Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

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

amemorex

most advanced for its time? Quake or Quake 2?

This topic is 6054 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Advertisement
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

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!