Having not played quake, and because I wasn't into multiplayer games then like I am now, I have trouble understanding why the players move so fast in that game compared to games like CS:S, TF2, and Call of Duty.
 
Was there a technical reason why the game had to move so fast? Had the more complex mechanics of modern shooters (Reloading, Crouching, view bob, cover, inaccurate weapons) not been put into practice yet? So all they had was the ability to move the camera, run around, pickup weapons and shoot them?

I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were made
you cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome !

" I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were madeyou cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome ! "

Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters.

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

Well, I think it's a little of both. Historically, id has never really been concerned with "realism" when it came to their games/weapons/etc. Even when those more "complex" mechanics like headshots, reloading, cover, etc. were starting to come into play, id released Quake 3, which was still pretty fast-moving arcadey madness.  
 
Also, with Quake, the mere fact that they were able to put together a fully-3D engine that didn't rely on sprites was an achievement in and of itself. 
 
But, it's true what they said in the Bombcast, I don't think anything has been as fast in subsequent games as Quake 1 was. Personally, I think it's amazing. I mean, I was shot full of adrenaline for a good while after participating in the TNT last night, and that was just for a couple rounds. 
 
Also, most of id's games up until that point were largely showing off their tech. So, while Quake contributed stuff like mouselook and circle strafing, other mechanics were left on the backburner. The game was specifically geared towards ludicrously frenetic action. 
  

I'm just saying. Shooters were originally this speed. That's the speed they started at. Then they slowed down. And now you jog from cover to cover at a leisurely pace. Even in PC versions (frustrating).

Yup it was just a different time. Keep in mind that while people were playing 4 player multiplayer of Goldeneye with it horrendous framerate and pace people were playing 16 player matches of Quake tearing around the place at insane speeds. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are probably the last big super fast deathmatch games I can remember. 
 
This is my 1,000 post and I got to make it in a thread about Quake, that makes me feel pretty good.

War has changed.

" @ryanwho said:

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

This is an awesome answer. "

" War has changed. "

They could take that formula further, so they startet making them more tactical.
The old relics are still fun to play, but I really enjoy the modern games more. It's far easier to get involved in the setting, if you arent skating around on a jet missil.
 
@ryanwho: The games are more technical nowadays, so your comment doesn't even make sense. An the shooters didn't start out as fast. Look at Wolf3D and Doom, they were not as fast and hecktic as Quake 1. But they were fasten then later games.

The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow?

" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "

Unreal Tournament 3 came out on the PC in 2007 and that was fast as hell.  Its just everything is a "tactical" shooter these days and no one cares for the old quake/UT/Doom days. But then again back in the day we also had tactical shooters, but in those you would die in 1 or 2 bullets.

" Yup it was just a different time. Keep in mind that while people were playing 4 player multiplayer of Goldeneye with it horrendous framerate and pace people were playing 16 player matches of Quake tearing around the place at insane speeds. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are probably the last big super fast deathmatch games I can remember.   This is my 1,000 post and I got to make it in a thread about Quake, that makes me feel pretty good. "

" @JamesBoyce said:

" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "

This.  "

" @EpicSteve said:

" @ryanwho said:

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

This is an awesome answer. "

this is 100% the actual reason. "

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

That's how FPS games were.
And I really miss that. I still take quake over any new multiplayer fps games out there.

I think Team Fortress 2 brought a little bit of that back, as it can be pretty fast paced if you're playing the light classes, but thursday proved that there's still a long way to go, even for the scout!

" Unreal Tournament 3 came out on the PC in 2007 and that was fast as hell.  "

@TekZero said:

" @JamesBoyce said:

" The question isn't why is Quake so fast, the question is - why is everything else so slow? "

This.  "

I think the answer to that is that people have gotten tired of the Quake style of shooter, its awesome to go back and visit but it isnt going to be something you play everyday unless your a crazy person. Quake is basically run around, spam the shoot button till you die. Rinse and repeat. its epic, and is great fun but it takes alot out of you and doesn't give alot back. (Im basing this off of my UT3 experience, which is prehaps not accurate to Quake itself but its similar in alot of ways.) "

" @Mikemcn:  Are you crazy if you play Modern Warfare 2 or whatever else is the standard all the time then?  It's just a case of having your own taste and your own opinion.  The fact that there's still a dedicated Quake community tells me that people obviously aren't sick of it, it's just people are used to the more accessible stuff like Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2.  That's all there is to it really.  But yeah, I kinda wish the FPS world was still as frantic as it used to be, s'alot more fun that way for sure.  But for me, the real reason games like Quake and all have 'died' is purely laziness.  People would rather pump x amount of hours into Modern Warfare 2 or whatever, to get better guns, better perks, better loadouts to be slightly better than others than putting hours into a game like Quake, which requires an unparalleled level of skill and strive for something like that.  It's not like that kinda thing can't be done properly and made accessible for the modern market.  Look at StarCraft 2's success... "

"Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

"I'm just gonna say it: I loved Unreal Tournament 3. I took a hiatus from gaming essentially around the time Morrowind hit. School, life, etc.  When I finally got back into it, it was with UT3, and it had the same feeling: the psychotically fast, buried-in-the-red gameplay in relatively brown, but damn pretty environments and generally nonexistent plot. It felt like waking up as Rip Van Winkle to see an old friend's grandkid offering a hand to help me back up.  And, yeah, I mean, there's still stuff like Left 4 Dead that maintain that ludicrous pacing, but also overlay a level of strategy and planning, and, yeah, reloading. "

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

" @ryanwho said:

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

This is an awesome answer. "

" I believe its one of the essences of the 90s FPS games that the developer Id pioneered in creating (like Doom).. its just how the games were madeyou cant deny that the mayhem we watched last night was really awesome ! "

" @ryanwho said:

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

Others may laugh, but this is the correct answer.   Scout is about the closest modern thing you'll get to the fast-paced twitch-shooter days of Quake and UT. This is why I play Scout. "

" Fast != better far as I'm concerned. Much like sex. And les please not turn this into a console vs PC thing 'cause it's totally not.  1.6 wasn't fast as balls. "

" @Cr0ssbow said:

" Fast != better far as I'm concerned. Much like sex. And les please not turn this into a console vs PC thing 'cause it's totally not.  1.6 wasn't fast as balls. "

Okay, for YOU fast!=better (more acurately fast is not necessarily better).
 
But as for console vs. PC, um it is a console vs. PC thing. Shooters slowed down because of consoles.
 
You cannot play a super fast paced FPS on a console because of thumbsitcks. Does that make console shooters bad? No. Just different. "

I used to be so damn good at Unreal Tournament... damn, those were the days. A different breed of skill. Skill that transferred to any FPS: reflexes, awareness, crazy accuracy, courage, to some extent. Nobody camped in those games. It wasn't a viable strategy. It was out into the fray every time, mono a mono in a true test of skill. There's something pure about that.

Anybody that says pads are 'almost as good as a mouse' for FPS should be forced to play this with a pad, against mouse players, until they accept that they are wrong.  Pads only seem capable today because modern games are designed to take their weaknesses into account.

"@MuttersomeTaxicab said:

"I'm just gonna say it: I loved Unreal Tournament 3. I took a hiatus from gaming essentially around the time Morrowind hit. School, life, etc.  When I finally got back into it, it was with UT3, and it had the same feeling: the psychotically fast, buried-in-the-red gameplay in relatively brown, but damn pretty environments and generally nonexistent plot. It felt like waking up as Rip Van Winkle to see an old friend's grandkid offering a hand to help me back up.  And, yeah, I mean, there's still stuff like Left 4 Dead that maintain that ludicrous pacing, but also overlay a level of strategy and planning, and, yeah, reloading. "

Except for the fact that UT3 is not as fast as classic UT or UT2k4 and is overall nothing more than a poor shadow of those games. "

" @ryanwho said:

" Console shooters dumbed it down to make up for the less responsive and accurate controls. They're not fast. You're just used to slow ass shooters. "

This is an awesome answer. "

Did anyone play the dreamcast port of quake 3 team arena? The one where the DC players were on the same servers as PC?.. that sucked for the poor DC players :(. 
Quake 1 is only insane fast because the levels are so cramped. There have been games where the character moves as fast if not faster. But again..smaller maps. 
and the 90s wasnt just about super fast hardcore deathmatch. We had Rainbow Six around the time of Quake 2.

I don't know if you know this but games change over years.

early twitch shooter.

Did anyone play the dreamcast port of quake 3 team arena? The one where the DC players were on the same servers as PC?.. that sucked for the poor DC players :(.

Well if you want blame something try consoles AND PCs, as graphic cards got better and more complex, it became more about having good graphics and paring it with good gameplay and less about all out insanity.
 
And sooner or later you have to take into account, running Crysis 2 at 60 frames... is gonna be next to impossible for most people, running Crysis at 1000+ frames is NEVER gonna happen... EVER! yet you can uses some crappy middle school computer to run Quake at it's full insane potential.
 
Faster paced games can  and do exist (TF2, hell even Monday Night Combat is kinda of a twitch game), but they aren't money makers like they used to be.

" I still don't understand why ppl are blaming console shooters for this. Can someone enlighten me on the causality here between slow console shooters cropping up that spelled the death of fast PC shooters?  I'd like to think CoD and CS had a bit more to do with that than, say, SOCOM and Halo.  I don't even know why ppl are arguing about gamepads vs mouse/keyboard in this thread. Are you lost? "

Quake was the King of adrenaline-based gaming. Always has been, always will be.