre and I don't see the point. I say leave the story to adventures and story-driven genres.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/43/43051169c7a7b...592071.jpg

yeah, uh, I never said otherwise.

If anything it would be nie to have some FPS in Q1-like setting (gothic, demons, Cthulhu shit) instead of now all present tech stuff.

Yeah, Q1's setting was cool. It was like medieval meets industrial in all the best ways. The perfect setting to populate with memorable characters.

I once had an idea that it'd be cool if an arena fps went all out with the futuristic gladiator theme.

Do you mean you want a story for a single player campaign? Or do you really want a story bound to the multiplayer segment like some kind of MMORPG?

First of all, I don't mean just the story, as that refers to a sequence of events. Lore on the other hand establishes the setting, "what is this world", "why is it the way it is", "how do the laws of physics and technology work?" "where do I fit in?". Once these questions are answered the player feels a sense of place within the world.

As for your question: Both. As long as the competitive side of the multiplayer isn't hindered in any way. I know this is unlikely, but I imagine a single-player with the option of co-op; that consists of run and gun segments (think Hard Reset), as well as portal-esque movement puzzles. The AI creatures would each have their weaknesses, and the player has to use the right weapon at the right time to defeat them. That way when they switch to multiplayer, they'd have the basics down pat. Add some engaging and humorous dialogue, along with characters that are easy to connect with, and I don't see how you can go wrong.

Behold, LORE!

http://quake.wikia.com/wiki/Quake_3_Bots

"Biker is crude and coarse: a bully who gets his kicks out of hammering helpless opponents. He may not be smart or brave, but he's brutal as hell..
He's the thuggish follower type. He's more likely to be found in a rural wide-spot-in-the-road type bar (with his grungy bike parked outside) than anywhere else. A bit slow-witted and full of hostility, kind words are few and far between with this guy. If Biker had any charm, he beat it out of himself long ago"

Well, I thinks Iv had enough lore for a few years. xD

Hahahaha, that was so shit! Someone got paid to write that!? Dude I can write a better character bio right now:

"Sarge is a deadly and grizzled killing machine. After losing both his testicles in the field of battle, he is now only capable of reaching climax through auto-erotic asphyxiation. Ever since, Sarge has been unleashing his sexual frustration in the arena, obliterating foes to compensate for his lack of balls. He is known for smoking a cigar in the heat of battle, one that is widely thought to be laced with weed"

Syncerror, if id software's looking for writers, hit me up.

Did OP just find this article?
http://www.pcgamer.com/gallery/the-best-shoot...-ingame-1/

What a load...

When I play quake, so many questions go through my head: Where am I? Who are these people I'm fighting? Why do I have to kill them? Who the fuck is that obese, metrosexual biker with his gut hanging out?

In an arena.
Some other guy playing the game.
They're trying to kill you.
dkt

Easy answers.

Here's what should be going through your mind... Who am I playing? Does his play-style trump mine? Do I need to take this fight? What resources do I need?

Here's what should be going through your mind...

What makes you an authority on what should and shouldn't be going through my mind?

It's me. Your brain.

If you were the best QL player and you were able to spend your time thinking about lore on top of everything else, go ahead. If not, you're wasting your time and probably aren't very good.

You didn't answer my question. Just tip-toed around it, and implied that I'm probably not good in quake.

I'm trying to imply that I don't need to be an authority. Your brain is already 100% focused on the game that there's no conceivable way you're thinking about Lore. Otherwise you're playing half-witted and therefore won't play very well.

For once, I agree with you completely. But let me give you an analogy to illustrate my point:

It would be detrimental to competitive play if a player types messages mid-game, and in a quake championship, nobody would ever do that. It's a pointless feature in terms of competitive play. But for casuals, it allows them to socialise and ultimately enhances their experience.

The same with lore, while a pro gamer sees it as a pointless distraction, a casual sees it as an area of interest.

They do do it in Quake championships... It's integrated into the game and can play a role in altering the psyche of either player, beneficial or not.

dkt rofl

Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.
John D. Carmack

That was a quote from a book published in 2003, almost two generations of gaming ago. Keep in mind this was 11 years ago, when first-person shooters were still in their infancy. This was long before Bioshock, Fallout 3 and Metro: Last Light; and back then everyone greatly under-estimated games as a medium for storytelling.

Now I'm not saying that Arena FPS should be story-centric, I'd just like it to have a cohesive setting, and a half-descent plot.

For some reason FPS games have gone exponentially downhill since '99...

I agree that games are great for storytelling. I think they have potential to be the best medium for it. It will probably be more than a decade before we see one done with quality worth anything. That said, story has no place in Arena/multi-player FPS.

You really don't think there are games out there today with a quality story?

Not super-duper anyway. The only story-based game that I would play-through again today because the game-play is also great would be Half-Life. When I say a decade, I mean the quality of good game-play intertwined with the story to the point that the story would not work as well as simply a movie.

I don't think it's fair to compare video game stories to movies as they are two really different mediums. A video game with a way too complex story and dramaturgy would essentially become an interactive movie, much like The Last of Us and Uncharted (a bit of an exaggeration, but eh).

I think a game with a good story is partially earned by giving the player the ability to "explore" the story, such as the audio diaries in Bioshock, the lores in Metroid Prime or a rich universe where the story is told through the characters like in Majora's Mask. Obviously the premise and the main-story, for lack of a better word, itself has to be interesting enough.

Perhaps this is just me though. You might value a decent dramaturgy more.

A video game with a way too complex story and dramaturgy would essentially become an interactive movie

That's the point. The more senses you have to use, the more immersed you are, and the more effective the story gets across.

I think a game with a good story is partially earned by giving the player the ability to "explore" the story

You're just paraphrasing "interactive movie."

What I mean with an interactive movie is a game with too many cutscenes. Instead of actually playing the game, you'd end up spending half the time watching cutscenes. That's not the same.

That would be how I would define interactive movie. That's just flipping between game and movie. An interactive movie would have no line between cut-scene and game-play because they would always be happening at the same time.

back then everyone greatly under-estimated games as a medium for storytelling.

Using games as a medium for storytelling is one of the main reasons gaming has been going downhill since half life 2.

Now, I understand this is a very subjective matter, but if I want a good story I open a book or watch a movie, if i open an FPS I want to shoot at things.

Using games as a medium for storytelling is one of the main reasons gaming has been going downhill since half life 2

No offense man, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever heard anyone say about gaming, and I find it very hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Maybe you need a quick remnder on the direction game developers took in the last years:

If quake was done today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

if doom was done today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw

You CLEARLY didn't understand the point of those videos. They were making fun of Modern Military Shooters (COD, MoH), with their excessive hand-holding, low difficulty and pandering to casuals. It also pokes fun at the pointless over-blown action set-pieces and slow-mo quick-time events. I too HATE these features in a game.

But NOWHERE in those videos does it mention story as a negative, or that it is in any way the reason gaming has gone downhill.

Ironic that id quickly switched to single player games after q3.

As it is kinda ironic that Carmack now works for Facebook and Zuckerberg.

Adding a story to Quake (or lore or whatever you wanna call it) would result in a wall of text somewhere "explaining" everything. Totally pointless. Quake 3 actually had this in a very minimal way. You could expand that Q3 "story", but again, what would be the point? At best you read this once and then forget about it. Or not read it at all, like most people who played Q3 and never even knew there was some sort of "story".
Quake is about game play, not eye candy or "story".

Quake was all about eye candy back then

Maybe for the developers, but even in the early days of Q3 everybody turned off the graphics as much as possible. That is the point.

No disrespect to the developers, the game looks quite nice with all the graphics turned on. Also the fact that Quake went on to become the reference for FPS for decades to come (at the time of writing) was more an accident than anything else. Wasn't the way you gain speed with strafe jumping an unintentional side effect of the physics engine? The developers were just aiming to create a good looking fps game. As it turned out they accidentally got everything perfect (weapons, balance, physics, etc) and the rest is history. They went on to make Doom and Rage, which indeed is all about the eye candy.

if halo was an arena shooter i'd def be playing that more nowadays (good story)

check out the unreal universe it has a pretty interesting timeline to it

http://forums.epicgames.com/threads/585029-Th...st25096817

watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfL0dqm0ICw

I have, and I thought it was great! Too bad they had to cancel it due to low budget :( But it did reasonably well to bring the quake universe to life.

Quake 5: Heavy Rain

lol

Well this is a bit disappointing. The overwhelming majority are against having lore in quake, and I don't blame them, the esports crowd were never big on this kind of shit. I just thought it would be nice for quake or quake-like games to put a little more emphasis on setting and story.

Even though they have fun gameplay, to me they feel as soulless as Thorin. And some might say lore is unnecessary, well neither are condiments, but they add flavour to food; and I believe a solid universe is the missing ingredient to make Arena FPS more appealing to the masses. Sort of like Halo and Gears of War, games that have nailed it in terms of lore without compromising on the multiplayer aspect. But that's just me.

Battlefield 4; Nobody cares about singleplayer. Would be totally ok if it was left out and they improved the MP more (aside from the entire game just being fucked to the core (c) EA)

I agree with you. But you know this can be achieved with the graphics, maps and models. Like in Quake 3 we had gore and demons hanging from walls (the lore is pretty much gone in QL).

Yeah I agree, a nice art-style might make up for a lack of lore. But in 2014 the quake models and maps look out-dated, and they don't follow a singular art direction e.g you have maps in space, and others in ancient tombs. That's where you get the dumpster effect, when several peoples ideas and creativity clash, making a grotesque mixture of futuristic, fantasy, cyberpunk and industrial. I'm optimistic about Reflex though, they have promising concept artworks.

They look better than any "realistic" graphics. The closer it gets to realism, the more fake it looks. Crysis 2 max settings still looks like a cartoon.

Lore is not a condiment. It doesn't affect game-play like a condiment would affect taste. It's more like the annoying monkey that starts clanging at Rainforest cafe while you're trying to eat.

Really dude? Quake 3's art-style is "better than any "realistic" graphics"? Is that an April fools joke? "Crysis 2 max settings still looks like a cartoon" After reading that, I face-palmed so hard I almost got a concussion. What on Earth are you talking about? And that thing about lore being an "annoying monkey", what!?

I heavily suspect you are trolling, but if not, please answer these questions:

1) How would a creative and immersive game universe (Lore) affect your competitive multiplayer experience negatively?

2) And if you believe that Lore is detrimental to the competitive experience, how do you explain the success of LoL and Starcraft as e-sports?

3) Considering that art-style and graphics are two different things, which substance were you under the influence of when you wrote this: "The closer it gets to realism, the more fake it looks"?

1) It wouldn't. It wouldn't add anything positive either. The only thing that matters is how well the game-play works.

2) I believe someone on youtube put it nicely, "LoL is to esports like curling is to the olympics." I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3.

3). I would rather a game look like Quake 3, than it try to be something it will never come close to being. Quake 3 has simple, practical, efficient aesthetics.

Exhibit A: http://images.boomsbeat.com/data/images/full/855/13-jpg.jpg
Exhibit B: http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg

It still looks like a freaking cartoon. I would rather it look like a cartoon for a purpose.. The most that 'more' detail does for me is clutter my screen and make it harder to see.


Australia must not have Rainforest Cafe, my analogy works much better than yours :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lStWctcYgM
So much Lore!

It wouldn't add anything positive either

Of course it would bro. It adds immersion, the feeling of disconnection from reality, as though you are living in the game world (think Mass Effect, Fallout and Final Fantasy). That might not appeal to an e-sports person, but that doesn't make it pointless. For many it is the main reason they play games. And since you agree it would not harm the multiplayer, then there can only be good in adding it :)

I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3

Sure it does, it has a MUCH more expansive universe. Several novels and comic books have been written in that universe, google it and see for yourself. The fact that there is a demand for this is a testament of how powerful a creative lore is.

LoL is to esports like curling is to the olympics

I don't remember the curling championship drawing over 8.2 million viewers worldwide, and filling up an entire stadium. Whoever you quoted used a poor analogy, because LoL is the definition of a successful e-sports game.

I would rather a game look like Quake 3

Well that's your preference dude, not a universal fact, which is what you implied in your previous post. Whether or not a game has a good art-style is a matter of perception. The same with whether or not realism is appealing, it's a matter of taste. Also, that second image you posted was not Crysis 2, here is proof that Crysis 2 does not look like a cartoon:
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/T7YI8.jpg

I'm sorry if I was being patronising in my first response, it's just that I got angry because your arguments were not well thought out, and it bothered me how you would blurt them out with such confidence. You don't want lore in quake? Well power to you man, but there's no denying the good it would do in terms of expanding the community and appealing to certain players.

4K textures will look realistic :}}

You ask him how it would affect competitive playing, he answers and you say "No, look how it affects casual playing"?

Well yeah, but let me explain why I said that:

The game, including the competitive scene, wouldn't exist without casuals. They make up the bulk of the player base, as well as being the main source of revenue. Casuals enjoy game features such as story, customisation etc. Things that are deemed as superfluities by the competitive players. My point was, if these things do not affect the competitive gameplay in any way, what would be the harm in including them? Especially since they can attract casuals and expand the current player base.

It adds immersion, the feeling of disconnection from reality

No it doesn't. Not in an Arena FPS. People playing Quake aren't thinking about the story in the smallest fragment of a bit. Then you went on to list a bunch of single-player games, where it actually would matter. (I think those games are crap :> )

Sure it does, it has a MUCH more expansive universe. Several novels and comic books have been written in that universe, google it and see for yourself. The fact that there is a demand for this is a testament of how powerful a creative lore is.

That has nothing to do with the game. When I load up Starcraft, I'm not given novels of information to read or experience. I'm simply put into a game with vague characters against a vague enemy.

I don't remember the curling championship drawing over 8.2 million viewers worldwide, and filling up an entire stadium. Whoever you quoted used a poor analogy, because LoL is the definition of a successful e-sports game.

I wasn't talking about popularity, I was talking about the game play and the skill involved. Successful in the same means that Justin Bieber is successful, sure.


That still very much looks like a cartoon. I do prefer a minimal style to games, but that aside, it functions better. That much is a universal truth.

No it doesn't. Not in an Arena FPS.

Just saying it doesn't doesn't make it so, you haven't backed this claim in any way. Lore, if implemented correctly, enhances immersion for any game, regardless of the genre, that is a fact. This post will explain why. Now a professionals might not give a shit about this, but there are MANY casuals who do.

People playing Quake aren't thinking about the story in the smallest fragment of a bit.

Firstly, I agree with you. Nobody thinks about lore in quake. You know why? because it's pretty much non-existent. Had it been implemented properly, it may very well attract attention, and with it more players.

Secondly, you are using the terms "story" and "lore" interchangeably. Lore refers to the mythos of the game universe, story is part of it, along with other aspects such as setting, timeline and characters. Learn what they mean, before using them in an argument.

That has nothing to do with the game.

Yes it does. This is because the game inspired the creativity of writers and artists, more so than quake. Their work stems from the game lore, and hence has everything to do with it. And the amount of creative material set within the Starcraft universe dwarfs that of quake.

When I load up Starcraft, I'm not given novels of information to read or experience.

I agree, you don't get novels of information in-game. But it most certainly has a more expansive lore than quake, which was what we were initially arguing about.

I was talking about the game play and the skill involved.

Whether or not LoL requires skill is immaterial. What matters is that it achieved mainstream popularity in e-sports. One of the reasons it is successful is because "There are several opportunities for casual players to jump deeper in to the world of League of Legends. These range from writing fan-fiction lore, painting a picture or creating humorous videos.". This was from a forbes magazine article interviewing a curse editor.

And as much as I hate the cunt, Justin Bieber is WITHOUT A DOUBT a successful musician.

That still very much looks like a cartoon.

You either need to get your vision checked, or learn to admit when you are wrong instead of being unreasonably stubborn.

Lore, if implemented correctly, enhances immersion for any game, regardless of the genre, that is a fact.

Had it been implemented properly, it may very well attract attention, and with it more players.

There's this word you keep using... implement.

noun
1. any article used in some activity

I'm aware of the difference between story and lore. I think you're just misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make.

Yes it does. This is because the game inspired the creativity of writers and artists, more so than quake. Their work stems from the game lore, and hence has everything to do with it.

So it wasn't implemented, it had nothing to do with the game and was tacked on later by people who also had nothing to do with the game.

But it most certainly has a more expansive lore than quake, which was what we were initially arguing about.

No it wasn't.

Whether or not LoL requires skill is immaterial. What matters is that it achieved mainstream popularity in e-sports. One of the reasons it is successful is because "There are several opportunities for casual players to jump deeper in to the world of League of Legends. These range from writing fan-fiction lore, painting a picture or creating humorous videos.". This was from a forbes magazine article interviewing a curse editor.

1) LoL became an e-sport because the game is extremely popular. People hosting events aren't going to NOT put the most popular game as a title. Skill is immaterial, but that's because the game is so incredibly popular. Someone HAS to be the best at it, so it can obviously be turned into competition.

2). That's not part of the world of LoL. He used the word "fan-fiction," which has NOTHING to do with the game. Pictures and videos are just fandom.

And as much as I hate the cunt, Justin Bieber is WITHOUT A DOUBT a successful musician.

Depends on how you define success, which is the entire point I was trying to make.

You either need to get your vision checked, or learn to admit when you are wrong instead of being unreasonably stubborn.

It looks horrendously fake, and if you can't see that, you need to get YOUR vision checked.

There's this word you keep using... implement.

I used the word "implement" as a verb and it was in the correct context. If you had anything of substance to respond with, you would not be nit-picking grammar, and doing so very poorly.

Implement verb 1. put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect.

I'm aware of the difference between story and lore

No you weren't, otherwise you would not have used the two interchangeably. You obviously thought they were the same thing. Maybe now you know the difference after a google search, but not when you wrote your initial post.

LoL became an e-sport because the game is extremely popular.

It doesn't matter if it's due to popularity or divine intervention. The Game is widely considered a successful e-sport. It may not fit within your definition of success, but the general consensus among gamers is that it is successful.

But it most certainly has a more expansive lore than quake, which was what we were initially arguing about.
No it wasn't.

Oh really? Weren't you the one who said "I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3"? Yes you did. If you're going to make an ass-hat response like the one above, try to back it up with proof.

He used the word "fan-fiction," which has NOTHING to do with the game.

The game lore was a catalyst for a large amount of creative material, quake lore was not. But let's pretend it wasn't so, even then, the game has a bigger team of writers, much more voice-acting and story content, cinematic cutscenes and many more articles on the official website, that summarize the games plot. It has a more expansive lore, that is a FACT. You have not given a single shred of proof, and I have laid everything out for you clearly.

It looks horrendously fake.

Every review ever written for Crysis 2 by a reputable website or magazine, even the negative ones, have praised it's realistic art-style. And besides you, I have never heard ANYONE claim that it looks like a cartoon.

you need to get YOUR vision checked.

My vision is fine. And what I see is myself giving you WAY too much credit by replying. And you putting together malformed knee-jerk responses that can't hold their weight. You are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and you are doing so poorly. Like a cornered animal, clawing helplessly to prevent it's inevitable death. My initial instinct told me to ignore you, I should have listened.

I used the word "implement" as a verb and it was in the correct context. If you had anything of substance to respond with, you would not be nit-picking grammar, and doing so very poorly.

Implement verb 1. put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect.

By the definition you've given me, it still fails. Lore was never put into effect in the sense you're talking about. It all came after the fact.

No you weren't, otherwise you would not have used the two interchangeably. You obviously thought they were the same thing. Maybe now you know the difference after a google search, but not when you wrote your initial post.

You could argue that I'm using them interchangeably. The fact is that a story needs a narrative/plot. Lore does not. If you think I'm saying that Lore NEEDS to be story, no, that's not what I'm getting at. What I mean to imply is that any lore that isn't directly involved in the game is completely 100% useless to the game itself.

Oh really? Weren't you the one who said "I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3"? Yes you did. If you're going to make an ass-hat response like the one above, try to back it up with proof.

We were initially arguing "The Importance of Lore in Arena FPS."

The game lore was a catalyst for a large amount of creative material, quake lore was not. But let's pretend it wasn't so, even then, the game has a bigger team of writers, much more voice-acting and story content, cinematic cutscenes and many more articles on the official website, that summarize the games plot. It has a more expansive lore, that is a FACT. You have not given a single shred of proof, and I have laid everything out for you clearly.

I can agree with the first bit, I never said otherwise. It's still a moot point. All of that Lore is useless to the game.

Every review ever written for Crysis 2 by a reputable website or magazine, even the negative ones, have praised it's realistic art-style. And besides you, I have never heard ANYONE claim that it looks like a cartoon.

Cartoon may not be the completely right word, but it doesn't by any means look realistic. I imagine in 5-6 years Crysis 2 will look like King Kong (1933).
Cartoons look more realistic than Crysis these days... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqirMmXZQOw

All of that Lore is useless to the game.

If lore is useless to the game, why does it exist? Why would the developers want to waste money and resources on something that is entirely "useless"? Ah off course, they must be idiots. You must be a voice of reason in a world gone mad.

By the definition you've given me, it still fails.

No it does not. 'Implementing' means putting a feature in to effect. In this case this feature is lore. You're wrong, it makes perfect sense.

The fact is that a story needs a narrative/plot. Lore does not.

Sorry, what? The story IS the narrative/plot. I don't see how there's a distinction, they're the same bloody thing. Also, story is a FACET of the lore, along with setting and characters. You clearly don't know the definition of the two, as you so boldly claimed.

We were initially arguing "The Importance of Lore in Arena FPS."

That's right. And within this argument, you said "I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3". That's when the tide of the argument shifted, and I responded to this specific point.

Cartoons look more realistic than Crysis these days

Yes, two dimensional figures are WAY more realistic. That's some killer logic right there.

Uh, this is tiring. This is not an argument, or a verbal joust as you might seem to think. You're not giving rebuttals. This is just you saying stupid shit, and me responding to the stupid shit you said. It's a perpetual cycle, that doesn't seem to have a foreseeable end.

If lore is useless to the game, why does it exist? Why would the developers want to waste money and resources on something that is entirely "useless"? Ah off course, they must be idiots. You must be a voice of reason in a world gone mad.

They spent very minimal effort with Lore in Quake 3, which is basically the reason you started this thread.

No it does not. 'Implementing' means putting a feature in to effect. In this case this feature is lore. You're wrong, it makes perfect sense.

Where was this feature put into effect for Quake 3, exactly? How does it affect the gameplay?

Sorry, what? The story IS the narrative/plot. I don't see how there's a distinction, they're the same bloody thing. Also, story is a FACET of the lore, along with setting and characters. You clearly don't know the definition of the two, as you so boldly claimed.

There's really not a plot to Quake3/Starcraft. It's entirely settings and characters.

That's right. And within this argument, you said "I wasn't aware Starcraft had any more Lore than Quake 3". That's when the tide of the argument shifted, and I responded to this specific point.

It was a tangent statement that amounted to nothing and you blew it out of proportion.

Yes, two dimensional figures are WAY more realistic. That's some killer logic right there.

Did you look at the scenery in my example? There isn't a single videogame that comes even remotely close to looking like real life. That is fact. The best I've ever seen looks more closely related to a cartoon than it does real life.

Uh, this is tiring. This is not an argument, or a verbal joust as you might seem to think. You're not giving rebuttals. This is just you saying stupid shit, and me responding to the stupid shit you said. It's a perpetual cycle, that doesn't seem to have a foreseeable end.

Projecting much?

The ultimate question that I keep asking:
How does Lore affect game-play (the absolute only thing that matters) in the slightest fraction of a bit?

They spent very minimal effort with Lore in Quake 3

I agree. But I was talking about multiplayer focused games in general, not specifically quake 3. That said, my point still applies. developers would not spend money and resources on lore if it was completely useless.

Where was this feature put into effect for Quake 3, exactly?

We were talking about the correct usage of the word 'implement', you are now trying to divert the conversation because you knew I used the word correctly. I'll entertain your question anyway, the feature I would like implemented is a proper lore. Which encompasses aspects such as a coherent and creative setting, memorable characters, clever writing, and a purpose to your in-game actions.

It was a tangent statement that amounted to nothing and you blew it out of proportion.

It wasn't a tangent statement. It was a point you used to try to undermine my argument that other e-sport games have used lore to great effect. But even if it were a tangent statement, it was incorrect, and I had to call you out on it.

There's really not a plot to Quake3/Starcraft. It's entirely settings and characters.

That wasn't my point. My point was you didn't know the meaning of 'story' and 'lore' in the context of gaming, when earlier you claimed that you did. Even though you're trying to divert the conversation, I'll entertain you once again.

You're wrong. Both games have a plot, and this plot forms the basis of the single-player campaigns for both games. However Starcraft's is more intricate and plays a bigger role. While quake's is only lightly touched on.

How does Lore affect game-play (the absolute only thing that matters) in the slightest fraction of a bit?

That's a loaded question. It's a loaded question because it contains the unjustified assumption that gameplay is "the absolute only thing that matters", when in reality, it is not the only thing that matters. I have already given reasons as to why this assumption is unjustified. Your 'ultimate question' is flawed, and I refuse to answer it.

But what I can answer is "How does implementing lore help the game?". It helps the game by:

- enhancing in-game immersion, as your actions have purpose.
- encouraging creative material related to the game, hence expanding the community and community generated content.
- attracting casuals, as it caters to a different player, and not just the competitive e-sports dudes.

I agree. But I was talking about multiplayer focused games in general, not specifically quake 3. That said, my point still applies. developers would not spend money and resources on lore if it was completely useless.

Quake 3 had minimal lore specifically because it is useless. Any more lore and you would be wasting too much money. How about you name an Arena shooter with an expansive lore and we will see how successful it ever was due to the lore.

We were talking about the correct usage of the word 'implement', you are now trying to divert the conversation because you knew I used the word correctly.

I'm not trying to divert. I'm trying to make my point and move along.

You're the one clearly trying to divert because I asked you two questions in that bit, one of which you quoted and did not answer.

I'll ask the more important one again:
How does it affect the gameplay?

I'll entertain your question anyway, the feature I would like implemented is a proper lore. Which encompasses aspects such as a coherent and creative setting, memorable characters, clever writing, and a purpose to your in-game actions.

In an arena FPS, the ONLY purpose you need for any action is to get the upper hand on your opponent with the motive being to win. There's nothing else that matters. Lore would play absolutely no effect in this.

It wasn't a tangent statement. It was a point you used to try to undermine my argument that other e-sport games have used lore to great effect. But even if it were a tangent statement, it was incorrect, and I had to call you out on it.

How can I be incorrect by stating "I wasn't aware"??? The point I'm trying to make is that over the years of playing Starcraft and Quake 3, the lore was never a part of the experience.

You're wrong. Both games have a plot, and this plot forms the basis of the single-player campaigns for both games. However Starcraft's is more intricate and plays a bigger role. While quake's is only lightly touched on.

It's such an extremely basic plot that it may as well just be lore, which is what I was trying to say.

That's a loaded question. It's a loaded question because it contains the unjustified assumption that gameplay is "the absolute only thing that matters", when in reality, it is not the only thing that matters. I have already given reasons as to why this assumption is unjustified. Your 'ultimate question' is flawed, and I refuse to answer it.

I would give you a high five and a hug for this one. How can anything else matter besides game-play when playing a game? You are truly baffling me.

- enhancing in-game immersion, as your actions have purpose.

I've already explained the purpose for your actions several times.

- encouraging creative material related to the game, hence expanding the community and community generated content.

Has nothing to do with the game and how it functions.

- attracting casuals, as it caters to a different player, and not just the competitive e-sports dudes.

okay

Quake 3 had minimal lore specifically because it is useless. Any more lore and you would be wasting too much money.

Another baseless claim with absolutely no proof supporting it.

How about you name an Arena shooter with an expansive lore and we will see how successful it ever was due to the lore.

There isn't one, and there has never been one. That's why I created this thread. I'm trying to make the point that other e-sport games have used this feature to good effect, and arena FPS can do the same. Arena FPS have been losing popularity exponentially, that tells us something is wrong with the current formula, and something needs to change.

I'm not trying to divert. I'm trying to make my point and move along.

That's not what you're doing. You were the one who brought up grammar. You focus on trivial matters when it suits you, and after being proven wrong, you make it as though you just want to 'move along'. Fact is I didn't divert shit, I'm just responding to what you say.

How can I be incorrect by stating "I wasn't aware"??? The point I'm trying to make is that over the years of playing Starcraft and Quake 3, the lore was never a part of the experience.

This argument is contradictory. First you claim you are "unaware". Then you claim that you have played both games extensively, and say with CERTAINTY "lore was never a part of the experience". Hardly the words of someone who is "unaware".

It's such an extremely basic plot that it may as well just be lore, which is what I was trying to say.

No it wasn't. You said "There's really not a plot to Quake3/Starcraft". That's a clear-cut statement with no room for interpretation. Stop back-tracking and changing what you initially said. You were wrong.

How can anything else matter besides game-play when playing a game? You are truly baffling me.

A lot of things matter when playing a game, you're being very short-sighted. These things include art-style and aesthetics, an easily navigable menu, match-making, customization, sound design, music and last but not least lore. All of these exist outside of the gameplay but within the game, and all of these are important. What baffles ME is that you don't see this.

I would give you a high five and a hug for this one.

I'd rather you didn't.

I've already explained the purpose for your actions several times.

Firstly. I don't need you to tell me how to think, especially since you seem to be having trouble with the act yourself.
Secondly, I'm not talking about YOU the player, I'm talking about the character you play, you're avatar. What's his purpose within the lore? why is he killing people? What's his quest? These are rhetorical questions by the way, I know you don't care about these questions, and I don't want you to answer them for me in a condescending way. Just because you don't find a certain aspect of a game appealing, doesn't mean that there aren't many people out there who do. And it certainly does not make it useless.

Has nothing to do with the game and how it functions.

I agree that it doesn't affect how a game 'functions', but it is important to the game regardless. Without features that encourage community contribution, very few people would be playing a well-functioning game (just look at UT3, Q4, Warsow). Gameplay is a key feature, but it is not THE key feature.

okay

I'll take that as an expression of agreement. Now we're going somewhere.

Another baseless claim with absolutely no proof supporting it.

I'll copy takesix's post which you've already responded to:

Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.
John D. Carmack

There isn't one, and there has never been one. That's why I created this thread. I'm trying to make the point that other e-sport games have used this feature to good effect, and arena FPS can do the same.

No they don't, and they shouldn't.

Arena FPS have been losing popularity exponentially, that tells us something is wrong with the current formula, and something needs to change.

The current formula is to release a watered down game because gaming is no longer an extreme nerdy niche thing to do. It has to appeal to the average Joe. The average Joe doesn't want to pick up a game for an hour a day and get stomped by people who game consistently. The watered down game make a lot of money because it has a big player base of average Joes. Some of the players will become good enough at the game to be able to compete (as I said earlier, anything can be turned into competition). These are the games that events will feature because it has a mass appeal.

The formula of old works great for the player who is compelled to be better than he was the day before. No amount of Lore will make a very high-skill game more appealing to the mass market.

That's not what you're doing. You were the one who brought up grammar. You focus on trivial matters when it suits you, and after being proven wrong, you make it as though you just want to 'move along'. Fact is I didn't divert shit, I'm just responding to what you say.

I brought up grammar. I defined a word you used and claimed that lore was not implemented like you imply. You used one of the other optional definitions as rebuttal. I then asked you this to try to get you to back up your claim:

Where was this feature put into effect for Quake 3, exactly? How does it affect the gameplay?

You did not answer the first question, while claiming to, and then completely dropping off the second question.

I'll entertain your question anyway, the feature I would like implemented is a proper lore. Which encompasses aspects such as a coherent and creative setting, memorable characters, clever writing, and a purpose to your in-game actions.

How did that answer "Where was this feature put into effect for Quake 3, exactly?"
???

This argument is contradictory. First you claim you are "unaware". Then you claim that you have played both games extensively, and say with CERTAINTY "lore was never a part of the experience". Hardly the words of someone who is "unaware".

How can you even begin to argue what my experience was? I played them over the course of a few years, and the lore was not part of the experience. You can't even begin to debate that. I remember quotes like "Not enough vespene gas," but really I could do without them.

No it wasn't. You said "There's really not a plot to Quake3/Starcraft". That's a clear-cut statement with no room for interpretation. Stop back-tracking and changing what you initially said. You were wrong.

When did I change what I initially said? I have to keep paraphrasing because you keep ignoring it. I'll try again... The plot is so extremely basic that it might as well not even be there. It boils down to settings and characters.

A lot of things matter when playing a game, you're being very short-sighted. These things include art-style and aesthetics, an easily navigable menu, match-making, customization, sound design, music and last but not least lore. All of these exist outside of the gameplay but within the game, and all of these are important. What baffles ME is that you don't see this.

Art-style. aesthetics, and music, sound design
Preferences. Personally I prefer them to be practical. I don't want music in my game.
Menu, match-making-customization
Not part of the game-play, just tools to get to the game-play. Doesn't really matter.
Lore
Last and definitely least. Game-play is all that matters.

Secondly, I'm not talking about YOU the player, I'm talking about the character you play, you're avatar. What's his purpose within the lore? why is he killing people? What's his quest? These are rhetorical questions by the way, I know you don't care about these questions, and I don't want you to answer them for me in a condescending way.

I basically already answered these much earlier, but I'll answer them again for you because I'm such a great guy.

To kill the enemy
They're trying to kill him
To be the victor

Keep in mind that we're talking about Arena FPS. The character is a projection of you, or a tool that you use to defeat your opponent based on skill. To use a sports analogy, it's a lot like Boxing or MMA. Two men enter, one man leaves. Then the other leaves on a stretcher.

Just because you don't find a certain aspect of a game appealing, doesn't mean that there aren't many people out there who do. And it certainly does not make it useless.

Here's a thought... Name one player who is very good at any game that plays that game specifically because of the lore. This should be fun.

I agree that it doesn't affect how a game 'functions', but it is important to the game regardless. Without features that encourage community contribution, very few people would be playing a well-functioning game (just look at UT3, Q4, Warsow). Gameplay is a key feature, but it is not THE key feature.

Game-play is not the key feature? You are mental. People don't play those games because there's games that are similar enough to it with better functioning game-play e.g. Q3 and QL.

I'll take that as an expression of agreement. Now we're going somewhere.

It was an expression of agreement, with an undertone of it doesn't matter.

I'll copy takesix's post which you've already responded to

Nowhere in takesix's quote does it say it was "a waste of money", and that was the reason they didn't use it. That was the claim I called baseless.
And if it is a waste of money, how do you explain John Carmac working on the "Rage" project years later, which revolved around a single-player story-based campaign? The quote is outdated and untrue, regardless of who said it.

No they don't, and they shouldn't.

I don't recall what I said being a question. But let's say it was, why shouldn't it? Next time you don't support a claim with proof, I won't bother responding to it.

How did that answer "Where was this feature put into effect for Quake 3, exactly?"

My bad, I misunderstood the question. But now that I have re-read it, your question was pointless and wouldn't have move the argument forward in any way. I never said this feature was put into effect in quake 3, so I don't know why you're asking, especially since you already know the answer to it.

If you have a point you want to make, make it. Don't ask pointless questions.

How can you even begin to argue what my experience was?

I wasn't, because you weren't talking about your experience, here's why: You said "lore was never part of THE experience". You did not say, "lore was never part of MY experience". There's a world of difference between the two. One is universal, the other is personal.

When did I change what I initially said?

First you say "there's really no plot", then you say "The plot is so extremely basic.". Those statements are contradictory, because first you claim it doesn't have a plot, then you claim it has a basic plot. It's either one or the other. You. Changed. What. You. Said.

Here's a thought... Name one player who is very good at any game that plays that game specifically because of the lore. This should be fun.

How is that a response to what I initially said? and how is this question relevant? Again, if you have a point, make it. Don't ask me pointless questions that don't forward the argument in any way. Stay on point mate, don't let your mind waver into irrelevancies.

Game-play is all that matters.

I gave you a list of a tonne of shit BESIDES GAMEPLAY that matters in a game. You didn't refute what I said in any way, but you seem to think you have.

But let me give you an example: Imagine an FPS game where the player models are floating white boxes, and the gun models are just cylinders protruding from said boxes. There is absolutely no sound, besides a fart noise whenever you fire your gun, and it's the same sound for all of them. The menu in non-existent, and the only way you could get in the game is by entering DOS-style commands. And when you do enter the game, you are put in a server from a country across the world, with players twice your skill level. The only redeeming feature of this game is good, balanced gameplay. Would it succeed? Highly, highly unlikely.

That's what most games would look like if, according to you, gameplay was "the absolute only thing that matters". But alas it isn't, and there are other features besides gameplay that make a game good.

The character is a projection of you, or a tool that you use to defeat your opponent.

If it's merely a projection of me, or a tool, then it is not a "character". It's an empty soulless player model.

Game-play is not the key feature? You are mental.

I am mental, but that doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I agree that it is A key feature, but not "the absolute only thing that matters". THAT statement is mental, and I have proven it wrong.

It was an expression of agreement, with an undertone of it doesn't matter.

Oh of course, casuals don't matter at all! It's not like they make up most of the player base and the bulk of the revenue, right!? Well they do matter, and if you think otherwise, then you weren't really agreeing with me in the first place.

You entire post contributed little to nothing to the discussion.

Nowhere in takesix's quote does it say it was "a waste of money", and that was the reason they didn't use it. That was the claim I called baseless.

It had a very heavy negative connotation that basically implies it.

And if it is a waste of money, how do you explain John Carmac working on the "Rage" project years later, which revolved around a single-player story-based campaign? The quote is outdated and untrue, regardless of who said it.

rofl
We're talking about Arena FPS, where lore has absolutely no factor. Of course I want lore and story in a single player game... I've already stated above that I think video games have the potential to be the best medium to express a story.

I don't recall what I said being a question. But let's say it was, why shouldn't it? Next time you don't support a claim with proof, I won't bother responding to it.

It doesn't need to be a question for me to tell you you're wrong. They shouldn't because Arena FPS is a hardcore gamer concept. The people smart enough to make an Arena FPS are also smart enough to realize that lore is a waste of time. The people currently making Arena FPS are getting their feedback entirely from the hardcore crowd, which they seem to want to market to.

My bad, I misunderstood the question. But now that I have re-read it, your question was pointless and wouldn't have move the argument forward in any way. I never said this feature was put into effect in quake 3, so I don't know why you're asking, especially since you already know the answer to it.

It's not a pointless question based on the fact that Quake3 is the most successful Arena FPS released to date, and basically built the mold that all Arena FPS games try to emulate. Lore played no factor.

If you have a point you want to make, make it. Don't ask pointless questions.

It's not as effective if I just say things as it is to make you say them instead.

I wasn't, because you weren't talking about your experience, here's why: You said "lore was never part of THE experience". You did not say, "lore was never part of MY experience". There's a world of difference between the two. One is universal, the other is personal.

I was clearly talking personally. I'm also very sure that many would say the same.

First you say "there's really no plot", then you say "The plot is so extremely basic.". Those statements are contradictory, because first you claim it doesn't have a plot, then you claim it has a basic plot. It's either one or the other. You. Changed. What. You. Said.

I was using the phrase word 'really not' as a device that implies 'basically not,' which is a common thing for people to do. Maybe if I had switched the words around that would have come across more clearly. I already explained what I was getting at.

How is that a response to what I initially said? and how is this question relevant? Again, if you have a point, make it. Don't ask me pointless questions that don't forward the argument in any way. Stay on point mate, don't let your mind waver into irrelevancies.

As I said earlier, it's better for you to make the point for me, but once again you've completely dodged the question. You can't answer the question. There are no players that are good at a game that play the game specifically for the lore. They play it for the competition, or game-play (fun or skill based).

But let me give you an example: Imagine an FPS game where the player models are floating white boxes, and the gun models are just cylinders protruding from said boxes. There is absolutely no sound, besides a fart noise whenever you fire your gun, and it's the same sound for all of them. The menu in non-existent, and the only way you could get in the game is by entering DOS-style commands. And when you do enter the game, you are put in a server from a country across the world, with players twice your skill level. The only redeeming feature of this game is good, balanced gameplay. Would it succeed? Highly, highly unlikely.

As I said earlier, the aesthetics need to be functional. If I can tell which gun is which, what team the player is on, stuff like that. I don't care if you're a box or a sphere. The sound should be different depending on the gun, because that's not very functional. DOS style commands, far away servers, twice my skill level, is all fine. If the netcode is good, server location is adaptable. I can play Team Fortress Classic on any server in the world just fine. The only factor you called redeeming is 'balanced game-play'. I'm actually someone who does not like balanced game-play. It makes the game less interesting and less dynamic.

Regardless, It is unlikely that the game would succeed, but that has nothing to do with how good the game is or plays.

Most of my favorite games of all time are basically this simple. Defender and Robotron:2084 are my favorite games aesthetically, and in my top 10 for game-play.

If it's merely a projection of me, or a tool, then it is not a "character". It's an empty soulless player model.

Maybe avatar would be a better word, but yes, it is soulless. For a rebuttal, you are supposed to be the soul.

I am mental, but that doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I agree that it is A key feature, but not "the absolute only thing that matters". THAT statement is mental, and I have proven it wrong.

I can't find any proof...

Oh of course, casuals don't matter at all! It's not like they make up most of the player base and the bulk of the revenue, right!? Well they do matter, and if you think otherwise, then you weren't really agreeing with me in the first place.

Casuals do not matter to how good a game is. How good a game is has nothing to do with how much revenue it gains (refer to my Justin Bieber comment). Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I define how good a game is by how skilled a player can become at the game. The main factors that drive this are dynamics and movement. If you want me to elaborate on this more, I can. The hardcore players are the ones that push this boundary.

You entire post contributed little to nothing to the discussion.

You are just too cute :>

We're talking about Arena FPS

No we weren't, we were talking about John Carmac's quote. And his quote did not say "story in an arena FPS is like...", he said "story in a GAME is like...". And he was wrong. You took my argument out of context, and rofled like you proved me wrong in some way.

It had a very heavy negative connotation that basically implies it.

That's your interpretation of it, not mine. And even if it were the case, John Carmac was wrong. I'd jump off the nearest building if he stands by his words today.

They shouldn't because Arena FPS is a hardcore gamer concept... people currently making Arena FPS are getting their feedback entirely from the hardcore crowd, which they seem to want to market to.

You're wrong. The hardcore crowd is a tiny demographic, and I doubt all the arena FPS developers are marketing solely to them. There's no money in it and it's a bad business venture.

Secondly, if that was the case, why are a lot of them getting their game greenlit on steam (Warsow, Project Nex, Reflex) if not to attract players OUTSIDE of the current hardcore group? It wouldn't make sense that the 5+ arena fps currently in development would ALL be fighting over a community of 500-1000. You. Are. Wrong.

the fact that Quake3 is the most successful Arena FPS released to date, and basically built the mold that all Arena FPS games try to emulate.

And how many of those games achieved mainstream success besides Quake? UT3 and Q4 were short-lived, Nexuiz was a flop, so was Warsow. It's an out-dated mold that needs to change in some way, it may have worked in 98, but this isn't 98.

There are no players that are good at a game that play the game specifically for the lore.

I have no idea where you're going at with this. I never said lore makes you a better player, and had I said that, then you would have a point. But I didn't.

I can't find any proof...

I explained to you the aspects besides game-play that are important to the game as a whole. You did not refute them, you just half-assedly replied to them. I explained to you what a game would look like if said features were omitted from the game, and again you did not refute me, but unknowingly AGREED with me. I'll explain how below:

"As I said earlier, the aesthetics need to be functional."

Here you agree that aesthetics matter, and if they are not functional, it could be detrimental to the game.

"The sound should be different depending on the gun."

Why? Sound shouldn't matter if game-play is the "absolutely only thing that matters", right? I'll tell you why, because you agree that sound design is important.

"Regardless, It is unlikely that the game would succeed, but that has nothing to do with how good the game is or plays."

And here, you completely agree with me. YOU AGREE THAT THE SUCCESS OF A GAME IS NOT ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON GAME-PLAY. What happened to "gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters"? Oh and BTW, by success we're talking about mainstream success in e-sports, lest you make the argument that "success is subjective".

CHECK-MATE.

DOS style commands, far away servers, twice my skill level, is all fine.

Hahaha, you're joking right? If not, then you're alone on that one. I think you need to be real with yourself here.

I can play Team Fortress Classic on any server in the world just fine.

*golf clap*. But sadly, most people don't share your enthusiasm in playing in a laggy server. That has led to the downfall of many games. Again, you need to be real with yourself.

Casuals do not matter to how good a game is.

How 'good' a game is is a matter of perspective, there is no universal 'good' and 'bad' when it comes to games. I have no idea what you're definition of a "good" game is, and I don't care. But what we can determine is 'mainstream success', and that is very much dependent on casual players.

I just destroyed your arguments one by one:

"gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters" WRONG!
"casuals don't matter" WRONG!
"Arena FPS developers are entirely marketing their games to the hardcore crowd" WRONG!

You just destroyed my arguments? Nice.

No we weren't, we were talking about John Carmac's quote. And his quote did not say "story in an arena FPS is like...", he said "story in a GAME is like...". And he was wrong. You took my argument out of context, and rofled like you proved me wrong in some way.

It's like you're implying than an Arena FPS isn't a game... He said that quote during a time that id was only notable for Quake and Doom.

That's your interpretation of it, not mine. And even if it were the case, John Carmac was wrong. I'd jump off the nearest building if he stands by his words today.

I hope he stands by it when referring to Arena FPS games.

You're wrong. The hardcore crowd is a tiny demographic, and I doubt all the arena FPS developers are marketing solely to them. There's no money in it and it's a bad business venture.

Secondly, if that was the case, why are a lot of them getting their game greenlit on steam (Warsow, Project Nex, Reflex) if not to attract players OUTSIDE of the current hardcore group? It wouldn't make sense that the 5+ arena fps currently in development would ALL be fighting over a community of 500-1000. You. Are. Wrong.

Of course they want players outside of the hardcore group, but all of the developmental feedback comes entirely from the hardcore group. The hardcore players are the ones they mainly aim to please. It's a bad business venture, but that doesn't mean they can't do it for the love of it.

And how many of those games achieved mainstream success besides Quake? UT3 and Q4 were short-lived, Nexuiz was a flop, so was Warsow. It's an out-dated mold that needs to change in some way, it may have worked in 98, but this isn't 98.

They didn't see success because they were too closely related to Quake in a general sense. I'm fairly sure I already said somewhere that Quake was the better game, so if you wanted your Arena FPS fix, you would just play Quake.

You're right, this isn't '98. That doesn't mean that the mold is out-dated. It just isn't compatible with this current generation of gaming. We've said over and over that popularity doesn't determine how good a game is. You keep defining success by how popular it a game is. I'm defining it by how good a game is.

I have no idea where you're going at with this. I never said lore makes you a better player, and had I said that, then you would have a point. But I didn't.

You way misunderstood.. I'm trying to say that people that are good at a game don't play it for the lore. They play it because it is fun or they're driven by competition. No one plays a game because of the lore while not having fun or being good at the game.

I explained to you the aspects besides game-play that are important to the game as a whole. You did not refute them, you just half-assedly replied to them.

Sound design and aesthetics matter to game-play. They are a factor in the actual playing of the game. The minimum line anything should be is functional. Anything extra is just icing on the cake, to a certain point. Once there's too much it becomes a hindrance. I didn't refute them because we almost share some common ground here. You are just getting confused on what matters with game-play.

Here you agree that aesthetics matter, and if they are not functional, it could be detrimental to the game.

Yes. There's a balance though, and there's also a reason a lot of the top Quaker players use settings that look horrendous, specifically because they're highly functional.

Why? Sound shouldn't matter if game-play is the "absolutely only thing that matters", right? I'll tell you why, because you agree that sound design is important.

Sound is part of the game-play.

And here, you completely agree with me. YOU AGREE THAT THE SUCCESS OF A GAME IS NOT ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON GAME-PLAY. What happened to "gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters"?

I've already agreed with you on that several times, but probably for different reasons. What happened to it? I'm not going to play a game because it's popular, I'm going to play it because it's fun and skillful, which is what matters.

Oh and BTW, by success we're talking about mainstream success in e-sports, lest you make the argument that "success is subjective".

Allow me to quote myself:

The current formula is to release a watered down game because gaming is no longer an extreme nerdy niche thing to do. It has to appeal to the average Joe. The average Joe doesn't want to pick up a game for an hour a day and get stomped by people who game consistently. The watered down game make a lot of money because it has a big player base of average Joes. Some of the players will become good enough at the game to be able to compete (as I said earlier, anything can be turned into competition). These are the games that events will feature because it has a mass appeal.

A successful game (on your terms) is entirely determined by the corporations in the industry backing their products to make more money. The game itself never comes into question.

KING-ME.

Hahaha, you're joking right? If not, then you're alone on that one. I think you need to be real with yourself here.

I come from the days where this was an actual thing. And you'd be surprised by how often DOS-commands are more convenient than things like Friend's Lists.

But sadly, most people don't share your enthusiasm in playing in a laggy server. That has led to the downfall of many games. Again, you need to be real with yourself.

The point here is that TFC's netcode works so well that it takes very little adaptation to be able to play in a "laggy" server. TFC had annual world cup tournaments for 7 years, and ping played little factor into it.

How 'good' a game is is a matter of perspective, there is no universal 'good' and 'bad' when it comes to games. I have no idea what you're definition of a "good" game is, and I don't care. But what we can determine is 'mainstream success', and that is very much dependent on casual players.

You have no idea? I just told you. Mainstream success is entirely dependent on the industries ability to shove the next big title down the casual's throat.

"gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters" WRONG!
"casuals don't matter" WRONG!
"Arena FPS developers are entirely marketing their games to the hardcore crowd" WRONG!

Right.
Right.
90% Right.

It's like you're implying than an Arena FPS isn't a game...

That's a strawman. I didn't imply that in any way shape or form.

He said that quote during a time that id was only notable for Quake and Doom.

What he said, regardless of when it was said, was a very general statement that implied story is not important to a game (he didn't specify arena FPS, he was talking about games in general). He was wrong, because 8 years later, he himself worked on a story-based game. Stop using this quote to support your argument. Let's move on.

I hope he stands by it when referring to Arena FPS games.

I hope to have a billion dollars one day. But we're not here to talk about our hopes.

but all of the developmental feedback comes entirely from the hardcore group. The hardcore players are the ones they mainly aim to please.

Prove it. Don't just make claims. I gave you my proof with the steam greenlight, which says they're not 'entirely' focusing on the hardcore group. Now it's your turn to prove that developers of upcoming FPS games are getting their feedback "ENTIRELY" from hardcore players.

Sound is part of the game-play... They are a factor in the actual playing of the game.

"...gameplay is distinct from graphics, and audio elements."(wikipedia)

"...the way it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects." (google dictionary definition of gameplay)

And also, I don't know if you remember, but Gamespot and IGN back in the day used to rate a game's graphics and sound separate from the gameplay.

***
I've noticed some holes in your argument. First you say:

Quake3 is the most successful Arena FPS released to date, and basically built the mold that all Arena FPS games try to emulate. Lore played no factor.

and then you say:

They didn't see success because they were too closely related to Quake in a general sense.

Those statements are contradictory. That's because first you imply that in order for an arena FPS to be successful, it must follow Q3's mold, and omit lore entirely. Then you say that games like Q4, UT3 etc failed because they followed Q3's mold. Your argument is all over the place.

A successful game (on your terms) is entirely determined by the corporations in the industry backing their products to make more money. The game itself never comes into question. KING-ME.

That is also a strawman. You claim to know my definition of a successful game, and inadvertently put words in my mouth. Then you pat yourself on the back for doing so.

I agree that the most popular game isn't necessarily the best game. But I also acknowledge that popular games can also be very good. Also, we are arguing about 'mainstream' success because success in a general sense is subjective, and at least with this, we can support our claims with fact.

The point here is that TFC's netcode works so well that it takes very little adaptation to be able to play in a "laggy" server.

Netcode isn't part of the gameplay, and here you agree that it is an important factor in how well a game works. Doesn't exactly go with the whole "gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters" theory you got going. I'll add that to the list of shit besides gameplay that's important to a game.

I come from the days where this was an actual thing. And you'd be surprised by how often DOS-commands are more convenient than things like Friend's Lists.

I doubt games that had DOS commands, had them for the purpose of convenience. They had them because that was all the technology of the time allowed. And if they were convenient, we'd be seeing them a lot more often in modern games.

I've already agreed with you on that several times

"gameplay is the absolute only thing that matters" No you didn't agree with me, let alone several times. Once again you are backtracking, and changing your initial stance because you know you are wrong.

***
And the award for the most reductive generalisation about gaming is... *drumrolls*

Mainstream success is entirely dependent on the industries ability to shove the next big title down the casual's throat.

What about indie projects that achieve mainstream success? Look at minecraft for example. Dude even league of legends started off small-time. They pitched their idea to EA, and EA basically laughed them out of the room. Now look at them.

It is not "entirely dependent" on marketing as you implied. There are several factors that contribute to the success of a game.

Right.
Right.
90% Right.

Wrong.
Wrong.
I'm waiting for you to prove it.

CHECK-MATE.

I just destroyed your arguments one by one

lol.

QL looks simple to us because it's a 1999 game in 2014. For its time it had the most complex and eye candy visuals, the crysis of its time.

Just putting things into perspective.

Fair point, but the screen isn't needlessly cluttered.

To this day streams suffer when ztn is on screen because of those overly detailed textures, causing lower stream quality. That's not the case even with crysis.

BTW so the point is clear, in 15 years the current crysis games will not look as complex to us as they do now. Same happened with quake3, which had a millions things on screen compared to its contemporaries.

I already made that point above :)

considered the creative potential of the community, it would be nice to have sp levels for ql

quake 4 had a story, doom 3 had a story, we all know how did that end up

Quake 4 is a story about talking faggots that won't open these god damn doors. Then another faggot will ask you to backtrack. Also reloading.