King of Deathmatch: Quake 3 or UT?

[Narcolepsy]

This thread is surreal. And why is no one responding to my all-knowing post?

 

[Warbie]

Okay, I played a few hours of UT again.

My thoughts are that Q3 is better for pure deathmatch. It's distilled the deathmatch formula down to a perfect competitive experience. That's why we always played Q3 & CS at school LAN parties, and not UT.

But UT is still the better game because it tried something new and gave more value for the purchase. And if we leave deathmatch, UT beats the sh*t out of Quake 3 with the Assault, Domination and CTF modes(Q3 was never any good for CTF IMO). All 3 of these have unique play styles so you NEVER get bored of UT and never stop finding new tricks or strats. I visited The filefront UT archives and holy crap! So many high quality custom Assault maps! I'll be very busy for the next couple of weeks.

(I <3 Assault :cheese

Agreed, but the thread title is King of DM, and that's Q3

As much as I hate to describe any video game as a sport, Q3 is as close as we've seen so far.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

sure, fun is important to have playing a game, but isn't it important to be rewarded for the work you have put into the game, and the skill that you have? I mean, you don't see people playing pacman repetitively, and thats fun, right?

UT is still played competitively. As has been mentioned, it still has over 2000 active servers.

Look, the game is a different bird. It's a different feeling form of deathmatch and this is directly related to the various power-ups, weapons, layouts, designs, etc. Whether or not it suits the Quakers boats is relatively irrelevent to the vast majority of gamers. Especially considering the main person arguing this is speaking from a perspective shared by a small percentage of gamers....this matters.

 

[Druckles]

if these are the best replies and arguments you can come up with, i'll take my great knowledge and experience elsewhere.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

^^

Still among the best reply pics, EVER...LOL. Well done.

 

[repiV]

Micro is strategy. Furthermore, Starcraft doesn't have that much micro. It's much more of a macro game.

Ok then, it's a game where you have to make five thousand clicks a second to be any good.
It seems to me that reflexes are the main deciding factor in a game of Starcraft at higher levels of play. In Dawn of War, anything over 30 actions per minute is wasted.
My ideal game would probably be like Starcraft but with squads and strategic points...

I'm not talking about one race has slower units another race has faster units. Compare the Zerg to the Terran. Where they can build, how they build structures, how they build units, etc.. Each race not only requires learning a different unit set, but makes you think in a completely different manner, and not just on the battlefield but expanding and building aswell. Then the spell casters only set this into an entirely new level.
While Dawn Of War isn't let say Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, or Total Anniliation in terms of race similarity, they arn't as diverse as Starcraft.

I don't know enough about Starcraft to argue, but just out of interest, how extensively have you played Dawn of War?

What factors determine how well-designed a game is? Both UT and Q3 have weapon balance. Neither are perfect, but there both up there. Level design is completely subjective. How the pace of the game compliments the gameplay is completely subjective (actually due to the fact that time is relative, how fast the pace of the game is technically subjective). UT comes with more gameplay options (mutators) out of the box. How well a person likes the game mechanics is completely subjective.

Q3's weapon balance is a thousand times better than UT's. It has a couple of minor flaws, and even then these are only flaws because internet connections have come on somewhat since 1999. UT has more than a few major, MAJOR balance issues. UT2004 got a hell of a lot more attention from the professional tournaments precisely because it fixed all these issues. It was the CPL's 1v1 game of choice until Quake 4 came out.
UT3 is even worse - it might aswell be called UT: Shock Whore Edition, because at moderately skilled levels of play and above, it's basically the only weapon that counts.

It may have no bearing on the game mechanics, it does have a bearing on gameplay. If it doesn't, then what is the purpose of all those Q3 mods that tweak the game to perfection if they don't change the gameplay?

The mods have nothing to do with tweaking the game to perfection, they add functionality. OSP adds match functionality, many many things but a few examples are allowing the admin to pause the game, glowskins and the ability to change the colours of friendly and enemy models to anything you want via hex codes, the ability to restart a match without reloading the map, warmup/readyup, auto-demo/screenshot recording, and so on.
Threewave adds a much more robust CTF implementation with grapplehook, extra functionality, better maps and so on. Also allows the use of a team captain, if enabled, who can spectate the whole team at once to help coordinate the team over voice comms and time items etc.

Sure the vast majority of people here might like Radiohead better than the spice girls. On a "OMGZ I love Spice girls Forum" there would be a ton of people disagreeing. Infact, the majority opinion on this forum is that UT is the better deathmatch game than Quake 3 according to the poll. Thats a poll of subjective opinions (as all opinions are) on this forum. If we went on a Quake 3 forum, there would be a lot of subjective opinions saying that Q3 is the better game. Polls measure opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective. Facts are objective. Furthermore someone could think that a completely balanced game is horrible for deathmatch. While that may not make sense to you, how well weapon balance compliments the deathmatch gametype is completely subjective.

Getting slaughtered by someone half as good as you when he has the shock rifle and you have every weapon but the shock rifle is not a good gameplay mechanic. Under no range of definition could it be.

This is an objective forum though, we aren't planetunreal.com... Saying that quake 3 has more balanced weapons and stating it as FACT is also bullshit. If there was a quantifiable method of judging weapon balance and other things then there would be a perfect game out by now that everyone enjoys. FACT is, everything you have said so far in this thread is just your personal preference, one game is not better than the other, and there is no possible way of you proving that it is. You just like it more, and a few people decided it's what they wanted to play for moneys.

Of course there's a quantifiable method of judging weapon balance - if a weapon is too powerful, it's overpowered. If a weapon is not powerful enough, it's underpowered. Simple, eh?
UT and Q3 both use a system of weapon balance in which each weapon is supposed to be roughly equivalent in power to every other, but each useful in different situations. Q3 succeeds at this, and UT fails.
The only other systems of weapon balance are the Q2 style, where there are two weapons of each type, one much more powerful than the other - shotgun, double-barreled shotgun, machinegun, chaingun etc. This mechanic is intentionally used in the map design - the chaingun and the double-barrel etc are rarer and harder to control.
And the style as in the original Quake, where there are two monsterously powerful weapons and all the others are next to useless. Again, this is used intentionally to make the game all about controlling the rocket launcher and lightning gun. Not a mechanic I like, but it's a success in its own way, rather than the failed attempt at a balanced spread of weapons ala UT. You'll notice the powerful weapons are no more strategically located than the crap ones.

Also, comparing ut and q3 to bands would be more like The Beatles Vs The Rolling Stones than it would be The Spice Girls and Radiohead

More like The Rolling Stones vs Nickelback.

You have two options, repiV. You can tell me why my opinion isn't valid, or you can argue that the presence of a valid subjective opinion about something does not preclude a contradictory valid objective assessment of that thing.

This thread is now about philosophy.

Of course a valid subjective opinion doesn't preclude a valid objective assessment. Objective assessments are all about testing the quality of the thing in question, subjective opinions are merely what something means to a person. It's ok to like B-movies, but it doesn't make them great.
You can get objective assessments of the quality of life in countries across the world from any number of websites, but it doesn't mean you'll feel the same way.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Of course a valid subjective opinion doesn't preclude a valid objective assessment. Objective assessments are all about testing the quality of the thing in question, subjective opinions are merely what something means to a person. It's ok to like B-movies, but it doesn't make them great.
You can get objective assessments of the quality of life in countries across the world from any number of websites, but it doesn't mean you'll feel the same way.

Ok, let's say I just love B-movies, but hate all of that Oscar winning self-important crap. I say that B-movies are better than Oscars because they entertain me more, and that's what movies are supposed to do. You come along and argue for nine pages that your Oscar winning films put my favorite B-movie to shame. You could argue this point all you want, but it wouldn't make your opinion objectively right. That's because it's still an opinion! Not fact!

That's the way it is with art, repiV. Sometimes, humanity more or less comes to an agreement on the quality of certain things. Radiohead is better than the Spice Girls, for example. But there's nothing inherent in those two bands that make one better than the other. It's our culture, our collection of beliefs that brings us to that conclusion.

Now, when you look at two things that are FAR less removed than Radiohead and Spice Girls... let's say Radiohead and Pink Floyd... things get a lot blurrier. You can't really argue that one band is better than the other. You can argue that one was more influential, the other more emotional... but the argument is really too close for society to call. So it becomes more accepted as an opinion.

Same with UT and Quake. The games are too similar, gamers interest too varied, for the majority to come to an agreement. And understand that it's a societal agreement, not something truly objective. So while you may value weapon balance and competitive potential above all else, not everybody else is going to. For some people, style may be what makes the game for them. UT has better style to them, so UT is better. You just can't disprove that, because there's no objective measure of what makes a game great.

And no, your shock rifle argument doesn't invalidate what I just said. At the most, it makes UT = Spice Girls, which, as I said, still can't be objectively proven as worse than Quake = Radiohead.

 

[repiV]

Ok, let's say I just love B-movies, but hate all of that Oscar winning self-important crap. I say that B-movies are better than Oscars because they entertain me more, and that's what movies are supposed to do. You come along and argue for nine pages that your Oscar winning films put my favorite B-movie to shame. You could argue this point all you want, but it wouldn't make your opinion objectively right. That's because it's still an opinion! Not fact!

That's the way it is with art, repiV. Sometimes, humanity more or less comes to an agreement on the quality of certain things. Radiohead is better than the Spice Girls, for example. But there's nothing inherent in those two bands that make one better than the other. It's our culture, our collection of beliefs that brings us to that conclusion.

Now, when you look at two things that are FAR less removed than Radiohead and Spice Girls... let's say Radiohead and Pink Floyd... things get a lot blurrier. You can't really argue that one band is better than the other. You can argue that one was more influential, the other more emotional... but the argument is really too close for society to call. So it becomes more accepted as an opinion.

Same with UT and Quake. The games are too similar, gamers interest too varied, for the majority to come to an agreement. And understand that it's a societal agreement, not something truly objective. So while you may value weapon balance and competitive potential above all else, not everybody else is going to. For some people, style may be what makes the game for them. UT has better style to them, so UT is better. You just can't disprove that, because there's no objective measure of what makes a game great.

I think you've hit on something with your art comment. To me, a competitive multiplayer game (by which I mean one that's designed with competition in mind - any DM game, TF, CS etc. but not something like BF2 which aims more to provide an experience), which is a form of sport, is a science as much as it is an art.
Generally speaking, any mechanic which tests or rewards skill or is a good thing and any mechanic which penalises or marginalises skill is a bad thing. Q3 tests a wider range of skills, and provides appropriate rewards for increased skill in all areas whereas UT does not so much.
The difference, really, is that Q3 is of a high enough quality in these aspects and others to be taken seriously as a sport - and it was the first game to be taken seriously as a sport. Besides Starcraft, of course.
I would similarly argue that badminton and squash are objectively better games than tennis, since they test a wider range of skills and test the players far more strenuously across that range of skills.

 

[Crushenator 500]

repiV, if you asked the vast majority of people on the street if they took the game quake 3 seriously as a sport they would look at you like you were crazy...

Also, calling badminton and squash OBJECTIVELY better games than tennis is completely rediculous :/

Do you not find it a bit weird that you have an entire 5 page thread of what is basically everyone arguing not amongst each other, but arguing with you?

 

[repiV]

repiV, if you asked the vast majority of people on the street if they took the game quake 3 seriously as a sport they would look at you like you were crazy...

So? Outside numbersland and Starcraft, Quake 3 pioneered the concept of getting paid to play games. Modern pro-gaming - big prizes, tournaments covered by the media, sponsored clans, salaried players with contracts - is what it is because of Quake 3.
It was the game that made people sit up and take pro-gaming seriously.

Also, calling badminton and squash OBJECTIVELY better games than tennis is completely rediculous :/

Why is it ridiculous? Badminton and squash both require vastly more fitness, vastly more strategy and vastly more skill than tennis.

Do you not find it a bit weird that you have an entire 5 page thread of what is basically everyone arguing not amongst each other, but arguing with you?

Why would I find that weird?
This is a Half-Life 2 forum, I don't expect people here to understand the magic of Quake 3. In any event, if anyone still doubts the tactical depth of a game of Quake, diabz and I would be more than happy to play y'all 2v6...

 

[99.vikram]

The difference, really, is that Q3 is of a high enough quality in these aspects and others to be taken seriously as a sport - and it was the first game to be taken seriously as a sport.

Wouldn't that be CS, you know, that mod for HL1?

And to that 1337 professional gamer dude: PacMan was played competitively in it's heyday (for the highest scores), I have a copy of an old book called "Win at PacMan" lying around somewhere. And it involved a LOT of memorization of patterns and movement tricks.

 

[repiV]

Wouldn't that be CS, you know, that mod for HL1?

Not by a long shot, although it's certainly the pre-eminent pro game now.

And to that 1337 professional gamer dude: PacMan was played competitively in it's heyday, I have a copy of an old book called "Win at PacMan" lying around somewhere. And it involved a LOT of memorization of patterns and movement tricks.

It's a singleplayer game...

 

[99.vikram]

It's a singleplayer game...

I've explained in my edit.

 

[Bad^Hat]

To me

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[repiV]

I've explained in my edit.

I can see that, but working to beat a set high score isn't the same thing as playing a match.
For a start, if we're talking professional play here, there have to be spectators to create business opportunities for the corporate machine that funds the tournaments.
Which is why ultimately I think it will be a long time before pro-gaming really catches on. It's crap to watch.

But honestly, I don't know why people scoff at the concept. The only difference between a game of Q3 and a game of basketball is that Q3 is not athletic (although fitness is certainly important at the highest echelons, because a fit body equals a fit mind).
It requires every bit as much skill and strategy as a "real" sport, and involves very similar concepts of teamplay.

 

[99.vikram]

But honestly, I don't know why people scoff at the concept. The only difference between a game of Q3 and a game of basketball is that Q3 is not athletic (although fitness is certainly important at the highest echelons, because a fit body equals a fit mind).

My views on the matter are a bit warped - I think spectator sports themselves are a farce. I would rather bash my head against a wall than watch a group of people claiming to represent my country play a sport. Playing a game/sport is fine as long as you're having fun, but watching a sport is hardly ever useful.

 

[repiV]

My views on the matter are a bit warped - I think spectator sports themselves are a farce. I would rather bash my head against a wall than watch a group of people claiming to represent my country play a sport. Playing a game/sport is fine as long as you're having fun, but watching a sport is hardly ever useful.

I don't really "get" watching sports either. I watch motorcycle racing because I ride for sport and I watch badminton because I play it. I watched the CPL Painkiller finals, too. Always good to learn from the best, but if you don't play the game I don't see the point in watching it.

Nonetheless, Quake 3 was an extremely rewarding and fulfilling team sport, and I'm proud of my achievements through playing it. It doesn't have to just be about fun all the time, personal development and achievement through dedication is much more fulfilling in the long-term.
I regret that it's in the past. That whole style of game seems to be dying out, and nowadays I'm more of a division 2 player. I don't have the time anymore and my reflexes ain't what they were when I was 16, but it was a great ride while it lasted.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

It doesn't have to just be about fun all the time, personal development and achievement through dedication is much more fulfilling in the long-term.
I regret that it's in the past. That whole style of game seems to be dying out, and nowadays I'm more of a division 2 player. I don't have the time anymore and my reflexes ain't what they were when I was 16, but it was a great ride while it lasted.

Are we still talking about Quake 3...??..

:|

 

[repiV]

Are we still talking about Quake 3...??..

:|

Yes...
Succeeding at Quake requires every bit as much commitment and dedication as succeeding at any "real" sport.
There's a hell of a lot of pressure, with all the adrenaline and nerves and having to get in "the zone" that that brings. Division 1 matches had live commentary and were spectated by hundreds of people. It ceases to be just a game in that situation. Every action you take is immortalised in a recording that people will watch for years to come...

 

[Lt. Drebin]

It ceases to be just a game in that situation. Every action you take is immortalised in a recording that people will watch for years to come...

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I think you're taking this discussion far too seriously. And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.

 

[repiV]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. You're taking this discussion far too seriously.

What? It's not about the discussion. I'm telling you about my personal experiences of Quake 3. I had hoped you would find it interesting to realise that playing an FPS at the top levels is just like playing sport at the top levels - it's not all fun and games, it's bloody hard work and you spend 10 hours practicing for every hour you spend competing.
But in return you're rewarded with something so much more than a bit of throwaway fun.

And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.

Hardly. It's as on-topic as it gets, "king of deathmatch" implies the pinnacle of gaming excellence and Quake 3 is where it's at.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

What? It's not about the discussion. I'm telling you about my personal experiences of Quake 3. I had hoped you would find it interesting to realise that playing an FPS at the top levels is just like playing sport at the top levels - it's not all fun and games, it's bloody hard work and you spend 10 hours practicing for every hour you spend competing.
But in return you're rewarded with something so much more than a bit of throwaway fun.

Oh...ok. I really wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.

That's cool man. How'd you do?? Victories, winnings, world rankings, etc??

 

[repiV]

Oh...ok. I really wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.

That's cool man. How'd you do?? Victories, winnings, world rankings, etc??

Ah right. Thanks.

I was never any good at 1v1 (mainly because I didn't enjoy it), so that ruled me out from ever getting anywhere in terms of "world rankings".
Played at the upper half of div1 in TDM and RA3 though, won the Barrysworld leagues a few times. Those were the days really, when my game used to just come together perfectly. Since then it's gone slowly downhill. I guess I was at the top of my game in say, 2000-2003. I played for the top-ranked UT2004 iTDM clan on clanbase for a while, and then played Q4TDM+Q4CTF at div2/3 level. Ran the clan's TDM division. I just lost my touch over the years, now I have other interests. But it's nice to rekindle the fond memories.

Personally I think it's a great way of bringing team sports to the glued-to-the-couch generation.

 

[99.vikram]

And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.

I disagree, the competitive spirit is part of the deathmatch experience. And I've learnt some neat stuff in the past few pages.

 

[Asknoone]

Annnnd I wasted 20 minutes trawling through this thread from start to finish. I've never even played Q3 or UT! Discussion kind of went to hell when you all started throwing dirt at each other. Go that way again and it's infraction city.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Annnnd I wasted 20 minutes trawling through this thread from start to finish. I've never even played Q3 or UT!

I thought you had Q3 on your steam account?

 

[Cole]

Why is it ridiculous? Badminton and squash both require vastly more fitness, vastly more strategy and vastly more skill than tennis.

So how does that make them better than Tennis? Just because a sport requires me to be more fit doesn't mean that sport is better. What if I prefer sports that require a low level of fitness? What if I find sports that require less fitness and less strategy far better than sports that require those?

You cannot objectively say something is better than something else, because better directly implies subjectiveness.

For instance, whats better the number, the number 4 or the number 7? Someone could say number 7 because he likes larger numbers. I could say the number 4 because I like lower numbers. Thats a subjective response.

Two guys ran a mile. Guy A ran a 5:30. Guy B ran a 6:00. An objective response to that is that, Guy A is the faster runner. A subjective response could be, Guy B is the better runner despite him coming in second. Guy B could have worked harder, had a better running technique, had a better running start, but lost due to poor endurance. Theres more to running then endurance, and I could think that those other qualities make him better. Better is completely subjective and opinionated.

What game is better. Sure we could state objective facts about each game, but how we respond to those objective facts give us our subjective response on what game is better.

 

[Asknoone]

I thought you had Q3 on your steam account?

Do I?

 

[repiV]

So how does that make them better than Tennis? Just because a sport requires me to be more fit doesn't mean that sport is better. What if I prefer sports that require a low level of fitness? What if I find sports that require less fitness and less strategy far better than sports that require those?

You cannot objectively say something is better than something else, because better directly implies subjectiveness.

For instance, whats better the number, the number 4 or the number 7? Someone could say number 7 because he likes larger numbers. I could say the number 4 because I like lower numbers. Thats a subjective response.

Two guys ran a mile. Guy A ran a 5:30. Guy B ran a 6:00. An objective response to that is that, Guy A is the faster runner. A subjective response could be, Guy B is the better runner despite him coming in second. Guy B could have worked harder, had a better running technique, had a better running start, but lost due to poor endurance. Theres more to running then endurance, and I could think that those other qualities make him better. Better is completely subjective and opinionated.

What game is better. Sure we could state objective facts about each game, but how we respond to those objective facts give us our subjective response on what game is better.

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve. It's also a whole three times slower than badminton.
Every inch of the court is used in a game of badminton, rallies can last for up to a minute in professional doubles at the kind of pace where the shuttle is being hit twice per second and it's even possible to return a 130mph smash if you're on the ball - although the general point is to keep the shuttle out of the smash zone in the first place. There's just so much more to the game. It's an incredibly demanding sport.

So I speak in terms of which game has the greater virtues as a pure sport.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I disagree, the competitive spirit is part of the deathmatch experience. And I've learnt some neat stuff in the past few pages.

I didn't mean to discount his perspective, but I stand by my comments that they are skewed towards a more serious take on the two games NOT shared by the vast majority of gamers.

In the end we simply have two completely different takes/opinions on the games and it's the court of public opinion that speaks for itself.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Do I?

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197982719961/games

quake 3 is there

 

[Lt. Drebin]

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve.

But that's your criteria. It's the same as the competitive perspective on Quake 3 vs UT. You cannot possibly expect most gamers to share or even respect this highly critical view of UT. UT provided an excellent death match experience and since all we can do is go back and forth it's probably best to leave something like this to the court of public opinion.

Quake 3 prefered in the competitive arenas....UT mainly preferred outside of that. That's a fact...you can check reviews and even the results of this poll. There's no questioning this.

 

[repiV]

But that's your criteria. It's the same as the competitive perspective on Quake 3 vs UT. You cannot possibly expect most gamers to share or even respect this highly critical view of UT. UT provided an excellent death match experience and since all we can do is go back and forth it's probably best to leave something like this to the court of public opinion.

Quake 3 prefered in the competitive arenas....UT preferred outside of that. That's a fact...you can check reviews and even the results of this poll. There's no questioning this.

Fair point.

 

[Cole]

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve. It's also a whole three times slower than badminton.
Every inch of the court is used in a game of badminton, rallies can last for up to a minute in professional doubles at the kind of pace where the shuttle is being hit twice per second and it's even possible to return a 130mph smash if you're on the ball - although the general point is to keep the shuttle out of the smash zone in the first place. There's just so much more to the game. It's an incredibly demanding sport.

So I speak in terms of which game has the greater virtues as a pure sport.

Exactly and other people look for different things in a sport. I prefer mentally and physically exhausting sports like Soccer and doing things that take a very long time to get good at and that you will fail many many times at. Like soccer juggling/freestyle.

The same applies to Q3 and UT. It's subjective. You can state as many facts as you like, but once you throw them into Pro's and Con's you've made a subjective response off of an objective fact..

 

[99.vikram]

Do I?

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/7...82719961/games

Quake 3 is there

D:

Would the world judge me if I stabbed Samon for his account?

 

[Kyorisu]

Some ignorant twat, clearly. Noone has actually managed to come up with a single effective counter to any of my arguments so far, so instead I get "you're a retard", this moronic post by Letters and some 14 year old mod editing the poll options. Sure sign of a sore loser with no point.

Or because your views of what a better game is are twisted and warped so far out of proportion compared to mine, I feel confident in calling you a jack arse. (Not a personal attack I respect your views on things but sometimes I want to cry).

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill.

Here we go.

/cry.

 

[BirdMan]

I preferred Quake III's gothic feeling and mixed with metal soundtrack it pumped my adrenaline to the roof!

 

[kupocake]

As much as I hate to describe any video game as a sport, Q3 is as close as we've seen so far.

Nah, Halo is more of a homo-erotic jock-love-in than Quake will ever be.

The UT2s are an interesting illustration of what was right and what was wrong with Quake and UT. Epic made a definite effort to make a more Quake like experience, especially in DM, and this was mirrored in the choice of UT2k4 as the 'professional' gaming title. However, attracting the 'Pros' or the wanabee pros was part of what killed UT2k4 for everyone, since in a land of Nuclear-Eyesore Gorge clones and 'tournament' tweak mods, the already waning inventive and fun factors of the series were buried quicker than you could say 'WICKED SICK!' and wonder what the **** it all meant.

 

[CptStern]

both games are horribly boring

rtcw ftw!!!

/runs

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Would the world judge me if I stabbed Samon for his account?

Not if I beat you to it