Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux First Person Shooters (Games) Quake Entertainment Games

Mac, Linux Support For Quake Live, Preview of Rage 79

Posted by Soulskill from the no-more-excuses dept.
AlexMax2742 writes "Great news for those anxious gamers who have been waiting for a Linux and Mac version of Quake Live. Support for both is being implemented with next Tuesday's update, according to project lead Marty Stratton, who gave the release date during a press conference held at QuakeCon 2009. A video of the press conference is up at QuakeUnity." John Carmack revealed that they're working on a "premium" subscription service for Quake Live, which will allow players to configure and run their own private servers. Also at QuakeCon, a new trailer was released for id's upcoming shooter, Rage. Kotaku posted an extensive preview of Rage, saying, "I've seen no game that, in this realistic style, looks so good and has a landscape so rich with visual splendor." A detailed presentation on id Tech 5, the new game engine behind Rage, was given at SIGGRAPH 2009 last week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac, Linux Support For Quake Live, Preview of Rage More

Mac, Linux Support For Quake Live, Preview of Rage

Comments Filter:

  • Wrong link (Score:5, Informative)

    by blackraven14250 ( 902843 ) * on Saturday August 15, 2009 @05:11AM (#29074935)
    The link under "extensive preview of rage" is wrong. Should link to here, I think: http://kotaku.com/5337404/rage-impressions-gun-rage-road-rage-and-a-monster-closet-joke?skyline=true&s=x [kotaku.com]

  • Sweet but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hubert.lepicki ( 1119397 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @05:57AM (#29075019)

    why would I want to run it instead of ioquake3? I think most of long-term hardcore quakers already have their servers configured, other can easily play with ioquake/cpma too. Not sure if they make any profit out of it...

    • I haven't played (io)q3 online for a long time, but I bet it doesn't have as much players as QL and it's not as easy finding a game as picking a server and clicking on it.

      • it's not as easy finding a game as picking a server and clicking on it.

        Erm, what?

        That's pretty much how all online FPSes have done this. You bring up a list of servers, click one that looks interesting, and join it.

        It's difficult to see how putting it in a web browser would help.

        • I mean there is no skill matching. :) And the overall experience is worse I believe.

          • I mean there is no skill matching. :)

            Ok, makes sense, except that this is exactly, precisely the opposite of what you said -- skill-matching would not be picking a server, it would be clicking on the "take me to a server with people who suck as much as me" button, right?

            And the overall experience is worse I believe.

            Possibly. I haven't tried it. But I certainly would rather use native Quake 3, most of the time...

            • No, not really. It's more like "one player who has 176 frags 5min after the match starts, two with -3 and -17 respectively and one that is compiling his config." Not really my idea of fun. I personally have the most fun with players that are on the same level of skill as myself.

    • Re:Sweet but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @06:03AM (#29075035)
      Because QuakeLive is not Quake 3.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by morari ( 1080535 )

        That's for sure. QuakeLive has too much of a crappy CPMA feel to it. The only reason to play Quake 3 anymore is for the Generations Arena mod anyway!

    • Canada can't see it either, anyone got another source?
    • Because the matchmaking is halfway decent and gives you a game where you don't get your ass handed to you in less time than it takes for you to say "spawn camping."

  • Copyright morons (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Video is locked down to US only. Fucking twats.

  • the good old days (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by jeffstar ( 134407 )

    it must have been 14-15 years ago I used to dominate my local quake server because I had a sweet 2.2/1.1 mbps adsl connection and everyone else was on dial up or later 784/128k adsl.

    that and my 5 button mouse.

    old cpu1673.adsl.bellglobal.com stopped working one day and was so grandfathered nobody knew what the hell it was.

    • Probably about 13 years ago, as Quake came out in 96', but man, I envy you. ADSL back then? You must have been an extremely early adopter very close to a telco switch. Remember ISDN? Yeah, I had that, and nobody else remembers either.

      • I had ISDN... was expensive as hell for me.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RedK ( 112790 )
        Not only that, but ADSL became a standard in 1998 and that's about when it started being rolled out. This guy is on some serious medication, we're now down to 11 years.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KamuZ ( 127113 )
      I don't know you but i prefer low latency than tons of bandwidth anytime for multiplayer.

  • carmack video (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rogerpq3 ( 602113 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @06:18AM (#29075069) Homepage
    You can also check out the full video of Carmack's keynote here: http://www.quakeunity.com/file=2919 [quakeunity.com]

  • As Carmack reads this (Score:4, Informative)

    by orta ( 786013 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @06:43AM (#29075165) Homepage Journal
    I thought I'd say a big thanks from the Mac community!

  • HD Youtube link to trailer (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fross ( 83754 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @06:49AM (#29075173)

    For those outside the US, or who simply prefer Youtube (and it's a bigger version, too!)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfeErZt3emc [youtube.com]

  • Realistic?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ivoras ( 455934 ) <ivoras@NospaM.fer.hr> on Saturday August 15, 2009 @07:26AM (#29075249) Homepage
    I don't know, maybe it's because of the uncanny valley effect on a larger scale but these new games seem increasingly unrealistic to me. I see it takes a lot of skill and C/GPU power to do a real-time image like this: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/rage_quakecon2009.jpg [mtv.com] but realistic? I don't know - something's missing there. Sometimes I think Q3A was more "realistic" than Fallout3 and newer games. *shrug*

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Turiko ( 1259966 )
      Well, if by realistic you mean photo-realistic, then this game is far more realistic. photo-realistic graphics are nowhere near ready for games... unless you like a slideshow, with 5 or more hours in between slides. Quake 3 was just a lot more simple, but it absolutely was NOT more realistic then the screenshot you provided.

    • Re:Realistic?? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @08:28AM (#29075411) Homepage

      It's not the uncanny valley. It's just that it plain doesn't look anything like reality in the first place. The biggest culprit is the lighting, which pretty much no game has ever managed to get anywhere near right. I doubt anybody's even trying.

      Game developers seem to be attempting to create the most realistic depiction possible... of a video game. Certainly reality doesn't seem to be their model.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        you can have it
        a) realistic
        b)fast
        c)not take up all the processing power of a system

        you can only choose 2 outta 3 though

        • I'll take 2 and 3. I don't even want realism. In fact, 'realistic' graphics just look boring to me. It generally means ten million shades of grey and brown, overcast skies, and everything made out of concrete rubble.

          Why is all this new technology and processing power going to make games look less interesting than what I can see out of my window?

        • you can have it a) realistic b)fast c)not take up all the processing power of a system

          you can only choose 2 outta 3 though

          not take up all the processing power of a system = fast

          You just get 1 out of 2.

      • Agreed that the lighting is usually not realistic in games - AIUI it's pretty computationally hard to do realistic lighting even if there is a will to do it.

        I still think the unrealism described kinda is an uncanny valley effect though - in that Quake 3, for instance, looked sufficiently far from reality that you could kinda go "That's just a lo fidelity representation". The graphics were so (comparatively) basic that you didn't feel compelled to compare them with real life. With modern games, with the gr

      • It's not the uncanny valley. It's just that it plain doesn't look anything like reality in the first place. The biggest culprit is the lighting, which pretty much no game has ever managed to get anywhere near right. I doubt anybody's even trying.

        Need I point out that most movies don't have realistic lighting, either? Last I checked, the world wasn't filtered in green or blue, washed out in grays and beiges, or hyper saturated.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrHanky ( 141717 )

      But why would you want it more realistic? The real world is bland. Games are a means to escape reality for a while.

      What the game designers mean by 'realistic' is bigger textures and more polygons lighted by a bigger number of light sources, creating a more vivid picture, and that should be their goal. I like the 'realism' of stepping out into City 17 and its dreamlike yellow sunlight better than the prosaic realism of going out into the grey rain to fetch today's mail. It's a more exciting atmosphere. You d

    • Wee ID did manage to get good games with excellent performance a number of times.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by zokier ( 1049754 )
      I blame the fancy HDR/Bloom/Blur -effects that have plagued this generation of games. Some of it hides the fugly lowres textures made for consoles, and some can be explained by the proliferation of Unreal Engine 3.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by zokier ( 1049754 )
        One recent "game" (more like simulation actually) to for realistic graphics is DCS: Black Shark. Yes, it runs on 5+ years old engine, and has some lowres textures and other rough edges. But still, I think it looks more realistic than some more technically advanced games (for example HAWX). Another comparison is ARMA 2, and OFP 2. Arma 2 has much plainer and realistic look than what i have seen videos of OFP2 so far. Arma 2 probably compares favorably even to aforementioned DCS:BS in realism, but cant reall

    • because the goal from the art point of view is to make it look good and that doesn't necesarily mean photo-realism. In fact, photo realistic rendered images can often be quite ugly

  • That document about id Tech 5 mentions virtual textures, but I couldn't find any easy to understand explaination. What are they for?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by byner ( 1428013 )

      As I understand it, basically the virtual texturing is how they organize the chunks of megatextures (upwards of billions of pixels in size) so that they can be streamed into memory in an effective manner even while the textures reside on media. This is targeted at the XBOX 360 for example where the textures might still reside on the game disc and you'd want to avoid game stutter from loading those huge textures on the fly.

  • Quake Live on Linux is great news; means I can finally get rid of my Windows partition (which I only added because of Quake Live... ahem...). The only real concern of mine is whether they are bothering with an x86_64 version? If not, then I'd either have to keep Windows or find a way to run the 32-bit version of Firefox... neither of which are very appealing options.
  • What I want to see is convincing proof that iD can still deliver a game and not a tech demo.
  • Will Rage run on Linux?

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close