Func_Msgboard: Quake Sounds RMQ Patch.

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

|  | Quake Sounds RMQ Patch.

Posted by Ghd Fladjern Tilbud [178.70.211.87] on 2012/01/17 03:02:20

Restores back all the original 'classic' Quake sounds in the RMQ mod. For player, weapons, items, monsters. Mutes some offensive sounds (taunts, laughing knights). It dramatically changes the feel and the atmosphere of RMQ mod back to Quake. Now all the 'Quake purists' and whoever disliked the new sounds can enjoy the mod.
Minor fixes:
Replaces fugly 'temp' texture on the blaster with less ugly (quick job but hey its tolerable)
Adds some glow textures for the buttons\switches, now you wont miss them in the darkness, makes map progress more clear in some badly lit areas.
It's easy to install: just unzip and drop this Pak0.pak into RMQ folder and it works. Try it, don't like it - just remove the pak.
http://www.quaketastic.com/upload/...

Hm
#1 posted by ijed [200.73.66.2] on 2012/01/17 12:11:54
Texture... swiped!
Hmm
#2 posted by nitin [124.170.49.96] on 2012/01/17 14:17:13
I dont agree with this. It is a beta after all.
Doesn't Bother Me
#3 posted by ijed [200.73.66.2] on 2012/01/17 14:51:10
We can't support this content change though, so it could well produce unexpected results in future versions.
I don't have the files locally - am I right in thinking that the blaster texture is double the size?
#4 posted by Ghd Fladjern Tilbud [178.70.211.87] on 2012/01/17 20:27:13
There is a demand, and its optional and can be easily installed\ uninstalled with no harm.
And GB said he doesn't mind people modding RMQ.
After all many would enjoy the mod more with Quake sounds, because its one of the most important things making it feel Quake or not-Quake.
And overall I think RMQ is very worth playing.
Blaster texture is 256, but view model UV is using barely 20% of it.
#5 posted by mh [109.79.142.74] on 2012/01/17 20:33:22
I see no harm in it. One of the objectives of RMQ is that it's a bunch of content (aside from just being maps) which people can take, use, discard, replace, etc as they see fit.
Providing this patch is in keeping with the intention of that objective and nobody on the team is going to feel personally violated on account of the fact that it exists.
The V_blaster
#6 posted by ijed [190.22.114.47] on 2012/01/17 22:05:16
Is barely optimised - that's the main reason it doesn't look good since yeah, only a tiny part of its texture is used since it was ripped from the (not bad looking) g_blaster.
Our politcal stance is 'do what you like' - this is why we release the qc source and so on.
Model, sound and texture sources are too big to release once per demo - that'd get tedious just doing it once.
#7 posted by Badboyquake [85.176.7.96] on 2012/01/19 04:08:07
the new sounds are perfect and better than the quake sounds, for me there is no need to patch.
#8 posted by gb [46.142.30.69] on 2012/01/19 08:02:09
I also said it would be nice and decent to let the team actually have a release before butchering it to your liking.
I don't care about the existence of this patch or anything like it, but I find it indecent and pretty arrogant behaviour on the part of its creator.
This being func_, it doesn't really surprise me though. Whatever.
^^
#9 posted by nitin [124.170.49.96] on 2012/01/19 09:39:59
that's my point. This is beta so it seems a bit premature.
Sorry If This Is Too Much Text For This Imageboard
#10 posted by Spirit [82.113.99.104] on 2012/01/19 09:49:42
it's not like someone leaked work in progress files to the public. you guys released a demo and asked for feedback. here is someone who apparently actually likes parts of your work enough to make a patch for aspects he does not like.
isn't the point of a public beta to become aware of problems and isn't an outsider fixing problems for you pretty much the biggest endorsement you could get?
I cannot get my head to understand how one can objectively feel like the sounds are good (or even better in any way but the bitrate).
over 9000 penis dog then who was trollolollo
#11 posted by Badboyquake [85.176.16.20] on 2012/01/19 17:15:52
in my mind plopped id software overworked quake4 multiplayer, id asked for input, the q3 scene shouted loud "we want q4 more like q3". id did go with it. afterwards the whole scene said "q4mp is shit because its too similar with q3". LOL. i shouted with them, shame on me, i learned my lesson.
I Dunno Spirit
#12 posted by RickyT23 [2.223.172.220] on 2012/01/19 17:55:56
He's not fixing anything really, just restoring a bunch of stuff which we had already changed.
"We need to improve some of the sounds"
is not the same as
"New sounds are too weird for me so I'll put the old ones back in" - our objective is to use sounds with a higher bit-rate to replace the old ones with the low and deprecated bit-rate.
We can take constructive criticism about the sounds we currently use, and replace them with better sounding ones, at the higher bit-rate. But simply restoring the original sounds is not what we are intending to do. But the mod was made for folks like yourself Spirit, so you can play the maps (if you wanted to) and not grimace every time you hear something which is distasteful to your ears.
I cannot get my head to understand how one can objectively feel like the sounds are good (or even better in any way but the bitrate).
is inflammatory because it is a 100% dismissal of our art, rather than being constructive or meeting us part of the way there, for example:
"I really don't like some of the sounds, it would be better if the voice was different and the captions we're more scary and unintelligible, I can see what you ate trying to do there, but I also think that your recording and mixing techniques are holding you back, so maybe you should try and improve those a bit as well"
We have focused on many different aspects of the mod since the last demo, and the truth is that many things will still happen to it before it is finally declared 'finished', so maybe, with some help or otherwise, we will improve the set of sounds that we have:
isn't the point of a public beta to become aware of problems and isn't an outsider fixing problems for you pretty much the biggest endorsement you could get?
Is also just insulting, and quite basic really. I mean it's obvious he're that you are just insinuating your notion which could be interpreted as follows:
"you have no taste because its obvious that you shouldn't try and change the sounds which are already there because it is impossible to better them"
#13 posted by onetruepurple [89.79.96.4] on 2012/01/19 18:08:06
"I really don't like some of the sounds, it would be better if the voice was different and the captions we're more scary and unintelligible, I can see what you ate trying to do there, but I also think that your recording and mixing techniques are holding you back, so maybe you should try and improve those a bit as well"
This is the fifth release of rmq by now. There were complaints about sounds like that every time.
The problem is not within the tone, but within you playing the "you're just not used to it" card and not listening to any criticism at all, ever.
#14 posted by RickyT23 [2.223.172.220] on 2012/01/19 18:58:04
The problem is not within the tone, but within you playing the "you're just not used to it" card and not listening to any criticism at all, ever.
BS
Sometimes, OTP, when people give criticisms, we take them into account. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes we take them into account, and then go and do something else entirely.
Now what exactly is this 'problem' you are talking about?
The fact that every time we release, some people slander the sounds? Like you think we didn't hear this complaint the first, second, third and fourth time it was brought up?
Also - the sounds have been altered. Or some of them have.
And who exactly is the owner of this unsure problem?
If the problem is 'not within the tone' then what exactly is the problem again?
There's An Element Of...
#15 posted by mh [109.79.138.168] on 2012/01/19 19:26:40
...thinking "if it's not done immediately, it'll never be done" here too.
Releasing something of this size and scope involves bringing a LOT of content together. Sounds are only one part of it all, and time spent on sounds is time that won't be spent on maps, textures, QC, engine code, testing, models, gameplay, etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda.
If a problem is identified but not addressed that doesn't mean that the problem has been ignored or that criticism has been rejected. All that it most likely means is that other things were higher on the priority list.
Try releasing something sometime yourself and you'll learn that too.
So cut it out with them negative waves, OK? ;)
#16 posted by ZealousQuakeFan [82.16.91.220] on 2012/01/19 20:19:21
Well if the sounds have been released previously unfinished, you say it's unfinished, and you plan to finish it but haven't yet, what's the problem in people replacing stuff you've said isn't finished?
If people are doing this to your final release with the sounds you've said you're working on, then fair enough, but as it I don't see the fuss.
I Don't Have Any Problem With It
#17 posted by mh [109.79.138.168] on 2012/01/19 20:27:29
And I'm not too sure that I'm happy with people trying to tell me that I do.
I don't. Really. I think it's quite awesome that someone has done this, and it's definitely in the spirit of Quake - people hacked on QTest, after all.
Bottom line - you put something out publicly, you GPL it, people who want to hack on it are going to hack on it, and you've given up your control. That's what you accept when you do that. You might not give it your blessing, but you certainly can't condemn it either.
The advice that any hacking done on this release will not necessarily be compatible with the final release - or even with the next release - still stands, of course. We're not going to compromise on things we want to do in order to maintain compatibility with a 3rd party patch, but, for what it is and in the context of this release, I personally think it's fine.
I Don't Have Any Problems With This Patch
#18 posted by RickyT23 [2.223.172.220] on 2012/01/19 20:28:09
It has some nice touches :)
And, as I've said, some other people might play the mod who otherwise wouldn't.
Criticism/Feedback/etc
#19 posted by mh [109.79.138.168] on 2012/01/20 01:23:19
There are two kinds of criticism/feedback in this world, my friend.</Tuco>
Some people give criticism and feedback because they genuinely want to help make the next one better.
And some people really really really come across as if they give criticism/feedback because they just want to bitch and moan about stuff: they seem to have no interest whatsoever in whether the next one is better or not (or even if there is a next one - the opportunity to bitch and moan is what matters most here).
One of these kinds is more likely to be listened to and taken onboard than the other, and the onus is on the person giving the criticism/feedback.
Releasing a patch like this - well, that's a form of criticism and feedback, isn't it? It's a way of saying "I think that your sounds could be better, here's one example of what I mean". It's criticism and feedback in a "don't tell me, show me" style.
It's not just sitting there and saying "yah boo you suck", it's actually giving something, doing something, being negative for sure but in a positive way.
And that's what I think rocks about it.
#20 posted by ijed [190.22.18.29] on 2012/01/20 02:32:41
A pack like this is a pretty good way of saying you're unhappy with some things but like others.
Right away I'm ready to pay attention since you put some effort in to something - the same as those who record demos, or take time to balance the good against the bad.

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

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