Quake Vs Quake 2
Both games came out in 1997 and were considered the best FPS in their respective platforms at the time (n64 and PC). QUOTE='6matt6'QUOTE='VendettaRed07'I never played Quake 2. But I still love goldeneye to this day. I dont think its nearly as outdated as people make it out to be either110million Seriously? Its controls are god awful by todays standards. Like, completely unplaayble shovelware level of awful, I could not play it for more than 30 seconds, 2 analogs is 100% mandatory for bear minimum FPS play.I disagree. It takes getting used to, but after a while I found myself running through levels with no difficulty.
Quake II: Quad Damage was a compilation published by id Software on 12th May, 1999. It contains Quake 2 and its two mission packs - The Reckoning and Ground Zero, as well as NetPack I: Extremities. A Linux version was published under the name Quake II: Colossus.
I mean it controls better than any shooter on the psp yet tons and tons of people still play those. QUOTE='runbleduck'Both games came out in 1997 and were considered the best FPS in their respective platforms at the time (n64 and PC). QUOTE='6matt6'QUOTE='VendettaRed07'I never played Quake 2.
But I still love goldeneye to this day. I dont think its nearly as outdated as people make it out to be eitherjethrovegas Seriously? Its controls are god awful by todays standards.I disagree.Clunky when compared to modern controls? Sure, I'll give you that.God awful?
I mean hell, it isn't unplayable, nor even particularly frustrating, unless you are just hell bent on not enjoying yourself or your controller is worn to. I can play it but I find myself saying 'This game used to be so much more fun when I didn't know how bad the controls were' What I don't get is when people say Ocarina Of Time has aged horribly. The controls for that game are still great the only thing that shows age is the visuals. I can play it but I find myself saying 'This game used to be so much more fun when I didn't know how bad the controls were' What I don't get is when people say Ocarina Of Time has aged horribly. The controls for that game are still great the only thing that shows age is the visuals. 6matt6Fair enough. I'll admit my last playthrough had a bit of an 'ehhh' feeling to it, if not outright disillusionment.and yeah, OoT has aged very well, along with Majora's Mask which seems more goddamn brilliant every time I play it.
QUOTE='88mphSlayer'QUOTE='runbleduck'Both games came out in 1997 and were considered the best FPS in their respective platforms at the time (n64 and PC). I like Quake 2 more because of how badass it was. But I admit that 007 was more 'modern' at the time. Half-Life left both of them in ashes btw. Orchid87 Half-Life didn't even have multiplayer. And all that scripted stuff that people rant and rave about in Half-Life?
Duke 3D's build engine had done.significantly. more years before. Goldeneye wins it for me. Quake 2 was quite the game, and represents more of the archetype of FPS multiplayer that has continued today, but I simply had more fun with Goldneye.
Great weapon balance and variety, wonderful level design. Beat Quake 2 on the intangibles.
QUOTE='runbleduck'Both games came out in 1997 and were considered the best FPS in their respective platforms at the time (n64 and PC). Would you all agree Goldeneye, a console fps, kicked Quake 2's behind and was the de facto game in revolutionizing the FPS genre across all platforms? Amaneuvering Without a shadow of a doubt. Actually, Quake 2 was basically the archetype for the modern 'tournament' FPS that we have today, which has been pretty damned significant. I voted Goldenye on this, but I really think Quake 2 had as much, if not more, than Goldeneye in terms of revolutionizing power.
Quake 2 is responsible for the entirety of Modern Day FPS Online. It is, very literally, the archetype for the entire design.Beyond that, Half Life is FAR AND AWAY a larger game in terms of impact in every conceivable way then either of these in terms of shaping modern FPS game design. I wont bother arguing that fact either, just look at the entirety of any gaming site and see what it has to say about it.Now I played the hell out of Goldeneye. It was then and still to this day is a damn fun experience - and it did a lot of split screen play.
But there is a reason it is left out of most 'influential' fps lists. Now I played the hell out of Goldeneye.
It was then and still to this day is a damn fun experience - and it did a lot of split screen play. But there is a reason it is left out of most 'influential' fps lists.Cali3350It aint left out. I googled 'influential fps' and only found one unique list that goldeneye was left out of. It was the only list that quake 2 made at all.and was limited to pc games.Quake 2 was nothing new. Just the sequel to quake, which was a semi-updated clone of doom.Goldeneye showed FPS could explode on consoles, despite having the handicaps of being stuck with the worst controller ever designed, and being based off a movie. Which is the better game is debateable, but deciding on which aged better, i'd have to pick Goldeneye.I can't play old PC fps games, there are so many fps games on the PC that show incremental improvements over the years since Quake 2 released, it just makes it even harder.Plus the Quake games are from the old days before an FPS used objectives or stealth and so on, they were just mindless.
I tried to play through Quake 4 but after a while I gave up. Same reason I gave up on Painkiller.It's boring to play through an fps like that.Halo is a bit like that, but its somehow less mindless imo. Which is the better game is debateable, but deciding on which aged better, i'd have to pick Goldeneye.I can't play old PC fps games, there are so many fps games on the PC that show incremental improvements over the years since Quake 2 released, it just makes it even harder.Plus the Quake games are from the old days before an FPS used objectives or stealth and so on, they were just mindless. I tried to play through Quake 4 but after a while I gave up. Same reason I gave up on Painkiller.It's boring to play through an fps like that.Halo is a bit like that, but its somehow less mindless imo.DarthDuMasActually Quake 2 has objectives.
And even requires some thinking (like find a button that switches the force field off at the previous level and then return to that level and take a different route). Much more than CoD games. QUOTE='DarthDuMas'Which is the better game is debateable, but deciding on which aged better, i'd have to pick Goldeneye.I can't play old PC fps games, there are so many fps games on the PC that show incremental improvements over the years since Quake 2 released, it just makes it even harder.Plus the Quake games are from the old days before an FPS used objectives or stealth and so on, they were just mindless.
I tried to play through Quake 4 but after a while I gave up. Same reason I gave up on Painkiller.It's boring to play through an fps like that.Halo is a bit like that, but its somehow less mindless imo.Orchid87Actually Quake 2 has objectives. And even requires some thinking (like find a button that switches the force field off at the previous level and then return to that level and take a different route).
Much more than CoD games.Well i'm only on CoD 2 right now, but the objectives are strange in that a lot of them, you just keep moving forward and they automatically complete them selves. Other than specific ones which is blow generator, or clear building.They're kind of unavoidable, and i'm not sure you can really fail them. QUOTE='Orchid87'I like Quake 2 more because of how badass it was. But I admit that 007 was more 'modern' at the time. Half-Life left both of them in ashes btw. Boomshaffted Half-Life didn't even have multiplayer.
And all that scripted stuff that people rant and rave about in Half-Life? Duke 3D's build engine had done.significantly.
more years before. Goldeneye wins it for me. Quake 2 was quite the game, and represents more of the archetype of FPS multiplayer that has continued today, but I simply had more fun with Goldneye. Great weapon balance and variety, wonderful level design. Beat Quake 2 on the intangibles. Actually, I have to correct myself. Half-Life DID have multiplayer, it was just some of the most forgettable of the generation.
Both games came out in 1997 and were considered the best FPS in their respective platforms at the time (n64 and PC). Would you all agree Goldeneye, a console fps, kicked Quake 2's behind and was the de facto game in revolutionizing the FPS genre across all platforms?runbleduckYes, I agree. I never quite understood the hype around Quake 2, anyway.
It still has the same 'search this key to enter that door' gameplay, while Goldeneye actually started working with missions and objectives. I don't know if it was the very first FPS to do so, but it certainly wasn't common at that time, while it is now.
Despite playing a lot, I still prefer Q1 over Q2 for the following reasons:- The netcode. It feels absolutely horrible being serverside only: my shots seem slow, or lack some reactivity, while in Quake 1, it's immediate, and everything feels much smoother.- The rocket launcher. It feels sloooow (despite Q3A is using the exact same speed, but feels better). Also the explosions. Being all 3D is.
UGH.- The mod system, using DLLs/.SOs. Perfect way to ruin someone else's computer if there's malicious content in it. At least the QuakeC system was better, and safer.- The BFG10K.
Why should it be the SAME BFG9000 from DooM in a different universe? At least we had the Railgun, which is cool.- Official maps other than The Edge. Are great for TDM, but definitely not suitable for duels.But the inventory system was neat, and the fact that you could switch hands (and modify its trajectory slightly that way) was cool:). Every new installment is a huge change from the previous.Q1 was lovecraft-ian/ gothic horror with magic runes.Q2 was alien invasion retaliation.Q3 was only all multi player based.Q4 was an attempt to continue the story of Q2, and the majority of Q3 fans hated the mulitplayer of Q4 because it was once again different.ETQW was a team based objective oriented shooting game with classes.QL was basically ids attempt at an online subscription based rehash of Q3.QC is character based cash grab built to compete with the Overwatch crowd. For me it simply wasn't Quake.and it wasn't supposed to be. They slapped the Quake name on it. Wasn't a bad game.just not Quake.I LOVED the style of Quake.
Quake 3 Vs Quake 2
I still listen to the soundtrack; it's amazing. The multiplayer scene for Quake was way more enjoyable to me. None of my friends got into Q2 multiplayer and we played QuakeWorld up until Quake 3. Quake 2 never resonated with me or any of my friends.I finished Q2 single player and tried multiplayer many times but just couldn't get into it.I agree with the sentiment that it should have been it's own franchise. It was a cool space marine shooter.it simply wasn't the Quake I love so passionatly. I think if you played custom maps for both Quake 1 and 2. I think you'd agree with the general consensus.
There's just so much more you can do with Quake 1 and it's because of simple game design choices.Quake 2 feels restricted and slow paced, even if you can pick up all weapons - you can pretty much only use one weapon at a time - which is not very fun if you fight a horde of monsters and if there is a horde of monsters, you have to backpedal a lot. On top of that, the weapons have all sorts of cooldowns and delays that make using even one single weapon much slower.Multiplayer kind of suffers from the same thing, although I think it's better than SP at least.What I like about Quake 2 most is the which is enabled by the kickass movement mechanics, but I like the equivalent in just about as much. In every other regard I think Quake 1 is better though. Single player, multiplayer, mapping and mods. I've never hated Quake II in my life and it's a fond memory from the middle-end of my teenage years. 3Dfx, punk-rock soundtrack, sci-fi grunge design aesthetic, etc. It was just Quake.
I remember us playing tournaments just before I bought my first machine at internet caffee's and the games in particular being Quake II & the - fantastic as well - Unreal (mostly Quake of course).EDIT: I still play it through the Yamagi source port (as the original Quake through QuakeSpasm and the amazing Arcane Dimensions expansion). It's as vaniilla as can be and with 'glshadows 1' (in both games) it's just right. I don't think Quake 2 is hated in any respect. It was very popular when it came out, and was both a critical and financial success. I remember reviews at the times praising it, and focusing more on what it was individually then being a sequel to quake. It also makes sense that it was so different, because iD software was trying to make a brand new IP. It was only after some difficulty with either licensing, or what not, that they decided to name it quake 2.
I can't remember the specific details, but it was all discussed in the Masters of Doom book. Even quake 3 did its own thing and provided a completely different type of game as well, while having both the main characters from quake 1 and 2 being playable.Quake 2 is a great game, and does so much well. It does feel different than quake one.
The movement and pace is slower (But still insanely fast compared to many new fps games). It also has a very strict and cohesive structure. The levels follow a similar design and aesthetic because of the plot.
All of these things were done well, but are different. Quake 1 was a bunch of disjointed levels (due to development issues) but what it provided was a massive amount of variety and creativity in level design. This also can be a good or a bad thing depending on who you are. I really enjoy the sci fi aesthetic of Quake 2, and that extends to the first level of each chapter of quake 1 as well. However, I absolutley love the almost arcade like physics and movement of quake 1 more. I find it easier to pick up quake 1 for an hour of mindless action.
Quake 2 however, feels like a much bigger commitment. That said, I have beat Quake 2 at least 3 times. (I have beat quake 1 at least 10 times).Quake 4 is undoubtedly the black sheep, being that it is the only true sequel in the quake franchise, and the most unexciting of them all. It provided nothing new in a sea of FPS games. It was made by Raven software, so it still has the hallmarks of a well made game in that it doesn't have major bugs and has high production values. However, its multiplayer was bland, and the plot felt very generic.
Quake Or Quake 2
It borrowed so much from the Aliens space marines tropes that it didn't take a chance on developing its own unique identity. The graphic system was great at the time, and there were a few memorable scenes (The space ship landing was great).
I still have only beaten it once, but I do want to give it another try soon.Enemy Territory Quake Wars is an often undiscussed quake game. It was, once again, different form all the others in the series.
It was critically praised, but financially not very successful. Its a real shame, because it was actually a very well made game. It was the third in the series to push the Strogg story, but served as a prequel, and felt like a Battlefield title with a modern warfare and slight sci fi twist. I do have a significant preference over the classic Quake over Quake II, but thats mostly because Quake felt so much more stable.
(And I played it a lot more younger so I do have a bias) but Quake I all the weapons were fixed with really good accuracy, the game was always challenging and fun with different map variety, but Quake II had such a problem where it lost a lot of that. Instead of the shotgun firing fast to take care of Ogres, it fired so slow you were forced to constantly run away and just peek shot.
And the machine gun was hot garbage because it had the most intensive bloom I have ever seen. It just because Quake II lost a lot of its fast paced action unlike to what the original Quake had. And enemies were so much harder to kill unlike in the classic Quake, and dont get me wrong, enemies are still hard to kill in classic Quake.
Quake 2 Websites
Its just that in Quake II, it was almost impossible. Health was harder to find, enemies were more accurate when you werent, and instead of having some dodgeable attacks like the Scrags or Ogres, they shot at a hitscan making every fight feel like a Shambler battle. Quake II is still fun, but it almost feels unfair and staggering compared to the smooth flow for battle that the original Quake had.
