most advanced for its time? Quake or Quake 2?
Author
when both of these games were released, which game was more advanced for its time period? Quake 1, or Quake 2?
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).
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
Hitchhiker90
"There''s one bitch in the world, one bitch with many faces" -- Jay
"What are you people, on dope?" -- Mr. Hand
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).
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.
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.
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.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
