I never did play GoW, as I don’t bother with consoles as the asking price is always too steep for my taste (this PC from 2002 still does what I need, though that has aided my curmudgeony tastes in regards to contemporary titles).

I think I just shy away from a certain amount of detail as I am used to in games… It not meaning anything. Clip brushes are used so extensively, I’d rather they just acknowledge that I’m in essentially a rectangle, and then it wouldn’t be so distracting from the actual gameplay (but sometimes I think that is the point).

I think the problem is, I’m largely happy with Quake, and where I am not happy with Quake, other titles have not filled that void, and most have actually been a step backward for me as a player. But thats the sort of topic that can easily annoy people, especially when they’re in the industry =)

If I have the time, when Qonquer is released I will give it a proper review; the CMS at i3d actually has a review system in place, its just not been really used.

And good insight on Gears, you’re absolutely correct. When I first started on Gears, Cliff explained it to me by loading up a prototype level and flying high above. He looked straight down at it and said something like, “The cover system is basically a 2D platform game. You move from platform to platform”. And it’s true! It’s not obvious when you’re killing Locust but that’s what it does and it really makes the game click.

And Scarecrow, was calling Warren “Willem” in your news post some intentional reference I don’t get or just a brain typo?

The limits thing is interesting though, there’s definitely something to be said for encouraging simplicity in maps. Not necessarily from a polycount point of view but from a gameplay one, ie. keeping the player space simple and clean enough that basic movement is never an obstacle. Bioshock would be a good example of how not to do it, I was constantly bumping into walls and ledges and railings and boxes and other junk in that and it really brought the game down for me. Of course there’s limits to, umm, limits, you wouldn’t want to go overboard and end up with Raven’s “one big box” mapping style.

Gears Of War was actually quite interesting in that regard, while the car or chunk of concrete that you stuck your big magnetic soldier to was probably made up of more polygons than in an entire Quake level, from a gameplay perspective they were basically boxes. Once I realised that and started looking about I was struck by how basic the gameplay areas were, practically bordering on the retro and nobody noticed because of all that “next gen” paint. I suspect it probably had a lot to do with the gameplay being as strong as it was.

Not, I hasten to add, that I’m trying to be a suck-up here, I should probably diss Gear’s driving section or story or facial hair or whatever just to maintain my cranky image now.

I think that is why early Quake and Q2 maps just look great to me, the geometry you see is the geometry you play - but theres still room for detail in terms of touches, lighting, and texture.

The shots for Qonquer actually look more appealing than most contemporary games to me, as it has a telos so to speak in each aspect.

Either way, I made a news post on i3d mentioning Qonquer, which means community pressure to complete it, from the three people who go to the frontpage rather than directly to the forums!