And i find it curious how both those engines seems to have more flexiblity in modding than current ones.
Maybe because these days you can't get away with a CLI compiler and some freeware to make "total conversions".
Maybe because these days you can't get away with a CLI compiler and some freeware to make "total conversions".
To this day, I haven't encountered a better FPS than Quake3. Quake3 isn't the fastest (Painkiller was IIRC), but it hit the sweet spot and today's contenders (including the new Quake) fail to deliver. The new Unreal Tournament looks promising and likely to be a replacement for Unreal Tournament 1.
I've tried and failed to play an FPS with a controller on a console and PC. The games are adapted to the imprecise input devices but it's still nothing like the Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament 1 keyboard+mouse experience. I couldn't get a positive experience out of it, and I hope kids getting started will have a chance to play those games as intended in order to have the full picture.
Graphics make you buy the game, mechanics make you keep playing, and story gives you happy memories afterward. That explains why AAA games have good graphics, average mechanics, and bad stories :-)
Quake 1 had quake-c and a simple compiler (and later decompiler) and some third party freeware to make models and maps.
Come Quake 2 you needed visual-C++ and 3D studio to make mods.
I suppose something came along later on in the lifespan leading up to Quake2?
There's this incredibly high cost curve for assets. Back about 6 years ago the dev:art ratio was about 1:10 and I'm going to guess it's even higher these days.
That's partially also why you see pixel art style thrive in the indie game space. It's the right combination of low production overhead that can still convey a large amount of information/style.