Func_Msgboard: Quake 4 Community Map Pak By/for Id

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Quake 4 Community Map Pak By/for Id

Posted by Spirit [213.39.146.141] on 2007/02/02 12:56:11

id releases all the submitted maps:
With the deadline having been reached, all of the entries for the Quake 4 Community Map Pak have been submitted. We have compiled the 34 maps into one pak for play testing prior to the upcoming voting process. Thanks to all of the contestants for their submissions and good luck!
Download here:
http://webfiles.idsoftware.com/ids... (86.2MB)
Mirror: http://turkeyfiles.escapedturkey.n...

Some Of These
#1 posted by pope [154.20.164.142] on 2007/02/02 17:35:01
gave me a serious performance hit, in areas that shouldn't of.
i haven't checked them all out yet. so far... meh.
Citizens Demand Screenshots!
#2 posted by metlslime [204.15.3.5] on 2007/02/02 20:23:23
#3 posted by Trinca [87.196.218.212] on 2007/02/02 20:45:03
nobody buy that Q4 shit :p i want screenshots to!!!
#4 posted by [71.35.227.102] on 2007/02/02 23:34:45
so what is this for? sp? dm?
Multiplayer.
#5 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2007/02/02 23:53:32
I worked my way through quite a few of these earlier. So far my favourites are 'Systematic Lockdown' and 'Ravage'.
'Skylight' and 'A final roll of the dice' are worth checking out primarily for novelty value.
The others I tried were pretty unimaginative tbh.
Some Screenshots
#6 posted by Spirit [213.39.196.166] on 2007/02/03 00:47:44
http://www.cybergen.hu/?q=node/288
Meh
#7 posted by Megazoid [194.168.3.4] on 2007/02/03 15:35:12
I got Quake4 late (like a couple of months ago). Fired it up, and played perhaps 4 levels on "normal" skill (yeah, right...), and then dropped to easy. Boredom took over and that was it. I almost ritually burnt the disk in the garden when a Quake1 friend came over, but it was a little cold out.
:o
#8 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2007/02/03 15:47:05
I loved Quake 4 Singleplayer. After a slew of supposedly 'old skool' shooters like Serious Sam and Painkiller completely missed the mark, I found Quake 4 nailed what I used to love so much about shooters. It had no pretensions of grandeur and it wasn't held back by faux realism or some lame attempt at 'masterful storytelling' [I'm looking at you, HL2].
The multiplayer side of things hardly set my heart alight though and I think this map compo has come a little too late to reinvigorate the scene.
Wow
#9 posted by Lunaran [70.226.151.179] on 2007/02/03 19:16:16
There is one good screenshot in this bunch:
http://www.cybergen.hu/files/tarta...
Texture use isn't a circus, lighting isn't a disco. I hope the layout's inventive.
As for all the others, it seems that the q4 design community really, really needs to learn how to properly use an ambient light:
http://www.cybergen.hu/files/tarta...
http://www.cybergen.hu/files/tarta...
http://www.cybergen.hu/files/tarta...
can they all be that bad? I'm gonna have to download this today, because I suspect whoever took these shots was playing in whatever that ambient-only mode is, because ... come ON.
and OH GOD THE SHADOW VOLUMES:
http://www.cybergen.hu/files/tarta...
Another Opinion
#10 posted by pjw [75.130.27.174] on 2007/02/03 19:41:42
Yeah, a lot of them have a bit of ambient overkill going on, but it is MP, and most people aren't caused physical pain by same. There's some cool stuff in there.
The map in the OMGSV shot is a bit of a novelty and not a "real" MP map IMO--symmetrical layout and basically one big room with two floors. More just something done (I suspect) because it could be, and the author was curious about how far the skylight gimmick could be pushed. Some of the ones I liked (from my Q3W post):
Atmos by Barbeerian: Very cool feel, and the fans and the shooter were nice ideas.
Final Roll of the Dice by dONKEY: Great geocomp-ish geometry.
Kat Fight! by Kat: Great lighting!
Deep Impact by dONKEY: Kickass compact gothic. (Gothic--hooray!)
Learning Curve by Blushing Bride: Very nice patchwork.
Popsicle by cuirass: Cool and different atmosphere to this one. Great feel...
City Heat by Method: Great layout, cool mood and lighting (improved from the beta )
Spiral by Lukin: Just felt very solid all the way around. The water was a nice touch.
Phrantic by swelt: Very solid compact map with great layout and flow. I liked the blood down low.
Arid Wastes by Quaker-X: This was probably my fave. Just solid all the way around. Great visuals and lighting that didn't seem to impact performance at all. (Although I did manage to slip out of the playable area and "behind" the map by squeeking past the edge of the bent-panel-slope-jump... )"
Then again, maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant/optimistic and no one knows how to map anymore and we're all going to die.
(Lun, I still have your book...)
Keep It
#11 posted by Lunaran [70.226.151.179] on 2007/02/03 20:17:35
Never loan a book!
Er,
#12 posted by Lunaran [70.226.151.179] on 2007/02/03 22:47:10
meaning "give them away instead," not "be a book miser."
I'll buy another. then we'll both have one!
Heh.
#13 posted by pjw [75.130.27.174] on 2007/02/04 00:13:32
I got it.
Thank you!
Didn't See This Coming
#14 posted by Blitz [151.213.188.179] on 2007/02/04 06:31:59
1 month and no custom content makes for a really thrilling looking bunch of maps! Nice job id.
They should have done something like Epic & NVidia did with "Make Something Unreal" and given people a few months, put some money behind it, and attract some coders and artists to really do something interesting.
*shrug*
Why Not
#15 posted by spd@ [87.249.61.2] on 2007/02/05 13:18:43
go ahead with 'make somthing FEAR'
nice maps.
And I know for sure, no one wants lighting in MP. My q2 config looks about the same with "gl_modulate 20" or smth. And im not that hardcore. (btw ZTN2* maps are unplayeable in gl_modualte 1 or 2 )
Uh
#16 posted by bambuz [213.169.31.141] on 2007/02/05 23:36:14
the lighting makes ~all the maps look really bland, judging from some random screenshots. I mean, q1 at times has more concinving and moody stuff. Well, it's been ten years.
Maybe in the next gen there's gonna be a game that can graphically compete with QW (Q2 and Q3 looked ass, and it seems the same for Q4 now, not always but for most maps). Even for multiplayer.
Gameplay, I doubt we'll see one even in the next ten years. Not because QW is so awesome but because designers don't play QW themselves and don't understand what high-bandwith low-latency rigid control means. It means you actually feel like you're there, not like you're controlling some puppet with ten meter sloppy rubber strings. Hello, ping times have come down since 1998 or when was it that they invented the 10 fps for quake2 where they still haven't really rebounded from.
ending rant.
Bamb
#17 posted by inertia [134.53.176.37] on 2007/02/06 00:36:16
<3
HAHAHAH
#18 posted by spd [87.249.61.2] on 2007/02/06 18:26:15
graphically compete with QW
joke of the day
Actually
#19 posted by Jago [88.192.74.20] on 2007/02/07 10:29:37
I would argue that some custom QuakeWorld maps ran in a modern engine, 1600x1200 with all the shiznit (counting out the bad custom textures and particles and whatever) definately look better than many of the DM maps for Quake 4.
#20 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2007/02/07 14:00:47
I would argue that some custom QuakeWorld maps ran in a modern engine, 1600x1200 with all the shiznit (counting out the bad custom textures and particles and whatever) definately look better than many of the DM maps for Quake 4.
Without question. QW feels so much more solid, largely thanks to the lighting.
I bet Q4 players have to sleep with a nightlight on, the big pansies.
#21 posted by Lunaran [70.226.151.179] on 2007/02/07 19:24:12
having made some myself I think I'd question it. :)
Quake 2
#22 posted by than [220.47.251.83] on 2007/02/10 11:05:51
had the most fucking awesome and responsive netcode ever. Everything else is shit by comparison, including QW.
Er, the maps look generally meh, some look ok.
Ahahahahah
#23 posted by Jago [88.192.74.20] on 2007/02/10 13:09:50
Q2 netcode being more responsive than QW? Good joke.
Bambuz
#24 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/10 15:30:04
Are you seriously trying to say qw's gameplay won't be eclipsed for ten years, and the reason is *netcode*?
Did you take a fall and hit your head on something hard?
Well
#25 posted by inertia [134.53.176.37] on 2007/02/10 19:43:51
qw does have great netcode :)
#26 posted by [71.35.227.102] on 2007/02/12 00:47:59
qw netcode is king among netcodes.
Ok Maybe...
#27 posted by than [220.47.251.83] on 2007/02/12 01:47:15
Maybe it was because Q2 didn't have a lightning gun. In QW and Q3 especially, the lightning gun always felt like shit to me (on dialup) whilst all of Q2 felt smooth as hell. The prediction in Q2 also seemed far better than either of those other games so the movement felt the same as it did in the single player game assuming I had a reasonable 48kbps with no background downloads.
QW was shite on dialup. Q3 was even shitter. Other games I could barely play - just Q2 and eventually CS when Valve upgraded the original HL netcode.
Dialup
#28 posted by inertia [134.53.176.37] on 2007/02/12 06:28:05
Using dialup to judge netcode is like using an amputated leg to play golf!
Q2's Weapon Lineup
#29 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2007/02/12 13:46:59
was superb for DM. No accuracy weapon has ever beaten the Q2 railgun for sheer satisfaction, and the rocket launcher is just different enough to the QW one to be appreciated for its own merits.
The BFG and Hyperblaster let it down somewhat. BFG was overpowered and HB really showed the lag.
The maps were pretty much perfect for the most part, in my opinion. Nothing's ever beaten The Edge. It's numerous remakes [even the official ones] just don't come close.
Hmm. Yea', I've got to admit I'd have trouble choosing which is the better multiplayer, between Q1 and 2.
Inertia
#30 posted by gone [87.249.61.2] on 2007/02/12 14:30:02
you are forgetting the time q2 and q1 was made
And plz dont start quakes holywar again.
(me still plays q2)
We Need A Q1sp Edge Remake
#31 posted by than [220.47.251.83] on 2007/02/12 15:30:35
anyone up for it, or shall I just add it to my list of Q1 maps that I want to do but never will?
Seriously, it could be teh r4wk.
#32 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2007/02/12 15:57:32
I think Edge needs a railgun, really.
Edge
#33 posted by gone [87.249.61.2] on 2007/02/12 16:22:28
Edge doesnt work w/o doublejump
proven in q1, q3 and q4 :|
oh wait SP? not too small?
Than:
#34 posted by metlslime [204.15.3.5] on 2007/02/12 21:28:36
q2dm1rmx: DO IT
(the pimp hat is also sort of a Godfather hat)
[rant] If
#35 posted by bambuz [213.169.28.6] on 2007/02/14 23:24:37
you have a good CRT at over 85 hz, QW running at solid 77 fps, ping 13 (this should be possible nowadays in most places with an ADSL), a good mouse (I have mx300) with 500 Hz or more rate, qw feels quite smooth. And crisp. You're in control.
And I suck as a qw player.
Have you tried it? Cause when you have, going back to worse doesn't feel very good. Other games can still be fun, but they feel slow and lazily controlled. I've heard this from the guy who was in Q3A european champs back in the day. He stopped Q3 and moved back to QW.
Of course, faster server fps (qw has only 72) and many other things would very make it even better. Probably 100 fps would be good. Then the lowest ping could be in the 10 millisec ballpark.
Q2 runs the server in 10 fps. Uh. It's of course not differentiable if you have a modem and 100 ping. Q2 is also slow by design.
Q3 is 30 fps.
It's when the designers decide what is "good enough for the average player" when they fuck up seriously. That's why it is how it is Blackdog. I have never been able to convince a single non-qw playing person why it would be good to have a faster than 30 fps server. You have to experience it by yourself. And qw is a bit difficult to set up correctly. And the other high Hz environment parts too.
"30 fps, it's what Q3 does so it must be enough". So in other words, everybody is just badly misguided. Even the honorable mr Carmack is completely clueless on this.
Movies run in, what, 20 fps? It'd be too expensive to upgrade. It's a consensus. Nobody really cares. They make their money (or then not). It's all about other things anyway in movie making.
Nobody's ever really tried (Well there was mr Trumbull and the Luxor thing, haven't seen it, but according to description it is very lifelike at 60 fps).
It's weird to hear "but nobody would notice a difference". How do you know? It'd change a lot of things. Surely, slow dramas with talking heads could stay mostly the same. But many other things could be done very differently. Fast camera pans with no blur. The possibilities are intriguing. Wouldn't even people seem more lifelike?
If these high fps interfaces and other stuff happens someday, it's of course "why didn't we think about this earlier!? OMG what a ground breaking innovation!" Blah.
I've heard there are televisions where a laser scans the screen, and they have much more vivid colors than current techniques. Of course, now people claim that current tv:s and whatnot have very crisp colors, they couldn't imagine better ones. Most can't even see the bad block mpeg artefacts in football broadcasts. But I bet if they tried the new tech for a week, then going back would feel like a big downgrade. DVD:s replaced videos, easier to use and no fast forwarding/rewinding, but the picture quality also improved, and that was probably some factor in upgrading. And now there are bigger high definition TV:s. Then there's blu-ray etc coming.
There's some gold to be mined here if somebody cares someday. Low latency high bandwith shooter. Quality can be improved in places where most people currently settle for the average since they don't have any comparison points. But if they try the better tech, they can feel the difference.
Minor Correction, Bambuz
#36 posted by Jago [88.192.74.20] on 2007/02/15 09:12:10
Ping has nothing to do with server fps. At all.
And Bambuz Misses The Point:
#37 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/15 17:39:19
None of that has more than the most tangential influence on actual gameplay. gg.
As for netcode, of course I've tried qw and it's simply not that much better. q3 cpma is more playable for my money. It hardly matters in any case as modern games require things like client side prediction of physics that the qw (or q3) approach just doesn't handle, as well as using tech like lag compensation to improve playability without massively increasing server load.
Prefer whatever you please, I guess. And hey, magic net code would be nice.
Yes
#38 posted by bambuz [213.169.6.112] on 2007/02/15 18:30:51
server fps has no influence on gameplay. Play with 1 fps server to get less net costs. :)
Only thing that would settle this would be a blind test with lots of people. Set them on a good computer, good display, good mouse, and a good client and gamecode, and vary the server fps and see what they notice.
What
#39 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/15 18:44:14
Do you even know what "gameplay" is? Perhaps you don't care that a game is radically different in form and flow from qw as long as the fps is 72 and no less? :)
BlackDog
#40 posted by Jago [88.192.74.20] on 2007/02/16 00:02:13
It is quite obvious by now that you are just attempting to be sarcastic because you cannot appreciate a "way higher than you are used to in modern games" level of control and are thinking that people who do are somehow silly and need to be mocked.
Now if you can name an FPS game where high server framerate and high speed mouse refresh rate makes as big of an impact on the control, feel and flow of the game as in QW while still not forgetting the other parts that make a game enjoyable, feel free to do so, I'd be honestly interested.
No
#41 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/16 05:07:01
It's because when I say gameplay I mean gameplay and not net playability.
Since When
#42 posted by Jago [194.86.38.38] on 2007/02/16 11:55:22
Is net playability (which QW is all about anyway) not gameplay?
Just A Heads-up:
#43 posted by czg [213.115.252.84] on 2007/02/16 13:10:18
I hate you all. Die.
This Is Stupid
#44 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/16 16:48:25
Why am I arguing with qw fanboys who refuse to acknowledge basic distinctions?
czg called it.
/me dies (in a fire)
Well
#45 posted by inertia [134.53.176.37] on 2007/02/16 19:07:16
i don't understand the distinctions yall are trying to make.
Inertia:
#46 posted by metlslime [204.15.3.5] on 2007/02/16 20:06:26
the appropriate thread for not recognizing distinctions is the philosophy thread.
Uh Mr BeeDee
#47 posted by bambuz [213.169.29.59] on 2007/02/17 00:47:50
I might have been misusing some words. But read the following clarification.
Since qw has fast gameplay (is this correct use?) and fast games have better playability with high refresh rates, and if people can't anymore for their life make games with high refresh rates, doesn't that mean that either you can't make a game with fast gameplay or then you make one but the playability will suck.
Of course maybe slow ass low bandwith high latency games for now and eternally (except for qw) are good, but I don't like that gameplay, and many would actually like fast gameplay too.
And it is possible that high bandwith etc benefits playability in slow gameplay too, not just as much as in fast gameplay.
No. You Are Completely Wrong. Shut Up. Stop Posting.
#48 posted by czg [83.253.241.174] on 2007/02/17 01:01:04
This has nothing to do at all with what was the original point of discussion.
Stop it.
You're the reason there is no peace on earth.
Bit Simplistic There?
#49 posted by BlackDog [220.235.172.224] on 2007/02/17 06:35:14
Playability would be fine because modern connections are so good, because qw netcode isn't actually all that much better except in your mind (unless you are considering some awful shite like bf2), and because this discussion is a waste of time why am I posting again oh god no.
Hard To Believe...
#50 posted by pjw [66.168.17.202] on 2007/02/17 08:49:26
...but this thread is even cooler than cowboys.
http://pjw.planetquake.gamespy.com...
FYI
#51 posted by Scampie [66.168.16.153] on 2007/02/17 10:08:12
PJW is the one of the left...
Bleh!
#52 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2007/02/17 10:14:02
At least (s)he is the sexiest of the group !
Growlll
#53 posted by HeadThump [4.136.90.23] on 2007/02/17 17:37:26
A lot of sexy going in that picture.
Loverboy
#54 posted by pope [154.20.229.107] on 2007/02/21 10:19:31
whats red leather drinking?
reminds me of Hawaiin Punch(tm)

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.