Originally posted by Canadian*Sniper
View Post
I can see this thread ending with a "Well guess what? DP already has these features so what are you waiting for?"
Usually it goes almost exactly like this:
1. A player loads up DarkPlaces to try it.
2. They connect to a server to try to play.
3. They notice their FPS is low, they ask how to "fix" it.
4. They try to play and then notice certain things like the fullpitch (can look straight up) and the straight shaft ... both are considered "cheats" by the many ProQuake users.
5. They try to play and want to turn this off or that off because it interferes with their play or they can't see or can't aim well.
6. After a couple of minutes they quit and reload their old client, never to use DarkPlaces again because their impression was that they couldn't figure it out.
2. They connect to a server to try to play.
3. They notice their FPS is low, they ask how to "fix" it.
4. They try to play and then notice certain things like the fullpitch (can look straight up) and the straight shaft ... both are considered "cheats" by the many ProQuake users.
5. They try to play and want to turn this off or that off because it interferes with their play or they can't see or can't aim well.
6. After a couple of minutes they quit and reload their old client, never to use DarkPlaces again because their impression was that they couldn't figure it out.
Almost without exception, they never do.
Therefore the development of DarkPlaces is denied feedback, feedback being a key element to the success of any project (in this case, widespead adoption of the client for online play, DarkPlaces has other communities like single player enthusiasts, Nexuiz, modders, total conversion standalone games, and so forth).
The reason for not providing feedback usually is either:
1. Too much trouble to do
But really it is usually #2
2. Don't want to be critical or sound like they are complaining.
This is normal. I hesistate myself. I hesistated providing input sometimes with JoeQuake. I hesistate critiquing some things that irk me about Qrack (but I do because I know I'm definitely in a very, very small minority on the precise topics of what irks me).
But in the end, if a project is denied feedback then the developers of a project at least cannot determine how to address issues that they are not told about.
The main loser is the Quake community. ProQuake was NEVER the most popular client in it's day. XQuake -- a client that did not follow the GPL and considered was a cheater Quake by old skoolers -- was vastly more popular than ProQuake.
I'm changing subjects here a little ...
ProQuake gained popularity primarily due to 2 things: 1. cheat-free mode because of all the cheaters, but mostly because 2. XQuake was GPL license violating client that did not release the source code, is hosted almost nowhere as a result of that stain and does not have an NAT fix and therefore can't connect to servers at all for maybe 35% of players.
In fact, ProQuake cheat-free early on was stunted by 2 things:
1. Players had to use "crappy" ProQuake instead of being able to use XQuake to play. XQuake was far more popular and some players said "to hell with that".
2. ProQuake 3.20 had cheat-free lag, that had a crippling lag effect on anyone with a dialup modem. This was fixed in 3.50 or so.
ProQuake cheat-free was almost terminally unpopular and unused until events that occurred on caplus.essentrix.net with widespread cheating accusations made by an unpopular (and probably unskilled) admin led to the server going cheat-free.
Soon this became the standard in CA, because no one wanted to play with cheaters and as ProQuake cheat-free got more use, eventually it was adopted in CRMOD and became pretty much the standard.
Meanwhile, around 2003 with broadband becoming widespread, router use started picking up. XQuake, like every Quake except ProQuake, could not connect thru the routers. This feature was added to JoeQuake very early on.
To compound things, by 2004 many broadband companies began to ship modems that were single port routers to support PPPOE connections (username and password requiring broadband connections) for non-PPPOE capable devices like XBoxes, Play Stations, etc. Neither XQuake nor GLQuake or WinQuake couldn't connect with those and these sort of problems compounded and eventually ProQuake was the only mainstream engine that could work properly for everyone for online play.
So XQuake and standard ID Software Quake were more or less snuffed out due to evolution, not for any other reason.
Which leads back to 2002 -- the most dominate engine was XQuake by a very wide margin.
XQuake had new particle effects, 24-bit texture support, brightness controls in the console, full keyboard binding support, customizable crosshairs, support for Quakeworld locs and the ability to remove vsync automatically (it was off by default, solely controlled by cl_maxfps).
No one that used XQuake wanted to use ProQuake.
So how can in 2007 can there be anyone saying that they truly want to use a washed out, ugly Quake like ProQuake when this wasn't even true in 2002?
No one who plays QW says "Hey, I wish our engines looked like dogshit!" and uninstalls ezQuake or FuhQuake and installs crappy old QW 2.30 so things can look like ass.
I think many of those that feel ProQuake is all they want is because they feel resigned to the fact that so far no "in-all-ways" superior engine has emerged to displace it.
Comment