<story><title>Lessons from Doom (2010)</title><url>http://vectorpoem.com/news/?p=74</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ivl</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m glad the article mentioned movement.  Games today make so many decisions when it comes to movement where the goal is to make it feel &amp;#x27;realistic&amp;#x27;, with sprinting, ducking and the like, but they end up feeling like they don&amp;#x27;t have any depth.  An average player will have fairly similar movement to a fairly good one, with incremental differences on small things, and a player with amazing movement won&amp;#x27;t hugely stand out.  In Quake 3?  A player with amazing movement could do way more to control the map.  Quake 3 really mastered that depth, especially with how much there was to learn between the two physics rule-sets (with CPM allowing for a bit more than VQ3). And the reason I say that is because the classic arena shooters (Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, etc) had their movement systems as a key part of the game.  It&amp;#x27;s why Defrag became such a (relatively) big thing.  And it&amp;#x27;s why Overwatch just doesn&amp;#x27;t feel as fun as it could, to me at least.  For a game to look like that, but to leave out bunny hopping?  Disappointing.</text></comment>
<story><title>Lessons from Doom (2010)</title><url>http://vectorpoem.com/news/?p=74</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ifdefdebug</author><text>&amp;quot;This creates a feeling that’s quite rare in modern FPS: that you are powerful because you are agile, not because you’re a tank.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Thanks. I lost interest in FPS and after reading that chapter now I know why.</text></comment>