The Quake Games Suck

[honko]

I've always been a big fan of shooters and I have been going back and playing old school ones lately. I recently played quake 1/2 with a friend on COOP and they are dogshit! I enjoyed plenty of other games from this era, but these games are not fun at all. I want to shoot guys, not do some lame puzzle that makes me backtrack through entire levels. Soundtrack sucks, enemies are boring/annoying, level design sucks, and the weapon variety is very poor. Does anyone else feel this way?

 

[Lemming42]

Their reputation is over-inflated but they're both good. Q1 has really excellent movement, which is probably the main draw there.

Q2 is weird because it's sort of unfortunately placed in the middle ground between the Build games and Unreal/Half-Life. It feels kind of like a shitty prototype of those latter games at times. Not bad though. The Nightdive remaster of Q2 is worth it for the compass. Don't care what anyone says or who comes along to do some "oohohohoh imagine using the quest compass" posturing, it's a great tool that removes the boring-ass downtime of backtracking through those samey maps.

 

[Tehdagah]

Let's be honest, the real appeal of Quake games is the multiplayer.

 

[DemonKing]

I found the recent Q1 and Q2 remakes excellent examples of boomer shooters done right. Q3 was an ok multiplayer game. Q4 was trash though.

 

[Zlaja]

Why the fuck would you wanna play a game like Quake 1 & 2 in co-op? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. They aren't really suited for that.

 

[Ash]

^What this guy said. They were designed as singleplayer games first and foremost. Secondly, the coop is retarded. See:

Unlike Single Player, dying does not equate losing. Instead, the dead player will respawn, only sans the items acquired during their progress in the current level.

 

[ind33d]

I found the recent Q1 and Q2 remakes excellent examples of boomer shooters done right. Q3 was an ok multiplayer game. Q4 was trash though.

quake 4 was good enough for Johnathan "fatal1ty" Wendell. sorry it doesn't live up to the standards of an obscure online Chris Avellone fanclub

 

[Ash]

DemonKing is dead-on. Usually he is a popamoler if I recall. ...But Q4 is not the only one. Almost every shooter of the 2000s is utter trash compared to the standards of the 90s. The game design was rock-bottom. It's sad this is not common knowledge, but you gotta be aging at this point to truly know.

 

[honko]

Why the fuck would you wanna play a game like Quake 1 & 2 in co-op? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. They aren't really suited for that.

^What this guy said. They were designed as singleplayer games first and foremost. Secondly, the coop is retarded. See:

Unlike Single Player, dying does not equate losing. Instead, the dead player will respawn, only sans the items acquired during their progress in the current level.

Maybe try getting some friends? Lol loser

 

[Cologno]

Why the fuck would you wanna play a game like Quake 1 & 2 in co-op? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. They aren't really suited for that.

^What this guy said. They were designed as singleplayer games first and foremost. Secondly, the coop is retarded. See:

Unlike Single Player, dying does not equate losing. Instead, the dead player will respawn, only sans the items acquired during their progress in the current level.

Maybe try getting some friends? Lol loser

Telling people to make friends on the internet is fucking retarded.

 

[taxalot]

Imagine having friends, with the average IQ out there.

 

[Morgoth]

Ballsy statement. But yes, Quake games were always overrated. Except for the Machine Games additions that I found very competently designed.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Only the third one sucks.

 

[Cerulean]

It's that old joke about a teenager who went and saw a production of Shakespeare's Hamlet for the first time, and said he hated it because it was full of cliches.

 

[Ash]

Why the fuck would you wanna play a game like Quake 1 & 2 in co-op? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. They aren't really suited for that.

^What this guy said. They were designed as singleplayer games first and foremost. Secondly, the coop is retarded. See:

Unlike Single Player, dying does not equate losing. Instead, the dead player will respawn, only sans the items acquired during their progress in the current level.

Maybe try getting some friends? Lol loser

I multiplayer game frequently...with games actually designed for multiplayer, not just tacked-on.

 

[Zlaja]

Ballsy statement. But yes, Quake games were always overrated. Except for the Machine Games additions that I found very competently designed.

It's the opposite. Quake 1 & 2 are well designed games, while the Machine Games add-on for the Quake 2 Remastered is a disjointed crap with just tons of enemies thrown at you in lol random fashion.

 

[Morgoth]

Ballsy statement. But yes, Quake games were always overrated. Except for the Machine Games additions that I found very competently designed.

It's the opposite. Quake 1 & 2 are well designed games, while the Machine Games add-on for the Quake 2 Remastered is a disjointed crap with just tons of enemies thrown at you in lol random fashion.

I was mostly thinking of the Quake 1 addons. But whatever.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Let's be honest, the real appeal of Quake games is the multiplayer.

Quake 1 multiplayer was horrible until QuakeWorld came out. Most people had dialup at that time and your ping was typically 2000ms+. That's no joke. You were playing with a lag of two full seconds.

 

[NecroLord]

I've always been a big fan of shooters and I have been going back and playing old school ones lately. I recently played quake 1/2 with a friend on COOP and they are dogshit! I enjoyed plenty of other games from this era, but these games are not fun at all. I want to shoot guys, not do some lame puzzle that makes me backtrack through entire levels. Soundtrack sucks, enemies are boring/annoying, level design sucks, and the weapon variety is very poor. Does anyone else feel this way?

Are both you and your friend retarded by chance?

 

[Lyric Suite]

the coop is retarded

The OP is a dumbfuck who thinks shitting on one of the best shooters of all time (Quake 1) makes him edgy.

Here's how you do edgy: co-op itself is retarded.

I think this is one of those things people memed themselves into believing MUST always be praised even though not every game actually works all that well in co-op. In most games i can think of, there's also some mook demanding that co-op be implemented reguardless of whether it actually fits the game which is basically a form of virtue signaling.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Q1 is the bestest fps evar.
Q2 is OK.

I don't hold strong opinions about the remaining ones.

 

[Tweed]

Quake games don't suck. You suck.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Q1 is the bestest fps evar.
Q2 is OK.

I don't hold strong opinions about the remaining ones.

Quake 2 is OK but it's hilarious how faggot (AKA OP) shits on the two things Quake 2 actually did fairly well: level design and soundtrack.

Quake 2 is average because you can run circles around even the toughest enemies. I get it they were trying to go back to Doom, which had a more "meaty" or "weighty" kind of gunplay but they also overshoot the target by going too far in the opposite direction from Quake.

Lastly, the shit about the lack of gun "variety" is nonsensical because variety for variety's sake isn't always a good thing. Duke3D had a lot of variety in it's arsenal but a lot of it was just gimmicks, same as Half Life 1. Quake games obviously contained themselves with the standard Doom set up but within that mold they came up with some cool desgins, like the rocket launcher (one of the best), grandate launcher, super nailgun or lighting gun in Quake 1, or the fucking rail gun in Quake 2 which as far as i'm concerned is one of the best weapons ever made in an FPS and i was so fucking glad they included it in Quake 3.

 

[arepo]

Speaking as someone who plays Doom a lot, I think Q1 was indeed a step backwards gameplay-wise, although I still found the game quite enjoyable. I think the main problem was that on contemporary hardware the increased complexity of the game's graphics allowed only for a relatively low number of enemies per map, which in turn led to rather spongy enemies and weapons without the punch that makes combat in Doom so satisfying. The level design is great though, and that's still (even more so) true for modern maps. I've played a bunch of Arcane Dimension's maps for example, just to look at the architecture because it's so gorgeous. Gameplay on the other hand, even in modern maps, is never quite on the same level as modern Doom WADs.

For Q2, the general consensus seems to be that it's a bad game, but I think that is to a large degree a consequence of the fall out between Romero and Carmack that happened around the time of it's release. Romero simply had the bigger fan club. The game itself has its problems (in large parts it feels rather monotonous), but it's nowhere as bad as its reputation.

Q3 did away with the single player campaign and thus made some people angry, but to me it really nailed the multiplayer part. Quake 3 is a lean, mean arena shooter than doesn't offer much beyond the core formula, but the things that is does it does great.

tl;dr: No, they don't suck.

 

[Glop_dweller]

The Nightdive remaster of Q2 is worth it ...

I could play Quake for days back then, but I was never able to play Quake 2, due to simulator sickness; have they addressed this in the remaster?

______
I once started a network game of Quake at 7pm, and quit just after 8——but the Sun was rising instead of setting. I'd had no perception of the time that had passed.