Is it bad to like Quake2?

[golden_boy]

I must admit that I start missing Quake2's single player mode since it was eradicated from my home directory in favor of more quake1 mods.

Yes, it's a brainless shooter. But it's got an appeal that is almost sexy. I miss the super shotgun. And the grenade launcher. And the blaster. And the machine gun. Hmmm... I miss those ugly cyborgs. Can it be?

I read Why Quake2 sucks, but I have this bad desire...

*slaps self* Bad, bad boy. Now where did I put it... /usr? *starts digging*

[Monster]

Quake2's multiplayer sux, but the singleplayer is actually good and enjoyable.

[Baker]

I've played Quake 2 for 10 minutes twice. I first tried Quake 2 in 1998, after 10 minutes I'm like "whatever this is, it isn't a Quake".

Then in 2002 after buying Ultimate Quake (1,2,3), I tried Quake 2 for about 10 minutes and remembered why I didn't like.

It's ok to like Quake 2. I just don't.

Quake 3 for me was much better than Quake 2 as it is closer to Quake 1 in style, but I just don't get the satisfaction from frags in Quake 3 like Quake 1.

[golden_boy]

It's not a Quake sequel.

Most people will notice that q2 is more colorful (blue, orange...) Some weapons look more like toys, enemies look more harmless, architecture looks more human. The biggest difference is that q2 substitutes sci-fi for gothic, which makes q1 fans feel "not at home". Gone is the darkness, gone are the primitive weapons, gone are the monsters.
What remains is a war game that is much more reminescent of reality (or a possible future) than nightmare, where the horrors are concealed behind military objectives. The pain of the victims rarely becomes obvious (like in the cell blocks). The fear is not immediate, but rather creepy. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It slowly grows on you, like marijuana :-)

Still, when you look at the models and the level design, you've got to acknowledge a job well done. No wonder it has more of a cult following.

[QuadRaptor]

Myself I didn't particularly like Quake 3, but Quake 2 is one of my favorites.

One of my old mottos was....

"If you want to play multiplayer, play Quake 1. If you want to play singleplayer, play Quake 2."

[Bank]

One of my mottos is "If your computer cant play Doom, play Quake."

Sorry to say guys, but I honestly do like Doom a whole lot better : D

[Canadian*Sniper]

Doom is great but it doesn't beat the original Wolfenstein

[IEEE 802.11]

I loved Quake 2's demo, I must've played it for hours. I actually played Quake 2 over my dialup for the longest time, but mainly in maps me and my friend made.

Maps that are long gone now... I miss those maps. Quake 2 was fun tho.

[RocketGuy]

i loved quake2's single player, never tried multiplayer.

[QuadRaptor]

The multiplayer was always a little choppy, although I LOVED the weapons of destruction mod!

I would be unstoppable on Q1 if there was a tripwire rune exactly like the one on WoD. The one for Q1 just blew up and dealt a little damage - the ones on Q2 instagib when someone touches them and they stay there for a while before blowing up.

[scar3crow]

There is nothing wrong with liking Quake2

Quake2 is not a sequel, it was called that because it used a version of the same engine and they couldnt come up with a name they liked that wasnt owned by another company.

Quake2 has good single player potential, and this is used well in the first unit and a few times throughout, but not consistently.

And that article on why Q2 sucks is terrible. For grammar alone... But it credits Quake2 for looks citing things like the expanded palette, yet it was the limited palette that gave Quake its look, that brought it tighter together. I wish more developers would recognize the benefits of a limited palette... Also I find the colored lighting to be not that great, due to its over saturation and violent falloff point in the maps. He is correct to cite its visual potential in the presence of alpha blending, windows and water... But he misses a key element, rotating brushes. With rotating brushes you can do so much more, and that was a BIG part of what made the Quake mission pack Scourge of Armagon so striking, though not many people realized that was a big part of it... You were seeing new environments because they couldnt be done in the existing Quake progs.

Ive never felt fear from Quake2. Quake2 is ironically what I play when I want more action, ironic as it is known as the slower paced one with weaker rockets... But that to me is where the action comes from, the weapon balance, knowing that you cant just overly easily dispose of anyone as long as youve got X. The only weapon that can do such, and only with unarmored opponents whos health is <= 100 is the railgun, and it leaves such a visual indicator of location, and has such a low refire rate that it can only be used really once unless theyre far away. Quake2s multiplayer is just fine, though less visceral. It has its place.

As far as guns in general go... Quake has one tool. The gun. It progresses from that point onward, some have slightly different uses, the grenade being versatile and the shaft being limited. But its mainly a linear progression against enemies that mostly react the same to all the weapons with the exception of the shambler. Quake2 has a variety of tools, all guns but varying in application moreso. Its enemies have a different approach as well in that they are employed more by location. Quake is episodic, Quake2 is progressive. In Quake you revisit the same enemies in combinations. E2M1 is E1M1 with enforcers, E3M1 is E2M1 and E4M1 is E2M1 with environmental hazards to a greater extent. E2M2 is E1M3 and E2M3 is E1M4 with death knights. And so it goes, it is an overlapping pattern where they add a new element with each pass, a pass being an episode. By E4M2 you are starting at a E3M3 level of difficulty as it ramps up. Quake2 on the other hand phases in and out monsters and keeps a core which it supplements with more specific ones, Tanks, Brains, Technicians, and Gladiators for example. They arrange them differently and mix enemies who reactly different to different guns, so as to use the players slow weapon switching against them.

It is simply two different games in that respect, though on a surface level it really just appears to be Quake, with strictly base textures and scifi guns. The differences run deeper, and they run deeper by implementation, not taste.

In Quake if you find a Quad Damage then you tense up and prepare yourself for an onslaught within 10 seconds... In Quake2 if you find a Quad Damage then you celebrate and save it for later. It makes you regard items entirely differently, and they become less indicative of the map design. For me this meant I never used the quad in Quake2 because I simply forgot I had one... This actually can also change ones pacing and use of savegames. In Quake if I find a quad, I am more likely to save than other times, as I have a powerful opportunity before me, whereas in Q2 I only do so if I feel I am about to get trapped.

I prefer Quake. I love Quake and derive great joy from its gameplay, atmosphere, design, mythos, and community. Quake2 is also fun, but it is not my game, if you get what I mean.

They have been unfairly compared over time, which is due to what I feel is merely a consequence of id not finding a cool name they liked. Personally I must say I do get a kick out of crouch-supershotgunning a strogg into the air off a ledge and into lava.

[golden_boy]

It's true that the quality isn't consistent. It's also true that the first unit is the best.

I still play the demo, because the levels are different from the full version (demoX instead of baseX). The featured first unit contains more weapons as well as more and different monsters, namely Gunners and a Tank.