Talk:Quake III Arena

Citations

Let's get the citations sorted out, I've done all the ones I can find evidence for, there are not that many left now. Have a go at finding evidence, otherwise let's choose if a citation is required or if the statements should be removed. Ix-ir (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I'll see what I can find. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really still start class? It looks much better than the examples for Start and C- it's clear, specific and we're fairly complete with the citations which are also numerous by comparison to the citation levels of the example articles. Ix-ir (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

1. Draco 2k (Talk | contribs) m (25,154 bytes) (Undid revision 228617939 by Mezigue (talk) Please don't remove cited facts without strong reason to back the change.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 15:20, 29 July 2008 Mezigue (Talk | contribs) m (24,974 bytes) (→Single player: removed geeky gibberish)

Mezigue's edit is correct. This is what he removed: "Quake 3 can only be considered partial canon for the other Quake and Doom games as the game is based on another dimension, the Arena Eternal.[citation needed]"

It's not cited and it's really not relevant, it's a computer game with paper-thin plots and almost no continuity between games, not some kind of convoluted sci-fi series where discussions of canon might be appropriate. If you didn't know anything about Quake 3 you would not gain anything by learning it's not perfect canon with Quakes 1 and 2. Ix-ir (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. It was an unsourced claim, my mistake, plus a hint of Original Research. However, I feel the trivia bit is more than relevant to the article and, specifically, the context of its, although brief, storyline.

The fact is cited in the game manual, I could even list the appropriate page. Would the "The game is set in an dimension alternate to Quake and Doom universe, yet features characters found in both as part of the plotline"-something description be more appropriate? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's more accurate but it would need more foundation. There are plenty of other characters in Quake III Arena that have nothing to do with the Quake or Doom series (at least that we've seen so far). The manual makes it clear that the Arena is a place where many different warriors from many different places have been gathered to fight eternally. As an id Software title, some are from the Doom series, some are from the Quake series, but there are others that are quite unique and have nothing to do with either. It is certainly true, though, that it is not a direct sequel to Quake II nor any other continuing part of the Strogg-Human storyline (Quake 4, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars).  Xihr  07:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there's the problem: there is no foundation. Everything is vaguely summed up in the intro part of the manual, and then we have a dozen of characters that come from Doom/Quake universe judging by their background. That's about it.

I'll add the line to the article in a sec. If anyone can expand on it without going into unnecessary detail, please do. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, it's already there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_III_Arena#Single_player

Case closed, I guess. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections

WP:NOT#GUIDE. Xihr (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just stupid. I don't want the list because I want a guide, I want the list as information. Wikipedia's role- to inform. I don't see how a list of characters is a guide. A walkthrough of missions would be a guide. Everyone's so focused on trying to categorise everything, they're missing the point of wikipedia. PedroFromHell (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please read WP:NOT#GUIDE. If you want a game guide, read a game guide. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Xihr (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just a typo on my part. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a game guide. Xihr (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even ignoring WP:NOT#GUIDE, what use would there be to a character list anyway? The characters have no story behind them beyond the three or four sentences that appear in the manual. The choice of character is a purely aesthetic one, having no impact on what little story the game has, nor in the way it is played. Same reason there's no articles for Guitar Hero characters.--Drat (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is Quackified relevant? The information seems like trivia and was not an important event in Quake 3's history (I've never heard about it before and have been very active in the community since 2000). Ix-ir (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it's an event connected directly to the peak of the game's popularity that stirred up a thing or two. It's description or exclusive section might be a bit too much for it's notability, but it's there nonetheless.

I've restored the section. If anyone can edit out the unnecessary data out of it or merge it to some other part of the article (or maybe ATI's article or whatever), please do. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support?

IDsoftware's sire says this game is supported only by 95/98/NT. I play this at home on my XP... so, should this be mentioned? maybe "although not officially supported by developers, the game runs on Windows XP"? 66.239.186.98 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of OR and POV in Techniques section

I have reverted the massive removal by TTN[1], and instead just cut the Techniques section from the article - this is the only bit that I feel needs serious cleanup, and it really does need it. It is rife with POV, OR and God knows what else. We can work on it on the talk page and then reintroduce it into the article when it is ready. It is located at Talk:Quake III Arena/Techniques. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What you want to do is chuck that section and just work on the gameplay section. If you intend to keep it in that list format, it is definite game guide material. Nemu 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, with the rest of the junk, do you see any of it on Halo: Combat Evolved? It, like this, is a shooter. It doesn't have anything like what I have removed. Nemu 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I say we had to model this on Halo? This is a completely multiplayer game - multiplayer topics are more important to the article. You have preiously been warned about mass removals without consensus and taking WP:BOLD too far - we need input from others before deciding either was, so for now, leave it as it was. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need more people. You need to provide an actual rational as to why this should not follow the format of the featured game articles (e.g. Halo, seeing as you didn't get the point of it). It has been half a month, and still, only you care. You are just wikilawyering by saying that it needs to go back because "the discussion isn't over." I have disputes over content often, but only do to stuff like this. Nemu 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the techniques section heavily, adding aim techniques (as far as I'm aware these techniques although common to most FPS have no been specifically outlined and are as important to Quake 3 as forehands and backhands are to tennis so warrant mention). I removed the netcode discussion from aim techniques as this is a technical issue. The weapon jumping section got reduced to a basic explanation that all weapon jumping consists of a jump combined with weapon knock-back. More specific discussion should surely be under separate sections as exists for Rocket Jumping etc. I also added sections on dodging as this is a major aspect of Quake 3 and on item control. As I'm new to Wiki I may not have sufficient feel for the culture of wiki but currently the Quake 3 page fails as a useful source of information. It manages to talk about Quake 3 without telling you anything about Quake 3. What sets Quake 3 apart from other games can be discussed without needing to be biased, at present you could replace the whole page with 'Generic FPS'. Ix-ir (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Summary - The removal of large amounts of content was good.

This is a response to a request at WP:3O for a third opinion on a dispute. The dispute was summarized on the 3O page as the contested removal of a large amount of content. Please be aware that 3O is a non-binding informal process. It may be relevant to know that I answer a lot of requests for assessment at WikiProject:Video Games, and as such know quite some relevant "case law" to the issue.

An issue very common in those assessments is the prevalence of so-called game guide information in an article. Usually the game an article writes about is an obscure game, for example web-based MMORPGs or an arcade game from the 80s. These articles are filled with lists of weapons, lists of characters, lists of game modes and ten thousand methods to obtain points in a platform game.

If I would have assessed the pre-removal version of article, I would have most certainly written that the maps table, the Items section, and the Special Awards section should be removed without salvaging any content. Including the same sections for the expansion pack, of course. This was done without having a reviewer tell editors to do so on the article talk page, and I appreciate that. The main argument for this is found in a Wikipedia policy:

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lists weapons, power-ups, and maps are called non-encyclopaedic content. A rule of thumb to self-assess if something is non-encyclopaedic content, is to ask yourself: "If this was a separate article, would it fail WP:N?" Note, there is an exception by consensus in the case of films, games, etc, and that is the exception of the plot summary. WP:NOT states: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

We can now conclude that 90% of the removal was right. The nitpicking starts, because two small points remain:

• Removal of not only the maps table, but also of the maps section. A maps section should most certainly exist, but it should not list the maps. It should write about general characteristics of the maps (Urban, Desert, Forest?) and about notable user created maps (akin to DoA in WC3, which has had multiple newspaper articles covering it following Bassunter's dance track). I think deleting this section was not nice (though not bad either) - see also Balancer's excellent essay "Deletion is not a substitute for tagging".
• Removal of the comparison with Unreal Tournament section. I think this section has some merits, but that it should not exists if no reliable sources can be found. The above essay applies here too, that is true. But, whether reliable sources even exist is questionable here. Also, if a source is found, it may not support what is written at the moment, and a complete rewrite is needed anyway. Deletion is a good solution here I think.

Related to the above, remove the current Mods section, with the same WP:NOT reasoning. Keep the following three, as they have been covered by reliable sources: Weapons Factory Arena, Rocket Arena 3 and DeFRaG. Write a new Mods section, call it "Modifications" (Mods is Jargon, see WP:JARGON) and explain briefly the modifications, citing the three notable mods as examples. Find sources for it, too! Check the reliable sources the three have been covered by. Listing the other mods articles for deletion would be appropriate.

If further comments on how the article can be improved are wanted, please list it for WP:VG Assessment

--User:Krator (t c) 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map section looked too "fanish" to bother keeping. I'm not against an actual section for it. The UT section seemed to have been tagged for a bit, and there wasn't even one source. It's just plain old OR. Nemu 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Krator, Thanks for your detailed Third Opinion. If you have noticed, there are separate articles for BFG 10K, Quad damage, Rocket jumping, Strafe running and techniques like that. Doesn't that too fail WP:N. These techniques, are atleast for me, a sort of original research. I understood your point. It seems that a lot of clean up is required in a lot of article on the video games portal, including articles on Unreal Tournament, for, I was shocked to find cheat codes!, (which I later removed). The best option I would see is that, there should be an article/essay elaborating on "how a video game article should be?" in the video games portal. This article should link each and every criteria/rule of wikipedia so that it's a becomes a one point reference. The article could detail about what all should be there and what all should not be there in a Video Game article based on the different criteria of Wikipedia. To assume what is non-encyclopedic based on rule of thumb is quite difficult, as people who contribute to a game are always so obsessed on it that, they try to write a "game guide" sort of article rather than the one like Halo: Combat Evolved. Now, Let's discuss on what should be done for articles like BFG 10K, Quad damage, Rocket jumping, Strafe running etc., Should that be marked for deletion? I don't think they qualify the WP:N. What do you people have on this?

TTN, I did not note the featured article Halo, when I first saw your purging. But any way it was quite informative, and hope it'll help in purging a lot other "un-wanted" stuff from many other video game articles.

Mugunth 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• The four articles named above should be listed for deletion, of which the result will probably be either delete or merge with First person shooter. I'll try to list them now.
• Most video game articles could indeed use a lot of work. I actually started working on writing an essay exactly like proposed above. See: User:Krator/VG Game Perfect Article. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you want to cooperate in writing this.

--User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Right, I am indeed wholly repentant. I should probably join WP:CVG actually, to help do this kind of thing in an organised way... I'll work on the Mods section tonight. And could we at least just have a small list of the maps, maybe only in a table in an appropriate section - a single box with just a plain list, no descriptions? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The only mod with its own article that's been removed from that section is Urban Terror... which actually looks only just good enough for the article to exist. If someone wants to AfD it, please do, but I think it just about scrapes into the safe zone. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• What would be the purpose of a table with names of maps? Does it provide any useful information to a reader? See also Wikipedia:Listcruft. I am in favour of a maps section (or paragraph if too small) that includes the variety, scope and quantity of maps, but just listing them serves no purpose. Stating "Maps can range from forest to urban environment, and from small rooms to whole cities" is useful information on maps, for example.
• Urban Terror is a long article, but contains no independent reliable sources. If you can find any, feel free to include it as an example. Same applies for Instagib, which is still listed and should be removed. --User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of modifications

I disagree with Krator's revision and statement that these mods are not notable. I have divided mods which notability is disputed into two groups:

Those we have an article in Wikipedia and debate of its notability should go to its talk page.

• Urban Terror Note: Article passed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Terror
• Orange Smoothie Productions

And those we have no article in Wikipedia and debate of its notability should go here.

• Challenge Pro Mode Arena (formerly Promode):

1. Promode physics became a default in several major professional competitions and leagues; there are also promode only professional competitions and leagues. [2] [3] [4].
2. Since it allows not only promode but also VQ3 physics and ruleset, and sinve it became a successor of OSP [5], CPMA became a default mod in some major vanilla Quake 3 competitions [6] [7].
3. Furthermore, the best proof of promode (and also osp, ra3) notability is tons of articles and discussions in Quake 3 related websites. It had also a strong community which can be seen in number of custom created videos and clans.

• Seasons Forever – MOTM ModDB
• True Combat – MOTM ModDB
• Western Quake 3 – MOTM ModDB

Comments:

• Instagib is not a mod, but the mode. This mode can be available by server settings or by _one of_ the Instagib mod. I have deleted Instagib from Modifications section and I suggest to add informations about Instagib in Game modes section. —Visor (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, then. The current section looks fine. Challenge Pro Mode Arena needs to be written though. --User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the latest anon addition? Is that Mod notable? --User:Krator (t c) 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been featured as a Mod of the Week on Planetquake [8], although in my opinion is not enough to be notable. I couldn't find other proofs of this mod's notability so I've deleted it. —Visor (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mod of the week must mean that over a hundred mods have been featured that way - not very notable --User:Krator (t c) 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I PWned the mods section without reading the talk page first :) I didn't erase any of the mods that were there already, but I erased most of the description of their gameplay. Although some of that information is interesting, I couldn't figure out how to state it without being a list. I added three mods: Tremulous, World of Padman, and Western Quake 3. I think any total conversion mod is notable-- I don't know if you will find many newspaper articles on the subject though. WQ3 has few players, but it is under active development with a Stand Alone version forthcoming. Furthermore, as in Tremulous the players are VERY dedicated. I think they are notable because they are free and open source and cross platform unlike 99 percent of video games. Tremulous is more popular today than Quake 3 is today in terms of players. People will probably still be playing some descendant of Tremulous long after Quake 3 has been forgotten. But I may be biased because I like WQ3. As for mods vs. modifications -- if its not in the dictionary yet, it should be. I hope the articles on the individual mods stay--I think it can slide in under notable in its specific context. An argument for the notability of strafe jumping etc.: This applies to so many games based on the Q3 engine, everything from Jedi Knight to Wolf ET, I think from the pure number of games it might just become notable. Well, thats all (play WQ3) Puddytang 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of bots

I have removed from text bots added by Mister Krubbs [9]. However, Mister Krubbs claims there are notable because of Google results [10]. Get a reference and proofs of notability before adding. See also WP:NOTE and WP:NFT. —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: WP:BIGNUMBER. --User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is nice to see how user Visor whose name suggests his is an author of some bots for Quake censors his rivals in Wikipedia. WP:AUTO?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Krubbs (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. Assume good faith please. The bots/mods removed were not notable and had not been covered by reliable sources, and were removed per policy, not because of censorship, conflicts of interest, or anything like that. --User:Krator (t c) 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm not an author of Q3 bots. —Visor (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots

About how the bots can chat to you, if you say certain phrases to some of them, they will respond. I'm going to add this to the section and you can edit it if you wish. ☺Efansay^T/_C☺ 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot to mention, can someone add a list of the bot that are availible.☺Efansay^T/_C☺ 11:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Bots - No. --User:Krator (t c) 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the discussion about what triggers bot chat, this seems unnecessarily long for its value as information, every aspect of the game has considerable complexity in its function, there is no need to discuss the exact details. Ix-ir (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quake Zero

Does a seperate article for Quake Zero, where we can add more information as we learn more about it, appeal to anyone? --69.122.5.180 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Software Render?

The article says that OpenGL is required to play and there's no software renderer. This isn't true; there is a software mode. However, the mode is so slow as to be useless, so OpenGL is de facto required. Should this be mentioned? ASWilson 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quake 3 has no software render mode. John Carmack: "The graphics engine is going to be hardware accelerated ONLY. NO SOFTWARE RENDERER, and it won't work very well on a lot of current hardware. We understand fully that this is going to significantly cut into our potential customer base, but everyone was tired of working under the constraints of the software renderer." From an interview here http://q2faq.planetquake.gamespy.com/q3faq/#II.5 Ix-ir (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Under linux, I believe you are able to run the game under MESA software OpenGL. This isn't a part of the game though, but a function of it's environment. 24.96.44.208 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the Carmack quote I gave I've since found out about this command-line parameter: r_allowSoftwareGL 1 so ASWilson was correct. Ix-ir (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Development

I'm the one who created the development section. I've played q3 since the IHV was leaked by ATI. I played it for 5 years solid so this game holds a special place in my heart. I found the development details in a cached google page from Firingsquad. I can no longer find the cached page. I will look for other sources in order to verify the information. I have very nostalgic memories of Quake 3, it is a beautiful game.

I removed the part of development that talked about some of the bugs in the early version of the game. I think this is too detailed and unnecessary. I put it there originally for nostalgic sake. Here is what I removed:

"Initially in Q3Test commands were not prefixed by a '/'. If a command was entered incorrectly as a typo or invalid command, it would display as chat text for everyone to see the error. This caused a problem if a server administrator was in a game and typing in the server password. If he messed up everyone could see the password and take control of the server. Adding a '/' before typing a command ensured the commands stayed private.

For a period of time in the final release of the game the gauntlet could be used to instantly kill someone by firing the gauntlet and pulling up the chat dialog box. If anyone touched you they died instantly." areseepee 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Quake

That should be mentioned too, somewhere in the section.

Physics

The Quake 3 engine feature physics that were calculated on a per-frame basis over a discrete space, so things like jump distance depended on your FPS

Here's a source: [11] VTNC (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely outdated. To the best of my knowledge, it's not present in the latest versions of the game. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is still correct but base Quake 3 also has pmove which gives you simulated 125 FPS physics, only the CPMA modification is fully FPS independent. Ix-ir (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quake 3 Engine vs id Tech 3

This seems to be a source of conflict. The linked discussion on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_31#id_tech_.28x.29_names_or_old_names.3F) did not seem to come to any kind of consensus.

I think we should use id Tech 3 because it's more useful information and less confusing when discussing games based on engines. It fits with any new information that id release, any new games will only have their engines referred to by id Tech numbers so using that for all games going forwards from id but 'Quake 1 engine' etc for older games is messy. Ix-ir (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok unfortunately this information is inadmissible by wiki's standards but to get the skinny on this I asked one of the id team about it, TTimo had the following gems: the Quake 3 engine was known as Trinity internally (although it seems from googling that Trinity was a seperate and abandoned project by id, some of which became Quake 3). He didn't know what the names for the Quake 1 and 2 engines were but that Carmack said he was picking names from nearby rivers at some point. The best part is that the Doom 3/id Tech 4 code folder was originally named 'neo' as a Matrix joke on the name Trinity. Ix-ir (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• For games prior to the name change, "id Tech 3" should be called the "Quake III Arena" engine for historical purposes. Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 16:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The engine page itself is called id Tech 3 so it makes more sense for us to reference that. Discussions about historical names should be information on the id Tech 3 page, the taxonomy has been updated by id so that is what we should use. Ix-ir (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

ioquake3 engine

I just added some info about ioquake3, and how openarena uses it. I placed this in where OpenArena is mentioned, hopefully it fits. Revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quake_III_Arena&oldid=246436370 (someone who knows wiki a bit more than me, can you make that into a nice link?) 24.96.44.208 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Move some content to id Tech 3?

I was looking at id Tech 3 and was considering updating the "features" section since this is clearly missing lots of appropriate content. However, much of that content is actually on this page.

I suggest that the bulk of the sections on "graphics", "sound", "networking", and "Quake Virtual Machine" sections be moved into the id Tech 3 page into a features section (with the current "features" section moved into a sub-section to "Models" or something).

Maybe do this leaving a "stub" summarising id tech 3 engine features, and a link to the main page? Does anyone disagree? 86.144.231.238 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely leave some content related to the game engine on this page. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial ports

Is there any source for a re-porting of iPad-Quake 3 back to iPhone / iPod Touch 4? As far as I know there is only the (older) iPhone port by Seth Kingsley and the newer iPad port (based on Seth' work) by Alexander Pick. 91.64.136.185 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy / port-to-browser (Quake Live)

I think there should be a section about the cult following and continued interest in Q3A. There is a community of people who play the game still, most [of us] everyday, some 12-13 years after its release. I definitely think that's noteworthy, as well as the fact that the game was ported-to-browser and became Quake Live. That, I can handle as far as being more than happy to write-up for the article, but the only problem I'm having at this point is finding good references as far as the continued interest in the game that exists today. I'll start piecing the section together but it will help if someone can supplement it and maybe find some references. G90025 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quake III Arena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926222311/http://members.cox.net/randar/review.html to http://members.cox.net/randar/review.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20020718214708/http://quake3arena.com:80/ to http://www.quake3arena.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Quake III Arena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qeradiant.com/manual/Q3AShader_Manual/ch05/pg5_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201002224/http://wire.ggl.com/2007/08/22/quakecon-2007-john-carmack-keynote-video/ to http://wire.ggl.com/2007/08/22/quakecon-2007-john-carmack-keynote-video/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gaming-age.com/cgi-bin/reviews/review.pl?sys=dreamcast&game=q3a
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3942
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interactive.org/iaa/finalists_pc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

---

About Fast inverse square root in Quake 3

I'm writing this message so as to not revert your changes and edit war.

I believe that the Fast inverse square root section is relevant to Quake 3 because the game was its first implementation in a major program. At the time, it was generally computationally expensive to compute the reciprocal of a floating-point number, especially on a large scale, and the fast inverse square root bypassed this step. Common software methods in the early 1990s drew approximations from a lookup table, but this game changed everything, and so it is mentioned in the main Fast inverse square root page. Hextor26 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Moved from my talk page. This needs to be sourced in order for it to be included. Not just the usage, but the claim that it "changed everything". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dedicating an entire section to it is quite disproportionate. It should be included as a sentence under the game engine section instead, with a link to its main article. Otrebus (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Reviews

• The Duelist #40

207.229.139.154 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

single-player mode?

"The single-player mode is played against computer-controlled bots."
So, is there something special in that? Usually all this genre's games do that. Or is the "bot" the difference? Technically, all enemies are "computer-controlled bots", regardless what they look like. I think the difference is mentioned in previous sentence: "excluding story-based single-player mode". 46.132.59.156 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)