The subject of ‘idTech3’ engine and the games of transition era. The ‘idTech3’ is probably a most decent engine, much like any engine by the ‘idSoftware’ - ofcourse. Nonetheless, I dislike that engine. Somehow I do believe it to be infamous. First of all, I associate it with an engine that never let us have a third singleplayer ‘Quake’ game, yet still using that name - as if the engine itself has become flawed for that reason or proved unsuitable to support any proper singleplayer experience altogether. Understandably I do realize the ‘idSoftware’ was a small company and there was a competition with the ‘Unreal’ going on, therefore a choice of priority and specialization had to be made. Eventually, there came products to counter the notion of ‘idTech3’ being good selectively for the multiplayer support and these were the ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ and the ‘Soldier of Fortune 2’ that I know of. Both these games are essentially old school high-speed action shooters with somewhat random stealth elements - the elements that remain mostly without application when it comes to actual gameplay practice.
The way I see it, the games that I mentioned do not really bring together pieces of the old school and the new school - with the new school being the realm of tactical shooters and stealth. However, not all games of the era were mixed like oil and water about their school of choice. The ‘Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon’ is a perfect example of going full in into the new paradigm. Understandably, the ‘Ghost Recon’ could not win the ‘Game of the Year’ award competing against ‘Halo: Combat Evolved’ extravaganza. Fun in digital realism embracing elements of simulation is something else to fun of arcade shooting and detachment. Both these paradigms are much like Judaism and Christianity, I imagine - they emerge from a similar mythological root but in their practice they are not just different, they are fundamentally unlike - fundamentally, that is. Who prefers what, is another dispute.
I do believe the realism does have certain notions to it that must be respected, in order to be a successful breed. These notions I can think of are:
- momentum: slow speed over high speed, although a good game knows when to be fast and when to be slow - not everything requires to be creeped through for validity, sometimes a breeze of contrast is of great benefit
- tactics: precision shooting and ballistics, lethality of combat, complex healing mechanics or wound system, evasion versus encounter, ambush tactics or game mechanics rewarding surprise element in combat, environmental and sensory awareness, survival mindset
- intelligence: gameplay valid tools and world structure supporting the purpose of intelligence gathering prior to action, such as binoculars or reconnaissance utilities, conscious use of light, investigation of data stores, detailed navigational devices or functional world maps, puzzle elements and hacking, limited inventory capacity or reasonable scarcity of relevant resources
- time: real time flow becomes a desired gameplay phenomenon rather than technology-induced sideffect, while the game itself in a proper fashion takes example of actual physics and organics in depiction of events emergence; this is essentially the difference between “digitalism” and “visceralism”
Games such as first person view shooters evolved from relative organic “digitalism” of the early scene towards “visceralism” of highly atmospheric warfare simulators not due to appreciation of temporality. It was for certain due to appreciation of fluent motion dynamics and better adaptation of artistic values into the matrix of digital gaming, while the motion itself, extends in both space and time together. Body movement and physical transition is a shape of time in the eyes of a human. Simple loading icon replacing a gun reload animation is sufficient to emphasize action temporal dimension, although there is more to digital gaming than that. Tech industry strives to minimize or even eliminate the dimension of time in their projects, but the art should mindfully bring it back.
Speaking of ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ by ‘Grey Matter Interactive’ under the supervision of ‘idSoftware’ - what made it ultimately an old school shooter are primarily these elements in my view: default high speed movement, gameplay momentum rewarding hard assault tactics, lack of clarity in advanced game mechanics or insufficiency in their presentation - alongside good tolerance towards player lack of knowledge - unlimited inventory capacity and casual abundance of resources. It is hard to tell how far the game was “objectively” from becoming an accidental modern shooter. Some say the successful revolution is about coming close enough to the edge without crossing it, as to remain relatable. One could imagine the ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ in alternate universe to have become a golden spot between the arcade fun and the tactical sweat, combining best of the both worlds. I do believe the ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ to have had all the tools necessary to represent a quality new, but the practice seems to had gone all the way other direction - heading towards the past.
Even when it comes to ‘Doom 3’ - which defied the classic ‘Doom’ franchise legacy - while running on an even newer generation of the ‘idTech’ engine and embracing novel design in the ‘idSoftware’ portfolio, ultimately it did maintain some arcade shooter elements or pieces of otherwise manifested uncertainty on the path chosen, such as the shotgun reload rate for example. That is, in spite of choosing atmosphere as apparent core value. Hard to tell though how much of it was purely a bait for the modding community, especially that ‘idSoftware’ is a noble example of practical PR done right in their niche, giving their products incredible longevity.
The lukewarm good-enough case of ‘Quake 4’ by ‘Raven Software’ under the supervision of ‘idSoftware’ also does tell that contractors of ‘idSoftware’ were either somewhat bound by cult perception of their principals or they had remained hesitant to step ahead, introducing new qualities and going beyond the actual status quo. I think the ‘idSoftware’ did not truly win much allowing their franchises to be rented by tertiary companies - what was achieved, are products good and proper in my opinion, maybe just somewhat wasted. The final question is, were the ‘idSoftware’ themselves capable of taking the next step - yet another step in becoming a legend?
What I do imagine has changed when it comes to work and creativity dynamics within the pocket-realm of ‘idSoftware’ is that it used to be a company made entirely by few inspired individuals doing everything by themselves, eventually turning to face the rising industry and competition, adjusting to odds dictated by their business rivals and ultimately following the market spiral, hiring more people - diluting the original genius effect - and outsourcing some work, consequently setting their quality bar on a level closest corresponding to both the consumer and the industry common. Thinking about it - ‘Rage’ stood no chance.