Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

amemorex

most advanced for its time? Quake or Quake 2?

Recommended Posts

I would have to say Quake, because, correct me if I am wrong, Quake 2 was based on the same concept and used the same engine as Quake 1, and didn''t have many more capabilities.

I am not an avid Quaker (I didn''t like the game) so I am probably wrong. I only played each one once (because everyone made a big deal out of them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mm
i think q1
as it was the first ... well not really considering descent beat quake to be the first fps utilizing mostly a 3d world
umm
yeh q1
as by the time q2 things like unreal and the lithtech engine were coming put which werent that much worse and better in some aspects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Do00d
well not really considering descent beat quake to be the first fps utilizing mostly a 3d world



Descent wasnt a first person shooter (fps) game.

-----------------------
0wn 0wn 0wn your goat
gently down the pw33n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn''t say q1 was all that revolitionary, it wasn''t the first game to be all nice and 3d(take a look at ultima underworld which came out before wolfienstien), they only thing it really had going for it was all 3d models, sans the explosions. I think q2 was more revolutionary because that was the point the technology really matured, windows/solid networkcode/use of graphics cards/in game lighting effects and so on. It had alot more polish and I think it was more revolutionary then q1 mainly because it really brought games to people. I guess personally I never really saw q1 as revolutionary mainly becuase of ultima underworld. There are lots of revolutionary games, but revolutionary are more or less opinion based, what i see as a major step (pong,zork,ultima underworld,wolf/doom,simcity 2000, diablo, starcraft,system shock 2,tribes, and the civ games fit in somewhere) As i was saying, these are my opinions, but you may think there are other things that warrent a rating of revolutionary. So think about each, and how they moved you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d say Quake 1. I was not impressed with Quake 2, and seemed just like Quake 1 with slight differences.

Hitchhiker90
"There''s one bitch in the world, one bitch with many faces" -- Jay
"What are you people, on dope?" -- Mr. Hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no doubt Q1 was more revolutionary. Q2 really was just an extension of the same engine, and, for those that know, when Q2 1st came out it''s netcode was absolute CRAP. Q1 was the 1st "TRUE" 3D game in a true 3D world (not counting explosions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quake 1''s netcode was probably even worse than Quake 2''s at release, since there wasn''t any client-side prediction stuff until Q1''s QuakeWorld patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Narcus,

If you can believe it, I prefer NetQuake over Quake World.

I hated QW when it started (NetCode was screwed at the start), and didn''t get better for a while. While I can stand it now, I still play NetQuake without prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quake 2 definitely. the game itself was forgettable (better than the first though). but the technology has changed gaming forever. the engine has been used how many times? but most importantly it was used in halflife. anyone still playing counterstrike? or day of defeat? you are still (fundamentally) playing quake 2.

quake 1 may have been a big jump for it''s time, but quake 2 (and what has been accomplished with that engine) is even for today impressive.

<(o)>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really wasn''t impressed with either game. I remember for about two years before Quake was released, id kept teasing the public with this grand idea for a game which wasn''t what the game actually turned out to be in the end. Meanwhile Interplay put out Descent and Doom XXIV (or whatever version they were up to) had me pretty tired of shooters. When I first played Quake, I was disappointed... so I tried to play against friends since the gameplay bored me to tears... nope, networking that bastard wasn''t even worth it. So, I said to Quake as I did all the bad DOS games before it... "del *.*". As a matter of fact, I had very few friends that played Quake... Quake II on the other, well everyone and their grandmother played it, so to answer your question, QUAKE II =)

But slightly OT... pre 1993, games were bad... I mean, really bad. You guys remember? Nuthin'' but flight simulators and you had to have like 620k free in DOS mode which meant each game had to have a boot disk. It was a nightmare. But the game that was really ahead of its time I''d say was Doom... although Ultima Underworld was great it didn''t use protected mode, networking and all that. Doom started the whole game mod, network play, protected mode, all-out moody sound and graphics game development movement! It set a new bar... unlike Quake I & II which was just another game in a renaissance of gaming... BUT, give credit where its due. Quake II has been a great engine =)



Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Get Tranced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half-life used elements of both the q1 and q2 engines.

All I''ll say on the whole q1 vs q2 debate is that it''s rare/hard for a sequel to be revolutionary because of one simple fact: it''s a sequel. There are exceptions of course, Dune 2 comes to mind, but it doesn''t take a genius to see that sequels are generally just more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by coderx75
Meanwhile Interplay put out Descent and Doom XXIV (or whatever version they were up to) had me pretty tired of shooters.


You mean Doom2? You couldnt count that high?

-----------------------
0wn 0wn 0wn your goat
gently down the pw33n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I''d have to say, in my opinion, that Quake 1 was more revolutionary. I think that the step from Doom to Quake was huge, compared to the step from Quake to Quake 2.


(Hell, on that note, I''d have to say DOOM was even more revolutionary (over Wolf3d), and then Wolf3d even more over whatever came before it....)


That''s as far as engine goes though. As far as gameplay, etc.. I''d say Quake 2 was far better. I played Q2 for a long long time, as compared to Q1, which I played and then forgot.

off topic: It''s kind of sad lately.. id software used to be the leading game company, always pushing the limits, always making me say "wow". In recent years (since Unreal really), it seems like id has been falling behind (or rather losing their lead). I''ve always been a loyal id fan, but lately they seem to be becoming more of your average game developer.. let''s hope Doom 3 doesn''t disappoint (and to be honest, I haven''t played the new Wolf yet either). I found Q3 to be pretty disappointing (and Unreal Tournament to be far more fun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comanche was a fully 3D game, even with 3D explosions... I think it came out in 1993 or 1994. It used voxel graphics instead textured polygons.

I think I''d have to go with Quake2.

Magmai Kai Holmlor

"Oh, like you''ve never written buggy code" - Lee

"What I see is a system that _could do anything - but currently does nothing !" - Anonymous CEO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d like to point out that Half-Life used solely the Quake 1 engine, and the only thing it used from that engine was file saving and loading.


"Where genius ends, madness begins."
Estauns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

You mean Doom2? You couldnt count that high?



Yeah, can ya imagine the frustration of my fifth grade teacher when she tried to explain pi?!

;-)

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Get Tranced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultima Underworld was impressive for its time, but it doesn''t really compare to Quake''s (or even Doom''s) 3D engine. The maps in UW are just a 2D grid of squares, which is primative compared to the flexibility in level design you get in Quake. Purely from a technical point of view, Quake was in a class of its own, almost... descent was, I guess, true 3D too (whatever that means), and had 3D enemies etc. As for Quake2, well that added OpenGL (miniGL anyway) support, true colour (no more brown!), and a few other tweaks, but was essentially Quake1 (although I gather the engine was largely rewritten).

But for me, Elite on the BBC beats them all hands down: True (wireframe) 3D, 3 degrees of freedom (well, 2 actually, but I''m sure they could''ve added that Y axis if they''d wanted to), and made in 1982.

www.elf-stone.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites