3 ms·

Quake launched a day before Mario 64, so I think 3D games would be fine without M64.

pjerem 5y ago
I have nothing against Quake, it’s also a wonderful game. But Mario 64 solved more complex problems of the 3D nature : huge scenes with a lot of (moving) objects, moving in all directions, complex move set, camera, camera, camera… Quake is a nice game as it is but it’s much simpler when the player is the camera.
- kolanos 5y ago
  Quake supported cameras, as you put it. People made movies in the Quake engine with literal camera shaped models floating around. Also, Quake levels could be huge, much larger than Mario 64. Take a look at Ziggurat Vertigo [0][1], for example. Mario 64 was much more colorful, though, Quake had an intentionally limited color palette. [0]: https://quake.fandom.com/wiki/E1M8:_Ziggurat_Vertigo https://quake.fandom.com/wiki/E1M8:_Ziggurat_Vertigo [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a72k_XBi2ls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a72k_XBi2ls
- Kableado 5y ago
  They practically bruteforced all technical problems, using dedicated hardware. And simply ignored some others, like lighting.
- ehaliewicz2 5y ago
  More complex problems? I'm not sure. A sophisticated camera is quite nice, but quake introduced a visibility determination solution that was used in dozens, perhaps hundreds of games afterwards. It also helped pioneer modding (it has a compiled scripting language), and later on had online deathmatch with predictive netcode (so it actually worked over the internet!) and was one of the first games to support hardware accelerated 3d graphics on pc. It also has lightmaps, all surfaces are textured, and runs in software with no hardware acceleration, z-buffering, built-in perspective correct texture mapping, etc. Obviously, that doesn't make it more fun to play, but Quake was an incredible technical achievement for the time, I don't think anybody would put Mario 64 in the same basket.

I have nothing against Quake, it’s also a wonderful game. But Mario 64 solved more complex problems of the 3D nature : huge scenes with a lot of (moving) objects, moving in all directions, complex move set, camera, camera, camera… Quake is a nice game as it is but it’s much simpler when the player is the camera.

kolanos 5y ago
Quake supported cameras, as you put it. People made movies in the Quake engine with literal camera shaped models floating around. Also, Quake levels could be huge, much larger than Mario 64. Take a look at Ziggurat Vertigo [0][1], for example. Mario 64 was much more colorful, though, Quake had an intentionally limited color palette. [0]: https://quake.fandom.com/wiki/E1M8:_Ziggurat_Vertigo https://quake.fandom.com/wiki/E1M8:_Ziggurat_Vertigo [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a72k_XBi2ls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a72k_XBi2ls
Kableado 5y ago
They practically bruteforced all technical problems, using dedicated hardware. And simply ignored some others, like lighting.
ehaliewicz2 5y ago
More complex problems? I'm not sure. A sophisticated camera is quite nice, but quake introduced a visibility determination solution that was used in dozens, perhaps hundreds of games afterwards. It also helped pioneer modding (it has a compiled scripting language), and later on had online deathmatch with predictive netcode (so it actually worked over the internet!) and was one of the first games to support hardware accelerated 3d graphics on pc. It also has lightmaps, all surfaces are textured, and runs in software with no hardware acceleration, z-buffering, built-in perspective correct texture mapping, etc. Obviously, that doesn't make it more fun to play, but Quake was an incredible technical achievement for the time, I don't think anybody would put Mario 64 in the same basket.