5 ms·

Just interested: is there a specific reason you are skipping Q1? Virtually everything that is an obvious improvement over Doom in Q2 is in Q1.

Keyframe 10y ago
Don't know about OP, but Q1 wasn't well-received among my 133t t33n p33rs when it came out. Q2 was a hit though.
- bitwize 10y ago
  When Quake 1 dropped the gaming press joked about how everything was 50 shades of brown. Now, that's a cutting edge look for games (especially shooters).
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Oh, yeah. Q2 was great. ...If you liked having to wait a week to see if your rocket hit.
alkonaut 10y ago
Obviously Doom->Q1 was a much bigger step. It was just that I saw that the birthdays coincided and were 4 years apart. Also, it's perhaps more significant in this case how small the step was between Q1 and Q2, so that kind of showed that the golden years were over, and since then we have seen 19 years of incremental invention.
username223 10y ago
Doom was great for LAN parties; Q1 let you log onto Quake World and blow up complete strangers any time of the day or night. I never really got into Quake II, as it didn't seem to offer anything fundamentally new compared to Quake, which had full 3D physics and internet deathmatch. I still have fond memories of wasted hours rampaging around with a quad damage rocket launcher, hacking away at noobs with the axe, watching people (sometimes myself) electrocute themselves with the lightning gun by mistake, and trying to retrieve good backpacks from the lava in House of Chthon...
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Owning all of them, I can say that Q1 and Q3 are more fun than Q2. Q1/Q3 were great, Q2 was... meh at best. However, of the three, Quake 2 has the most active online community (although Quake has a larger pro scene - yes, it's still going. Q3 is dead, with most of the players having moved to QL, no matter how much they complain about its inferiority).
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    I fondly remember Q2 as being "much less brown and with a railgun" which was enough for me to consider it worth playing over Q2. Q3 was better, but 1999 also saw Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike, so I never looked back at Quake.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      I don't have UT99, so I can't compare. I've heard it's like UT4, which I didn't really enjoy all that much. So put me on the Quake side of the Quake/UT fight, I guess. And I could never get into CS.
    - nailer 10y ago
      UT was better than Q3 - wider variety of weapons, more fun game types, better maps. But Q3:TeamArena was massively overlooked. It added megatexture to Q3, had massive maps, cooler weapons, and a better aesthetic.
      - cableshaft 10y ago
        I still go back and play Quake 3 Team Arena with bots from time to time. Still one of my favorite bot experiences.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        But Q3 had advanced movement, a stronger modding scene, and a grappling hook (sort of).
  - 10y ago
xiaoma 10y ago
I remember being super impressed when I saw my roommate playing Q2 because of how the light system used color instead of simply making an area brighter.
Kurtz79 10y ago
Had Q1 support for 3D acceleration on launch ? I remember playing Q1 CPU only, on a crappy PC and wasn't really blown away by it. Q2 I believe was bundled with my first graphic card, and it really made a huge difference.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Q1 certainly did support 3D acceleration with the Voodoo 2, although I don't think it was there at launch.
  - rys 10y ago
    You're right; Quake had a software renderer first and hardware 3D came later. GLQuake is the number one reason I got into graphics and I have it to thank for my career to date.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  On launch it didn't. Then it supported a few odd chips. But by the time of Quake 2's launch (actually before that), it supported OpenGL, in the form of GLQuake. This begun id's trend of using OpenGL over DirectX (Which Carmack hated at the time), which continues to this day.

Keyframe 10y ago

Don't know about OP, but Q1 wasn't well-received among my 133t t33n p33rs when it came out. Q2 was a hit though.

bitwize 10y ago
When Quake 1 dropped the gaming press joked about how everything was 50 shades of brown. Now, that's a cutting edge look for games (especially shooters).
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Oh, yeah. Q2 was great. ...If you liked having to wait a week to see if your rocket hit.

alkonaut 10y ago

Obviously Doom->Q1 was a much bigger step. It was just that I saw that the birthdays coincided and were 4 years apart. Also, it's perhaps more significant in this case how small the step was between Q1 and Q2, so that kind of showed that the golden years were over, and since then we have seen 19 years of incremental invention.

username223 10y ago

Doom was great for LAN parties; Q1 let you log onto Quake World and blow up complete strangers any time of the day or night. I never really got into Quake II, as it didn't seem to offer anything fundamentally new compared to Quake, which had full 3D physics and internet deathmatch. I still have fond memories of wasted hours rampaging around with a quad damage rocket launcher, hacking away at noobs with the axe, watching people (sometimes myself) electrocute themselves with the lightning gun by mistake, and trying to retrieve good backpacks from the lava in House of Chthon...

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Owning all of them, I can say that Q1 and Q3 are more fun than Q2. Q1/Q3 were great, Q2 was... meh at best. However, of the three, Quake 2 has the most active online community (although Quake has a larger pro scene - yes, it's still going. Q3 is dead, with most of the players having moved to QL, no matter how much they complain about its inferiority).
- alkonaut 10y ago
  I fondly remember Q2 as being "much less brown and with a railgun" which was enough for me to consider it worth playing over Q2. Q3 was better, but 1999 also saw Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike, so I never looked back at Quake.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    I don't have UT99, so I can't compare. I've heard it's like UT4, which I didn't really enjoy all that much. So put me on the Quake side of the Quake/UT fight, I guess. And I could never get into CS.
  - nailer 10y ago
    UT was better than Q3 - wider variety of weapons, more fun game types, better maps. But Q3:TeamArena was massively overlooked. It added megatexture to Q3, had massive maps, cooler weapons, and a better aesthetic.
    - cableshaft 10y ago
      I still go back and play Quake 3 Team Arena with bots from time to time. Still one of my favorite bot experiences.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      But Q3 had advanced movement, a stronger modding scene, and a grappling hook (sort of).
- 10y ago

xiaoma 10y ago

I remember being super impressed when I saw my roommate playing Q2 because of how the light system used color instead of simply making an area brighter.

Kurtz79 10y ago

Had Q1 support for 3D acceleration on launch ? I remember playing Q1 CPU only, on a crappy PC and wasn't really blown away by it. Q2 I believe was bundled with my first graphic card, and it really made a huge difference.

pjc50 10y ago
Q1 certainly did support 3D acceleration with the Voodoo 2, although I don't think it was there at launch.
- rys 10y ago
  You're right; Quake had a software renderer first and hardware 3D came later. GLQuake is the number one reason I got into graphics and I have it to thank for my career to date.
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
On launch it didn't. Then it supported a few odd chips. But by the time of Quake 2's launch (actually before that), it supported OpenGL, in the form of GLQuake. This begun id's trend of using OpenGL over DirectX (Which Carmack hated at the time), which continues to this day.