The Quake Games Suck

[Ol' Willy]

Long ago I played PSone Quake II deathmatch on a splitscreen. Was cool though

 

[Devastator]

I thought Quake was fun until I tried the multiplayer, which was simply epic. When it comes to the campaign, I enjoyed both 1 and 2 for different reasons; they are very distinct games, each with its own unique atmosphere. While the atmosphere of the first was probably better in terms of pure aesthetics, I loved the futuristic weapons of the second (both your own and the enemy's).

Regarding multiplayer, looking back, Quake 2 was probably the most enjoyable for me. It was also janky because PCs were just starting to achieve barely decent frame rates, and the hilarious lag caused by dial-up remained. The third one had good multiplayer, but I didn't find it better than Q2's. It seemed to take the experience to a whole new level, though, but that was mainly due to technological advances. With the improvement of 3D cards and the availability of cable and optical internet, lag was finally becoming minimal. By running the game at minimum detail, frame rates were finally high. Anyone who was serious was using a 140Hz or 160Hz CRT.

In terms of multiplayer mechanics, I missed various small things. For example, how one team could dominate and then hold their advantage more brutally. In Q2, you spawned with 100 health and could be instantly railed, as opposed to getting a temporary health boost in Q3, plus a machine gun that actually did good damage and had great range and accuracy. I don't understand why players should be rewarded for dying. You don't see Dark Souls giving players a free health boost just because they are bad at the game.

It's also a travesty that they abandoned a proper campaign for Q3. The expansion was pretty bad, and Quake 4 seemed just terrible. I remember it having a campaign, at least, but it didn't seem particularly good. Never bothered to give Q4's multiplayer a try, as everyone in my area moved to CS halfway through Q3's life.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Have you seen Sandy Petersen playing Doom with his granddaughter?

No, but that's pretty awesome. Honestly, I can still play Doom to this day and enjoy the Hell out of it, pardon the pun.

When i used to have LAN parties, most attempts at playing co-op resulted in failure because there was always that one asshole who couldn't or wouldn't coordinate his play with the rest of us. Now Doom is basic enough that it may work even if you have that one retarded friend who just can't play ball with the rest, but even then you can tell the game was designed for singleplayer. In Memento Mori, there's a few maps that were actually designed for co-op (which annoyingly can only be 100% with cheats now if you play the megawad solo) which shows how maps could be designed if the game were to support co-op from the get go.

One of our personal favorite series of wads were the Raven wads that got Tim Willits a job at id Software. I would have to guess, just by how well they played in co-op, that they were designed for that. They were challenging in single player, but it ramps way up if you play co-op. I played through them all in single player. When we went through in co-op, I ran charging in to a room that I remembered being fun only to hear the familiar roar of a cyberdemon and got blasted before I saw him. That was something definitely not in the single player.

Quake was clearly and fundamentally designed for single player. The multiplayer part is the PVP. Arguing that the game is shit because it doesn't work well in co-op even though it was never meant to is just asinine. "But Doom worked in co-op". Yeah well Quake isn't Doom. Deal with it. Levels in Quake were designed around constant motion and verticality.

Also, Quake had that grenade launcher, which is far from co-op friendly. It also has the Fiend, which is a monster that would make it really easy to shoot your buddies because of it's jump attack.

 

[NecroLord]

Have you seen Sandy Petersen playing Doom with his granddaughter?

No, but that's pretty awesome. Honestly, I can still play Doom to this day and enjoy the Hell out of it, pardon the pun.

When i used to have LAN parties, most attempts at playing co-op resulted in failure because there was always that one asshole who couldn't or wouldn't coordinate his play with the rest of us. Now Doom is basic enough that it may work even if you have that one retarded friend who just can't play ball with the rest, but even then you can tell the game was designed for singleplayer. In Memento Mori, there's a few maps that were actually designed for co-op (which annoyingly can only be 100% with cheats now if you play the megawad solo) which shows how maps could be designed if the game were to support co-op from the get go.

One of our personal favorite series of wads were the Raven wads that got Tim Willits a job at id Software. I would have to guess, just by how well they played in co-op, that they were designed for that. They were challenging in single player, but it ramps way up if you play co-op. I played through them all in single player. When we went through in co-op, I ran charging in to a room that I remembered being fun only to hear the familiar roar of a cyberdemon and got blasted before I saw him. That was something definitely not in the single player.

Quake was clearly and fundamentally designed for single player. The multiplayer part is the PVP. Arguing that the game is shit because it doesn't work well in co-op even though it was never meant to is just asinine. "But Doom worked in co-op". Yeah well Quake isn't Doom. Deal with it. Levels in Quake were designed around constant motion and verticality.

Also, Quake had that grenade launcher, which is far from co-op friendly. It also has the Fiend, which is a monster that would make it really easy to shoot your buddies because of it's jump attack.

That jump attack is really nasty.
Can even be a instant kill if the Fiend lands right atop you, as its damage gets multiplied.
Not exactly sure what the math is like, just check the Quake wikia.

 

[Hell Swarm]

I thought Quake was fun until I tried the multiplayer, which was simply epic. When it comes to the campaign, I enjoyed both 1 and 2 for different reasons; they are very distinct games, each with its own unique atmosphere. While the atmosphere of the first was probably better in terms of pure aesthetics, I loved the futuristic weapons of the second (both your own and the enemy's).

Regarding multiplayer, looking back, Quake 2 was probably the most enjoyable for me. It was also janky because PCs were just starting to achieve barely decent frame rates, and the hilarious lag caused by dial-up remained. The third one had good multiplayer, but I didn't find it better than Q2's. It seemed to take the experience to a whole new level, though, but that was mainly due to technological advances. With the improvement of 3D cards and the availability of cable and optical internet, lag was finally becoming minimal. By running the game at minimum detail, frame rates were finally high. Anyone who was serious was using a 140Hz or 160Hz CRT.

In terms of multiplayer mechanics, I missed various small things. For example, how one team could dominate and then hold their advantage more brutally. In Q2, you spawned with 100 health and could be instantly railed, as opposed to getting a temporary health boost in Q3, plus a machine gun that actually did good damage and had great range and accuracy. I don't understand why players should be rewarded for dying. You don't see Dark Souls giving players a free health boost just because they are bad at the game.

It's also a travesty that they abandoned a proper campaign for Q3. The expansion was pretty bad, and Quake 4 seemed just terrible. I remember it having a campaign, at least, but it didn't seem particularly good. Never bothered to give Q4's multiplayer a try, as everyone in my area moved to CS halfway through Q3's life.

Depends on how you mean serious. Quake 2 onward was the time of amateur competitive leagues. I absolutely sucked at the FPS I played back then but I still found a clan to take me and played in clan games.. with dial up connections. Hardware was often whatever the family PC was and none of it was high end unless you were a rich kid or could pilfer stuff from a college.

Being locked into dying over and over isn't very fun for either side. Giving players a small health boost didn't really make a difference but it could help a complete joke turn back into a game. If a player has max health, armour and has control of the weapon rotation there's very little hope of a come back so a functional weapon and a tiny bit more health isn't much of a difference outside of preventing spawn camping. Dark souls doesn't have to help players because it's not a 2 party experience. Your fun of spawn camping me ends when I alt+f4 and don't play ever again. Then you end up with the problem arena shooters currently face where no one plays them except die hards creating the same feedback loop. Even if you lose you need to feel good on some level or you're going to stop playing. That's why battle royale garbage has become so popular. Even if you die first you still got to do some gambling and find some loot.

Have you seen Sandy Petersen playing Doom with his granddaughter?

No, but that's pretty awesome. Honestly, I can still play Doom to this day and enjoy the Hell out of it, pardon the pun.

When i used to have LAN parties, most attempts at playing co-op resulted in failure because there was always that one asshole who couldn't or wouldn't coordinate his play with the rest of us. Now Doom is basic enough that it may work even if you have that one retarded friend who just can't play ball with the rest, but even then you can tell the game was designed for singleplayer. In Memento Mori, there's a few maps that were actually designed for co-op (which annoyingly can only be 100% with cheats now if you play the megawad solo) which shows how maps could be designed if the game were to support co-op from the get go.

One of our personal favorite series of wads were the Raven wads that got Tim Willits a job at id Software. I would have to guess, just by how well they played in co-op, that they were designed for that. They were challenging in single player, but it ramps way up if you play co-op. I played through them all in single player. When we went through in co-op, I ran charging in to a room that I remembered being fun only to hear the familiar roar of a cyberdemon and got blasted before I saw him. That was something definitely not in the single player.

Quake was clearly and fundamentally designed for single player. The multiplayer part is the PVP. Arguing that the game is shit because it doesn't work well in co-op even though it was never meant to is just asinine. "But Doom worked in co-op". Yeah well Quake isn't Doom. Deal with it. Levels in Quake were designed around constant motion and verticality.

Also, Quake had that grenade launcher, which is far from co-op friendly. It also has the Fiend, which is a monster that would make it really easy to shoot your buddies because of it's jump attack.

Call me contraction on this but I'm very against Sandy doing this.

Firstly. Keep your kids off the fucking internet. I don't care how cool you think it is to show your kids off on youtube or facebook, keep them off the internet. The internet is forever, it's also full of doxxers and pedos looking for kids to kidnap or groom. There's no benefit to putting your kids on the internet and you shouldn't be doing it for clout. If he wants to show off his work to his grandkids that's great, but don't do it on the internet.

Secondly. Don't spend time with your young family members playing computer games. Might be weird to say on codex but there's no reason you should be putting kids in front of screens more than they have to be. Build a model kit with them, play a board game, go outside and play some sportsball if it's not raining. Too much screen time for kids is bad for them and you're better off socialising with them directly. It's so easy to boot up smash bros but I've grown to hate that mentality as I get older and realize how much kids need proper physical interaction and using their minds over computer games.

Does the Raven mod still hold up? I need to get back into Doom and some original era wads would be neat to try out.

 

[Devastator]

Giving players a small health boost didn't really make a difference

It was a tremendous difference for anyone decent at the game. A 25% free health boost is by no means small; you could survive two rail shots instead of one, meaning that you were alive for at least a few seconds. Plus, you spawned with a fully automatic machine gun (instead of a semi-auto blaster, which was useless at range because its shots traveled slowly). In Q3, you could do serious damage for potentially multiple seconds for free: by simply spawning and starting to shoot with your default machine gun.

If a player has max health, armour and has control of the weapon rotation there's very little hope of a come back

I think that's a good mechanic. It makes you reflect on all the mistakes you made that allowed such a situation to arise.

I see your points, but I disagree with you on them. I don't like it when games hold your hand. Doesn't matter if its a shooter or an RPG. It's fine if you feel the opposite, but that's what made Quake's multiplayer interesting for me.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Giving players a small health boost didn't really make a difference

It was a tremendous difference for anyone decent at the game. A 25% free health boost is by no means small; you could survive two rail shots instead of one, meaning that you were alive for at least a few seconds. Plus, you spawned with a fully automatic machine gun (instead of a semi-auto blaster, which was useless at range because its shots traveled slowly). In Q3, you could do serious damage for potentially multiple seconds for free: by simply spawning and starting to shoot with your default machine gun.

If a player has max health, armour and has control of the weapon rotation there's very little hope of a come back

I think that's a good mechanic. It makes you reflect on all the mistakes you made that allowed such a situation to arise.

I see your points, but I disagree with you on them. I don't like it when games hold your hand. Doesn't matter if its a shooter or an RPG. It's fine if you feel the opposite, but that's what made Quake's multiplayer interesting for me.

You are in a very small minority with this opinion. I understand why you have it but it's simply a bad way to build a player base. I generally play team based shooters and lean into capture the flag a lot. I don't have any fun when the game becomes spawn camping with no hope of escape. It's not "time to reflect" because there's not much you can reflect on in a lot of these situations. You have nothing but dead air if you don't give a players a way to pull back into the game. Which then forces both players to compete still instead of one sweeping the floor.

If you want something competitive isn't it more interesting that the top dog still has to try because losing control is a possibility? Instead of flying past bunny hopping hitting rockets all over the spawn they forced on the other player and can completely lock down? Recently I've been watching competitive Halo infinite, it's obviously different to Quake but I would much rather watch 2V2 over 4v4 because 4v4 is becoming spawn control. One team gets control of the map after the first fire fight and then manipulates opposing spawn to keep them away from any power items while being in a bad position to fight out. Repeat over and over and the matches aren't interesting. While 2v2 you can't control spawns the same way so both teams have got to keep moving and keep forcing the other team away from power ups if they want to stay in the game. The dynamic of a threatening spawn keeps 2v2 going and I like that come back potential in Quake as well. There's no point watching some kid get bullied for ten minutes and I don't enjoy doing it or having it done to me.

 

[Devastator]

You are in a very small minority with this opinion. I understand why you have it but it's simply a bad way to build a player base. I generally play team based shooters and lean into capture the flag a lot. I don't have any fun when the game becomes spawn camping with no hope of escape. It's not "time to reflect" because there's not much you can reflect on in a lot of these situations. You have nothing but dead air if you don't give a players a way to pull back into the game. Which then forces both players to compete still instead of one sweeping the floor.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a market for such games. For me, dying is the perfect time to reflect. This extends far beyond shooters to RPGs, roguelikes, survival games, strategy games, and MOBAs. Perhaps an analogy to this is whether you believe it's fair in games like CS to wait until the next round (plus receive less money if the team also gets wiped) - as punishment for your mistakes that got you killed. Alternatively, you can just play CoD and respawn instantly. However, there you again encounter spawn camping. With SBMM or not, rounds often end quickly one way or the other, especially with killstreaks, which serve to solidify a team's advantage and punish weaker players.

I don't really follow shooters enough anymore to know what types of games cater to which communities. I never got into battle royales, never bothered to understand how Fortnite works exactly, never even played it. I've seen a bit of Apex and Warzone, though, but personally, I don't see much point in them. However, I understand how they might appeal to others.

I find it hard to believe that you can't build a player base that way. Quake may be forgotten, even though people still play it. But many play CS both at the amateur and pro level, and even 1.6 has plenty of full servers. Also look at how popular League and DOTA are, which also have a high skill ceiling and are anything but forgiving.

 

[Hell Swarm]

You are in a very small minority with this opinion. I understand why you have it but it's simply a bad way to build a player base. I generally play team based shooters and lean into capture the flag a lot. I don't have any fun when the game becomes spawn camping with no hope of escape. It's not "time to reflect" because there's not much you can reflect on in a lot of these situations. You have nothing but dead air if you don't give a players a way to pull back into the game. Which then forces both players to compete still instead of one sweeping the floor.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a market for such games. For me, dying is the perfect time to reflect. This extends far beyond shooters to RPGs, roguelikes, survival games, strategy games, and MOBAs. Perhaps an analogy to this is whether you believe it's fair in games like CS to wait until the next round (plus receive less money if the team also gets wiped) - as punishment for your mistakes that got you killed. Alternatively, you can just play CoD and respawn instantly. However, there you again encounter spawn camping. With SBMM or not, rounds often end quickly one way or the other, especially with killstreaks, which serve to solidify a team's advantage and punish weaker players.

I don't really follow shooters enough anymore to know what types of games cater to which communities. I never got into battle royales, never bothered to understand how Fortnite works exactly, never even played it. I've seen a bit of Apex and Warzone, though, but personally, I don't see much point in them. However, I understand how they might appeal to others.

I find it hard to believe that you can't build a player base that way. Quake may be forgotten, even though people still play it. But many play CS both at the amateur and pro level, and even 1.6 has plenty of full servers. Also look at how popular League and DOTA are, which also have a high skill ceiling and are anything but forgiving.

"Why not just play Quake" is always the response to arena shooters. They're kind of a solved problem and the solution has the player base. Nothing really picks up. CS is kind of the same. It has the player base so they stick with it. Anything new just kind of exists for 6 months then dies off the same way. The FPS market is walled gardens with little innovation possible.

 

[NecroLord]

Never understood the aversion towards Quake 2.
It's a great game, though obviously not on the same level as the original Quake.

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's because of the direct comparisons to Quake 1 and the myriad of amazing shooters people were used to at the time.

Compared to modern shooters (including a lot of modern retro boomer shooters) Quake 2 looks a whole lot better. Solid level design, great soundtrack, weak gameplay because of the neutered AI (supposedly, remaster improves on this) but arsenal was still good with a few outstanding weapons (rail gun in particular).

Compared to Quake 1, it had clumsy gunplay and the atmosphere of the original was murdered completely. The game wasn't even originally meant to be a sequel to Quake and would have been better off had it been called something else. At least the exclusively sci-fi setting wouldn't have caused such a huge backlash. This was compunded by the fact all the "creative" or artistic people left id soft, so the assumption (probably correct on some level) is that Quake 2 was a result of that artistic exodus.

 

[Lyric Suite]

BTW, reguarding Q2 vs Q3 as far multiplayer goes, i'd say Q3 had the advantage of looking a lot of more colorful. I haven't played Quake 2 multiplayer for over a decade, but what i remember the most from the maps is that everything was orange lol.

 

[NecroLord]

BTW, reguarding Q2 vs Q3 as far multiplayer goes, i'd say Q3 had the advantage of looking a lot of more colorful. I haven't played Quake 2 multiplayer for over a decade, but what i remember the most from the maps is that everything was organge lol.

It is a lot more "colorful".
It was the OG multiplayer shooter.
It and UT99...

 

[Lyric Suite]

I think UT99 and Quake 3 were really special games, both aesthetically and gameplay wise.

UT2004 was a fun game but it just didn't have the same feel as UT99. As for id soft, Quake 3 was their last good game as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Quake 2 is just too easy. I don't play nightmare since I don't like its gimmicks like enemies' instant reaction time and no flinching, and on hard Q2 is just a cakewalk.

Speaking of which, Quake 4 is probably the most difficult of the series if we talk top difficulties (not counting nightmare in the first two ones). Boss fights are tough, and plenty of encounters are well designed to make you sweat.

I would say that core gameplay of Quake 4 is really good. If we can cut away cutscenes, pointless vehicle sections and increase overall speed, it will be right up the alley with the first two games

 

[Lyric Suite]

Quake 2 is easy even on nightmare, which in the original game you can only unlock through the console.

Quake 4 is only hard because you only move twice as fast as in Doom 3, which is still five times slower than most other shooters.

 

[Hell Swarm]

I think he might be trolling us.. Quake 4 is an awful game. It's doom 3 without the horror, so it's just bad.

 

[Lyric Suite]

What i remember from Quake 4:

1) Feeling like i was playing with somebody constantly tackling me from behind. Movement speed in Quake 4 was faster than Doom 3 but Quake 4 was more of an action game compared Doom 3 so i ended up feeling the neutered movement speed a lot more.
2) The stroggification sequence.

And that's pretty much all i can recollect right now.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Secondly. Don't spend time with your young family members playing computer games. Might be weird to say on codex but there's no reason you should be putting kids in front of screens more than they have to be. Build a model kit with them, play a board game, go outside and play some sportsball if it's not raining. Too much screen time for kids is bad for them and you're better off socialising with them directly. It's so easy to boot up smash bros but I've grown to hate that mentality as I get older and realize how much kids need proper physical interaction and using their minds over computer games.

I'll give Sandy a pass considering he's showing his granddaughter what he did when he was younger. Plus, I'm not sure how old the granddaughter is, either.

Does the Raven mod still hold up? I need to get back into Doom and some original era wads would be neat to try out.

I think so. They were really good back in the day. They probably don't challenge the people who've played Doom since it was released and can punch cyberdemons to death, but it's fun and well made.

Never understood the aversion towards Quake 2.
It's a great game, though obviously not on the same level as the original Quake.

You know, I don't dislike Quake 2. I enjoyed it when it came out. I really enjoyed it. But for some reason, I just don't really play it anymore - and I have it on my New 2DS XL(It's not easy to play with the New 3DS style controller) and on my Retroid Pocket 2S and 4 Pro. When I fire up Quad Touch(the best Quake source port front end for Android), it's always Quake. Never Quake 2, even though I have everything commercially released for both games.

 

[Eisen]

Shitty thread, send to retardo land and cut OP ballsack

 

[Falksi]

Funnily enough, I replayed Quake 2 around 2 weeks ago....first time in well over 10 years....and thought it still pisses all over most FPS games made since.

The pace and general weight of your actions just feels spot on. Yes, few elements feel dated, but as an overall game it offers way more fun than loads of the bollocks released in more recent times.

 

[SharkClub]

Yet another thread with an outrageous contrarian opinion baiting for retadred ratings. Stop treating this prestigious magazine like your post-ironic soyjak party cesspool.

 

[NecroLord]

Quake 2 is just too easy. I don't play nightmare since I don't like its gimmicks like enemies' instant reaction time and no flinching, and on hard Q2 is just a cakewalk.

Speaking of which, Quake 4 is probably the most difficult of the series if we talk top difficulties (not counting nightmare in the first two ones). Boss fights are tough, and plenty of encounters are well designed to make you sweat.

I would say that core gameplay of Quake 4 is really good. If we can cut away cutscenes, pointless vehicle sections and increase overall speed, it will be right up the alley with the first two games

I last played Quake 4 a long time ago.
Is it really that difficult though?
I remember some tough sections in the game, but other than that, is it really as difficult?
Pretty decent game regardless.
The Doom 3 of the Quake franchise, if you will.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Quake 2 is just too easy. I don't play nightmare since I don't like its gimmicks like enemies' instant reaction time and no flinching, and on hard Q2 is just a cakewalk.

Speaking of which, Quake 4 is probably the most difficult of the series if we talk top difficulties (not counting nightmare in the first two ones). Boss fights are tough, and plenty of encounters are well designed to make you sweat.

I would say that core gameplay of Quake 4 is really good. If we can cut away cutscenes, pointless vehicle sections and increase overall speed, it will be right up the alley with the first two games

I last played Quake 4 a long time ago.
Is it really that difficult though?
I remember some tough sections in the game, but other than that, is it really as difficult?
Pretty decent game regardless.
The Doom 3 of the Quake franchise, if you will.

I would say enemies are tougher. For example, Berserker in Q2 is a pushover, in Q4 it can quickly slice you up if you let him close

Also level design, the levels are way less spacious than levels in Q1 and Q2 and thus encounters are really tight.

 

[NecroLord]

Quake 2 is just too easy. I don't play nightmare since I don't like its gimmicks like enemies' instant reaction time and no flinching, and on hard Q2 is just a cakewalk.

Speaking of which, Quake 4 is probably the most difficult of the series if we talk top difficulties (not counting nightmare in the first two ones). Boss fights are tough, and plenty of encounters are well designed to make you sweat.

I would say that core gameplay of Quake 4 is really good. If we can cut away cutscenes, pointless vehicle sections and increase overall speed, it will be right up the alley with the first two games

I last played Quake 4 a long time ago.
Is it really that difficult though?
I remember some tough sections in the game, but other than that, is it really as difficult?
Pretty decent game regardless.
The Doom 3 of the Quake franchise, if you will.

I would say enemies are tougher. For example, Berserker in Q2 is a pushover, in Q4 it can quickly slice you up if you let him close

Also level design, the levels are way less spacious than levels in Q1 and Q2 and thus encounters are really tight.

Not a big fan of the squad gameplay in Quake 4.
Wish they would've just let you go Solo vs the Strogg, though there are many sections in the game where it's just you vs Strogg.
Really cool design on the Strogg themselves and their facilities, especially that Stroggification part in the game...
Brutal.