Quake 4 Review

By Kristan Reed Published 8 December, 2005

Browned off.

Version tested: Xbox 360

There used to be a good excuse for console conversions of Quake games being a bit rubbish. Anyone who recalls the hapless early attempts on PlayStation and N64 might not wish to be reminded, but then no-one was exactly surprised, either. Porting cutting-edge PC shooters to ageing home systems is generally a one-way ticket to Jerksville - but the fact that we're still able to come to similar conclusions on a next generation system that's arguably more powerful than most people's PCs is pretty unforgivable.

Ok, so Quake 4 on 360 is hardly in the same league as the PSX Quake II, but as an example of a badly optimised, undernourished port, this is by far the worst example we've seen to date. Even in its full high definition glory, textures are far blurrier than you'd expect, the game chugs along unsatisfyingly even when there are no enemies on screen, and it even crashes from time to time - a pretty alarming state of affairs. It's not unplayably bad, though, and if you hadn't already played the PC version on a decent system you might be reasonably pleased with what's on show. But don't be fooled: that was no reason for id, Raven and Activision to allow this out of the door simply to make it for the system's launch.

Even if it was the sweetest, slickest conversion we'd ever seen, Quake 4 simply isn't up to scratch in any case. It fails to engage right from the beginning, being the kind of rigidly linear, underwhelming, undemanding, by-the-numbers sci-fi schlock that joins the dots with done-to-death gameplay. If, half an hour in, you feel like you've played Quake 4 before, that's because you probably have. In about 47 previous first-person shooters over the past 10 years.

Brown boy in the ring

Unlike the nameless, story-free efforts of the past, Quake 4 does at least try and lend a sense of purpose to the endless traversing of brown corridors. Having defeated the Makron at the end of Quake II, the clean-up operations goes a tad awry when Rhino squad's dropship is shot out of the sky, leaving you in charge of new recruit Matthew Kane battling through the ruins for survival.

With the Strogg base in disarray and the human forces equally disorganised, the opening sections blur past with a sense of uneasy panic on both sides, with several escort missions involving protecting medics, bomb defusal and demo specialists. Your role is of bodyguard and chief button-presser, essentially, making it pretty easy for Raven to design a straightforward run-and-gun with lots of brutish, gurning Strogg to mop up every time you turn a new corner.

The game essentially carries on in this plodding vein throughout, barely able to conceal its lack of ambition with one routine button-pressing task after another. In-between 'interacting' with consoles, flicking switches on or off and dispatching willing sentries one after the other, you get to engage with the odd on-rails section, or even saddle up inside a mech or pilot a beefy tank and dish out some death to equally enormous enemies. But, like much of the game, it's pretty undemanding stuff, giving you a recharging shield that makes it far, far too easy to just blast your way to unsatisfying victory. In a game dominated by such tight, confined environments it's practically impossible to get lost, with almost every pathway likely to lead you directly to your next button-pushing assignment. Tightly scripted action isn't the problem, though, it's just that Raven seems content to keep the script as uncomplicated as possible.

Brownian motion

'Quake 4' Screenshot 1

He never was a hit with the ladies.

If the idea was to create a back-to-basics, balls-out shooter, then it succeeds on a basic (read: very basic) level, but doesn't even get that right often enough. The familiar roster of weaponry is as much to blame as anything, either giving you super-powered weapons that take all the tension and fun out of the combat, or stupidly hamstrung weapons you won't want to use. To start off with you get a chargeable pistol you'll barely ever need or want to use, very quickly (as in: within a minute) followed by a machinegun with a zoom function that makes it too easy to kill everything from afar, a shotgun that's useful close up but takes too long to load, a powerful chaingun that takes too long to spin into action, a grenade launcher you have barely enough ammo for, and eventually the more powerful nailgun, hyperblaster, railgun, rocket launcher and the BFG-esque, all-consuming Dark Matter gun. Amusingly, you can still carry every single one, too, so there's not even any need to strategise in the heat of battle - it's just a case of unloading everything you've got until they're gone, and never really worrying too much about preserving ammo. It's as straightforward an FPS experience as we've played in, well, years, which isn't actually a compliment.

Even on the harder settings - where a few hits is enough to send you packing - the enemy AI is still dumb and inflexible, largely standing its ground and simply loosing off rounds for the sake of it. If they hit you, it's more likely because you strayed into their line of fire, rather than was the victim of a determined enemy that's stalking its prey. And why is it - still - that enemies are allowed to have infinite reserves of ammo and don't suffer the health concerns that you do? We want fire-fights that vaguely resemble a future war against an alien menace, not yet another dumb load of bots that provide us with duck shoot cannon fodder. The presence of semi-useful buddy AI colleagues is fairly useless too, never sticking around long enough for you to care enough for them, taking way too much damage to be credible, and full of sterile one-liners just to make their existence even less welcome. Why do FPS makers seem to always assume it's enough to make the corridors prettier, the lighting more atmospheric and the buddy AI more talkative? This sort of brainless retread of decade old game design isn't enough anymore.

A lot of the concerns people had about Doom III apply here, but without the tension or sense of the unexpected. Sure, some people hated the old-school 'it's behind you' mechanic, and fair enough, but anyone who played that game into hell and beyond will remember it for being a game that turns up the heat to an insane degree and really paced itself exceptionally well. Quake 4's cardiograph, on the other hand, blips along comfortably, never really threatening to do anything unexpected or out of the ordinary; in the sense of its combat, puzzles or narrative. In all three areas there's literally nothing going on that we haven't seen done far better elsewhere, which is the crushing realisation you'll probably come to after seeing it through. Second time around, it's even more apparent.

Brown frown

'Quake 4' Screenshot 2

It's tragic when tummy tucks go wrong.

Raven had a chance to do something amazing with Quake 4 about halfway through - and if you're one of the two people left that hasn't already heard the 'twist', then we won't ruin that for you - but suffice to say that nothing significant changes, and the game simply picks up from where it left off with the single, startling innovation being that you can use the wall-mounted units to recharge your health. Whoop-de-doo.

Up until now, we've not even been moved to talk about the amazing high definition visuals that use the groundbreaking Doom III engine, or anything of the sort - mainly because you've seen most of what the game has to offer within the first few gloomily lit corridors. On a basic level, yes, the game is built on an engine that's capable of great things, but we'd be damned if Raven has gone to any great lengths to find out what Jon Carmack's tech can do. We've said it before, but it really is the brown Doom. It's a brown planet, with a series of brown bases built on top of it, with brown pipes snaking around it, so whether you're fighting indoors or not, what you see doesn't vary a great deal. The fact that the enemies are highly detailed and that the wall texturing is relatively intricate won't feel of great consequence after the first few minutes, because you'll see much the same thing for the 12, 15 hours it'll take you to polish it all off. There's no real sense of interaction, no means of destroying your surroundings in any way, no physics implementation worth a damn, and your sense of frustrated boredom will creep in once the penny drops that the variety consists of brown pipes or brown rock.

On the positive side, the controls work pretty well, with all the default settings not requiring any meddling at all and the general look sensitivity seems spot-on. The aiming's possibly a little more forgiving than the PC original, making the game slightly easier than we remember it first time around, so be sure to ramp up the difficulty accordingly as it's just way, way too easy otherwise - especially given you can quicksave at any point. One niggle, though, is the irritating decision to map crouch to the left stick, as you'll forever find yourself ducking down when you don't want to, and feel uncomfortable trying to aim precisely with your thumb clamped down. It's not as if the 360 pad is lacking buttons.

Doomed

'Quake 4' Screenshot 3

Even Stroggs like to boogie.

As for multiplayer, it's all bad news. Not only has Raven been unable to match the 16-player support of the PC original (supporting a miserly eight here, but no four-player split-screen option, which is a surprising omission), we're subjected to a thoroughly out-moded selection of 'oh-my-god-is-that-it?' maps and modes that belong firmly in the past. It ticks the usual deathmatch/team deathmatch/Capture the Flag/Team CTF boxes, and throws in one-on-one Tourney (that's Tournament) rather apologetically. Bizarrely, the usual Xbox Live implementation is slightly borked, and searching for matches is an usually painful process, while in-game the frame rate is just as bad as the iffy single-player experience. Damn their eyes.

If you were generous, you'd be happy at the return to simplicity of the late '90s, complete with Quake III-style jump pads, some old fondly remembered maps and the booming commentator voice, but as we all know, nostalgia is fleeting at the best of times. Before long, you'll probably be hankering after something that looks forward, not back. Let's hope Quake Wars fills that particular role.

It says a lot about the excitement value of Quake 4 when the most exciting part of the package is the presence of Quake II on the making-of-laden bonus disk. Playing that particular classic on a whopping great screen does serve as a timely reminder of how far we've come in technical terms in the eight years that have elapsed since then, but also underlines how incredible it is that Quake 4 still manages to feel so unimpressive and irrelevant by comparison.

This eight-year gap between Quake single-player offerings gave Raven the perfect opportunity to deliver something very special that not only reinvigorated the brand, but showed off next generation FPS design. That Quake 4 is merely a glossy, standard, by-the-numbers trudge through past glories is an irresponsible way to treat such a revered franchise; to then cock up the conversion to the 360 subsequently and then charge extra for the privilege is bordering on scandalous.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • myiagros #1 6 years ago

    Shame about the conversion, but i am enjoying it on the PC.
    I think for 360 i'll be better off going for Call Of Duty 2 when i can afford a machine.

  • Stickman #2 6 years ago

    Send in the tards...

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #3 6 years ago

    We had a (Alienware fuelled) Quake4 PC LAN party at EG HQ last night and it was awesome

    *blushes*

  • morriss #4 6 years ago

    Loads of High-scores eh?

  • jiveguy #5 6 years ago

    So what you're saying is that we should go out and buy Alienware PCs to play these games on? ;D

  • morriss #6 6 years ago

    So, look away from it's teh 360z07z, what score would it get as a standalone game?

  • Carlo #7 6 years ago

    *rolls eyes*.

    *ANOTHER* crap 360 game?

    /asplodedes!

  • arnoldo_strikes_back #8 6 years ago

    wow, it's like alienware sponsor people to say they're good or something!

    quake 4 (360) blows massively. not often i say this, but good review.

    call of duty 2 is a far superior game, but 6/10 is 1 more than kameo right?

    kameo is a great game, way better than quake 4, i wish the review scores reflected this. :(

  • myiagros #9 6 years ago

    how much are alienware paying EG these days for excesive promotion?

  • arnoldo_strikes_back #10 6 years ago

    there is some dross on the 360, but there's also some quality.

    PGR3, kameo, PDZ and COD2 are all easily 8/10's and higher.

    i must admit not a lot else shines on the 360 at the moment, Kong was rubbish, despite what they say here, but 4 good games at launch is pretty respectable.

  • Stickman #11 6 years ago

    "We had a (Alienware fuelled) Quake4 PC LAN party at EG HQ last night and it was awesome

    *blushes* "

    I should hope you bloody are blushing with that shameless plug!

  • TripSkyway #12 6 years ago

    Just finished Doon 3 Xbox today. Glad to get to the end it was fraying my nerves, as I get scared easy. Doom 3 xbox was a pretty amazing achievment in terms of porting. Makes this seem even more of a shame.

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #13 6 years ago

    That comment was for free... :)

  • Carlo #14 6 years ago

    So you'll be buying it then Bill?

  • arnoldo_strikes_back #15 6 years ago

    it is crap bill, it's really, really crap.

  • morriss #16 6 years ago

    @draven

    He mentions HD res about 3 times in the review, so that pretty much answers your question for you.

  • speedjack #17 6 years ago

    Shame... I'm a sucker for all the Quake games.

    Can't beleive nothing significant happens after the twist. I had visions of you becoming part of a borg style 'hive mind' and getting the ability to download upgrades, schematics, control other strogg, access mini games... blah, blah blah

    /wishes he was a game designer
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/05 @ 12:18

  • sajtion #18 6 years ago

    6 is not too bad but the game to me is around 8 & 9. it sure has lag problems but nothing that an update couldn't fix

  • Dizzy #19 6 years ago

    Apparently a lot of people are buying it for the "classic" multiplayer. Guess that style of deathmatch is still popular and might keep some people busy on Live untill we get some more advanced shooters (I even considered this, since I don't mind some mindless shooting action).

    I played it on PC and a big "meh" again. It's just not a very good game on any platform.

    Quick port? Future patch?

    /remembers UT on XBox1
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/05 @ 12:19

  • Eraser #20 6 years ago

    I hate it when people rant about Quake 4's multiplayer being too simple. If that's your opinion, then you simply don't understand what Quake 4 (or Quake multiplayer in general) is about. It's about no-nonsense straight up man-to-man deathmatch. None of that stamina, reload, player class, vehicle nonsense you see in far too many games these days. It's about you, your gun and a bucket load of skill that, for a change, is not clouded by who has the vehicle with the biggest gun.

    Loving Quake 4 MP is not about nostalgia, it's about craving a pure skill-based multiplayer game that is totally unforgiving to those who aren't sharp and on top of things every nanosecond of the match. Nothing gets the adrenaline pumping more than pure deathmatch like this.

    Granted, Quake 3 Arena still is better than Quake 4, but Q4 is a pretty accurate reiteration of Quake 3's greatness.

  • Artemus #21 6 years ago

    Quake 2 on PS1 was excellent. The N64 version was crap.

  • jlaakso #22 6 years ago

    I don't see a problem with EG staff saying they're playing PC games on Alienware. I sure hope I could afford one.

  • karlidog #23 6 years ago

    I quite enjoyed the single-player game on the PC, although you're absolutely right - the lack of any difference at all after the 'twist' is criminally unimaginative. It rushes through its single midpoint 'cutscene', as well, which completely removes the impact of what's supposed to be happening. The whole thing sort of smells of focus-groups - the almost embarrassed way it nips through the one narrative-heavy bit where you have no control, undoubtedly to get the more testosterone-dripping of its audience back to shooting things with big guns; the fact, as mentioned, that your character's abilities never change so there's no re-learning required at any point, and the awful, awful vehicle sections, which actually manage to make the player feel less well-armed and more vulnerable despite supposedly encasing them in twenty tons of stomping/hovering death machinery. Bah. It's good, no-nonsense fun when it's letting you explore, shoot monsters and revel in the horribleness of its setting, though.

    Oh yeah, and the final boss and ending are the most utterly pathetic things I've ever encountered in a game. I mean, seriously. Holy crap. It's like the team just gave up 90% of the way through, and the office cleaners got embarrassed on their behalf and finished it for them, despite never having used the tools before. It's a shame that fear of spoilers (rightly) stops reviewers talking about the end of games in too much detail, because there's a lot to criticise there.

  • arnoldo_strikes_back #24 6 years ago

    i take it the twist is you becoming a strogg?

    not much of a twist considering it's in the trailer!

  • Jesskaah #25 6 years ago

    Too true, the ending is spell bindingly rubbish!

  • jonnyreb #26 6 years ago

    Before all the whining about low X360 scores starts, I just want to say that I REALLY enjoyed Quake 4 on the PC.......

    However.........this PC -> Console conversion is shocking in it's quality.

    I spent a some time at the weekend playing this and I would go so far as to say that this is the worst example I have seen of bad development.

    However nice the graphics are the framerate is appalling.

    I personally think a 6 is generous, IMHO if a game has not been properly 'finished' like this one, whatever the reasons (ie launch date targets, new X360 architecture) it shouldn't even make it to the shelves.

    Shame on you Raven.

  • arnoldo_strikes_back #27 6 years ago

    and shame on microsoft for validating it and allowing it on the system.

    but im on ignore aren't i.

    damnit.

  • Eldritch #28 6 years ago

    Who did the port? Raven themselves? Hard to believe. Probably their B team. I like the PC version nevertheless. So sue me.

  • Eighthours #29 6 years ago

    So.... still better than Kameo then? Methinks not.

  • kewny #30 6 years ago

    Ive been playing this too and while its not up to the standard of COD2 et al, I am not disappointed that I got it. It looks good and the controls are almost spot on. Agree about the framerate issue though, but I didnt see many people complaining about the dodgy framerate on NFS: most wanted (which I also own and like). Overall its a half decent game and if people see it for what it is (a pretty unorginal but fun shoot em up) then i dont think they will consider suicide when they put it on ! :) Again I agree though, its a lazy port.

    P.S. the quake 2 that comes with is still tops and is as smooth as silk.

  • pikemon #31 6 years ago

    Another X360 game gets a better score than what the review itself would indicate.

  • Eldritch #32 6 years ago

    Kewny: I'm playing the Quake 2 that came with the Limited Edition PC game. Class. (C:

  • AgentCooper #33 6 years ago

    "Quake 2 on PS1 was excellent. The N64 version was crap."

    @Artemus

    You know I actually still have the N64 version in the house, needed the memory pack as I recall. The control setup just doesnae work....

  • drumbaby #34 6 years ago

    Shame....this game was/ is ace on PC.

  • funkyd #35 6 years ago

    Quake 2 on PS1 was excellent. The N64 version was crap.

    what?!?!?!

    Quake 2 was excellent on both th n64 and the ps1

  • Jesskaah #36 6 years ago

    /methinks rose tinted spectacles are being donned.

  • 3william56 #37 6 years ago

    Quake II on the PS1 was streets ahead of anything similar on the ole grey box - sure, the 3 feet between loads was a pain - especially if you walked through a door, [load] got a fright then stepped backwards [load] and had to step forwards [load]. Fume. But the multiplayer was a blast.

    Not great by modern standards, and I wouldn't want to play it again now, but a real achievement back then.

  • Artemus #38 6 years ago

    What I like about the PS1 version was that they managed to port the whole game pretty much intact with a few concessions. Add to that the brilliant four player DM mode that made me miss several history lectures.

    The N64 version had totally redesigned levels and the multiplayer wasn't as good.
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/05 @ 14:06

  • DodgyPast #39 6 years ago

    well I have been having a blast on Quake 4.

    It's not the most challenging of games... but it is good clean fun when you need to blow shit up to relax.
    Sometimes one too many corridors to get lost in is more than I can cope with.

  • Darren #40 6 years ago

    I've been playing 360 Quake 4 for a few days now and it's never crashed once...

    ... but it's a reasonably fair review I suppose. The framerate in the single player game is a little erratic but it's not so bad that it affects the gameplay (it's no worst than playing it on my PC infact which also suffers from slowdown on high settings). In multiplayer though the framerate was excellent in the few games I've played but then the levels are much smaller and there's less going on.

    As for the graphics, the 360 ones are practically indistinguishable for the game running on my PC on high-settings at 1280x1024 as the PC game didn't have brilliant environmental textures either (just look at the ground at the start of the game to see what I mean).

    All-in-all it's a solid if somewhat generic shooter thats a little too similar visually to Doom 3 but it's enjoyable enough. I'd give it 7/10.

  • smelly #41 6 years ago

    I bought quack 4 for the pc. Worst money I've spent in recent years.

    Total crap. But at least it was better than doom 3.

  • Hufftur #42 6 years ago

    I haven't played the N64 version, but Quake 2 on the PSX was quite sublime. Still holds up today too.

    When you complete the game on normal mode you get some extra multiplayer options, including game speed. So... you can play in graceful slowmo (railgunning around corners, zero G style) or frenzied fastmo (chaingunning!!!). It's all strangely surreal and EXTREMELY sexy, oh yes.

    And 2 player deathmatch is even better if you sellotape a huge slice of cardboard (vertically, of course) against the TV screen. Splitscreen heaven.

  • Ryuken #43 6 years ago

    Framerate drops on a more powerful machine than the average PC is a big shame indeed. Ah well, the PC-version is satisfying anyhow. It's a bit of irony that the reviewer apparently did enjoy QII but not Q4, since the latter is more similar to QII than to the "smarter" shooters. It's actually a real joke that some want Q4 to be a fps with an interesting storyline or a big plottwist when the main motivation hasn't changed at all since QII, namely shoot and blow things up in a fun and entertaining way. Can you blame a fps for that now too?
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/05 @ 14:34

  • gaijin #44 6 years ago

    smelly:
    I bought quack 4 for the pc.

    Is that the waterfowl hunting game? Or Jonathan Ross trying to score some 'base?

    /fetches overcoat

  • Feanor #45 6 years ago

    "Another X360 game gets a better score than what the review itself would indicate."

    What are the other ones? Not Kameo, hehe.

  • effinjamie #46 6 years ago

    So it does have 4 player splitscreen then?
    'Cos damned if I can find it.

    Edit: nope, you're right, it's not there. What a swizz!
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/05 @ 15:11

  • Artemus #47 6 years ago

    And 2 player deathmatch is even better if you sellotape a huge slice of cardboard (vertically, of course) against the TV screen. Splitscreen heaven.

    Haha. Me and my mate used to do the same.

  • ecureuil #48 6 years ago

    Quake II on the PS1 was brilliant, and an incredible technical achievement. It was the number 1 multiplayer game for me and my mates for quite a long time.

  • Artemus #49 6 years ago

    You do realise, that all of us saying how good the old QII ports were has completely screwed Kristan's opening paragraph.

  • krudster #50 6 years ago

    Well, that kind of missed the point I was making. Of course they were pretty good technical acheivements and all that, but side by side with the PC originals they sucked salty balls. Which is kind of the point I was leading up to with this version :)

  • Mashum #51 6 years ago

    Aww... I just need one excuse to buy a 360, is that too much to ask?? :(

  • Artemus #52 6 years ago

    Of course they were pretty good technical acheivements and all that, but side by side with the PC originals they sucked salty balls.

    I'd say thats pretty harsh. The PS1 version really isn't all that different, but I get the point you were trying to make.

  • Xerx3s #53 6 years ago

    So, does Q2 that comes with this support coop or not? 4p split screen would be nice. If it does, i might be tempted to shell out some money for this when it goes down in price....

    Has anyone bought this and played the Q2 part?

    Q2 on the ninty64 was ace, dunno about the ps version, never played it. But id recon that it should be just as good....

  • El_MUERkO #54 6 years ago

    Quake 2 on the Playstation was genius, how they managed it was beyond me but it was truely uber!

  • speedstars13 #55 6 years ago

    I am not surprised it sucked.

  • Feanor #56 6 years ago

    Wonder if the makers of Quake 4 for the 360 feel embarrassed when they see Call of Duty 2 running on the same machine.

  • rolika #57 6 years ago

    consoles meant to be for totally unique games (and experiences) to not to be found anywhere else
    at least microsoft came in...

  • darkmistx #58 6 years ago

    Generic boring fps number 4981092 then?

  • Smugglarn #59 6 years ago

    One of the posts is by a plant. Guess which one and you get a free rimjob!

    From the plant that is, not me. I don't like that sort of thing.

    No seriously, I don't.

  • IWorkedOnQ2PSX #60 6 years ago

    In the interests of full disclosure, I worked on Quake2 for the PSX so I am another plant, not sure who the other plant mentioned in the previous comment is though!

    Quote from lazy review:

    Anyone who recalls the hapless early attempts on PlayStation and N64 might not wish to be reminded, but then no-one was exactly surprised, either. Porting cutting-edge PC shooters to ageing home systems is generally a one-way ticket to Jerksville

    Ok, so Quake 4 on 360 is hardly in the same league as the PSX Quake II, but as an example of a badly optimised, undernourished port, this is by far the worst example we've seen to date.

    Quote from lazy comment defending lazy review:

    Well, that kind of missed the point I was making. Of course they were pretty good technical acheivements and all that, but side by side with the PC originals they sucked salty balls. Which is kind of the point I was leading up to with this version :)

    Stop backtracking, was it a "one way ticket to Jerksville", "a badly optimised, undernourished port" or "pretty good technical acheivements and all that".

    Anyway...

    I don't believe that you actually played Q2 on the PSX, as framerate is one of the things I can't accept as a legitimate criticism. Compared it to the cream of console FPSes at the time (Goldeneye), it was much more smooth. Sure, the splitting up of levels into seperate loading sections was unfortunate, but the framerate was pretty great, even in 4 player split screen mode.

    Perhaps Kristan should have read the Quake2 PSX Review over at IGN - http:// psx.ign.com/articles/160/160446p1.html - or actually played the game first before refering to it.

    Thanks to all those of you who commented and defended the conversion, it was heartening to read so many of you enjoyed all the hard efforts put in by what has to be one of the best teams I have had the pleasure of working with, on what I believe was both an exceptional technical piece of work and an exceptional game.


    Edit : One more rant, I actually prefer Goldeneye to Q2 PSX; framerate isn't everything!
    Edited by 2 at 08/12/05 @ 23:39

  • Artemus #61 6 years ago

    Thanks to all those of you who commented and defended the conversion, it was heartening to read so many of you enjoyed all the hard efforts put in by what has to be one of the best teams I have had the pleasure of working with, on what I believe was both an exceptional technical piece of work and an exceptional game.


    Hey, you worked for Hammerhead then? What happened to them?

  • bungalooBunny #62 6 years ago

    IWorkedOnQ2PSX, for a start you're hardly the most legitimate person to approach the issue of the port's quality since you actually made the damn thing.

    Second, isn't what the krudster saying ONLY that the PC versions were better and the PSX/N64 ones sucked in comparison? How hard is it to understand? Do you speak any English at all?? He didn't say they were crap, he said that side-by-side with the PC versions they lose badly.

    Do I need to say it again?

    I played it and thought they were impressive for what they were - that's right, what they were. Great achievements for such low specs machines. Would I waste time even thinking about chosing which version to play, PC or PSX? I don't think so...

    And as a final note I actually think it's kinda lame to register here to defend the games you worked on. 'Why didn't you like my game? You must like it' sounds like pretty wimpy to me...

  • Genji #63 6 years ago

    I, for one, believe Quake 2 on the PSX to be the best game ever made. BEST. GAME. EVAAAAAR.

  • Talha #64 6 years ago

    Not surprised in the slightest. Someone here made a comment about comparison to CoD2 and I think that is very valid.

    Now if only they did a port for Playstation2, I would love them!

  • krudster #65 6 years ago

    Blimey, there was me thinking it was stating the BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS that the PSX and N64 couldn't handle a HIGH END PC GAME :)

    Shame some people didn't quite understand that that was the only point I was making.

    I didn't call your mother a HO! :)

  • Talha #66 6 years ago

    @krudster : I would only advise you to generally avoid threads if you want to retain your sanity these days! Especially if it relates to a ho-hum review of an X360 game.

  • Nillsens #67 6 years ago

    These comments make me sad...

    I thought Doom 3 was not as much fun compared to Quake 4.

    Review obviously made in an attempt to cash-in on the Quake is brown joke (which isn't even remotely funny anymore).
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/05 @ 06:20

  • IWorkedOnQ2PSX #68 6 years ago

    bungalooBunny:

    I speak fluent English, thanks very much. The review does say that it was crap. There is not much room to argue otherwise. Anyway, I mainly registered to say thanks to the people who said they enjoyed the game. If people hadn't defended it, I definitely wouldn't have registered.

    Artemus:

    Hammerhead went out of business, like so many companies do in the industry. AFAIK, nearly everyone who worked there is in gainful employment, so life goes on.

    Again, thanks guys, over and out.

  • darkmistx #69 6 years ago

    I think it all goes to show that quake was never a good game in the first place. It only sold because each game in the series was at the cutting edge of 3d graphics at the time, but Quake 4 doesn't even have that now using the 1.5 yr old Doom 3 engine.
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/05 @ 11:33

  • AtomicBanana #70 6 years ago

    ' I think it all goes to show that quake was never a good game in the first place. It only sold because each game in the series was at the cutting edge of 3d graphics at the time, but Quake 4 doesn't even have that now using the 1.5 yr old Doom 3 engine.'

    I think all *that* goes to show is that you have a very strong personal opinion not shared by everyone here. Quake/Quake2/Quake3 were not successfull on the strengths of thier graphics alone. If you don't agree, fair enough, but don't go stating this kinda crap as facts.

  • squeakyg #71 6 years ago

    So was PSOne QuakeII "hapless" or not? Your choice of wording seems to exist outside the context of comparison with a PC -- you're defining the PSOne product itself as "hapless". But I was damn happy playing it, so there.

    Your argument starts with: "There used to be a good excuse for console conversions of Quake games being a bit rubbish."

    But... the console conversions weren't rubbish. Both N64 and PSOne versions had excellent framerates, fully-reproduced gameplay dynamics, decent control, and incredibly fun multiplayer. So if the haplessness and rubbishness were of graphical inferiority alone, doesn't that make you a graphics elitist?

    Ah: with closer reading, it seems you thought the only merits of the Quake games were the graphical leaps made by id, and the gameplay was never very good. It stands to reason that you only compared the graphical qualities of PC and console versions, and missed the fact that the fun was fully-reproduced across all formats.
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/05 @ 21:50

  • Jdoki #72 6 years ago

    While this is a disappointing conversion, I think there's still a place in the market for a 'no-frills' FPS. I played Quake 4 on PC, and it made a nice change to just run and gun mindlessly. After battling through F.E.A.R on PC and now playing Perfect Dark Zero on the 360 I can appreciate the simplicity of Quake 4.

    I think the big problem comes from the expectations. Quake was a genre defining game for those old enough to remember it :) So I guess many people were expecting the same again.

    As for the conversion - I think 6/10 is generous from technical point of view, but accurate from a gameplay point of view.

  • barnard666 #73 6 years ago

    I have nearly finished quake on the 260, I have a decent enough PC to play it n but still go for the console version...why? I like playing on my sofa with a gamepad.
    the frame rate is nasty, and at one point really nasty, however this hasnt really diminished my enjoyment of the game, the load times are my biggest gripe. I think 6 is a bit low, its 1000% better than PDZ (even though they arent trrying to compete) and saying the gameplay is out dated is inacurate, serious sam is far more outdated, but even that still manages to be fun.

    I put this game in the same basket as outrun 2, really awesome stupid arcade fun. (even though they never had FPS games at the arcade, I am sure you still get what I mean)

    and quake 2 is great fun.

  • DFawkes #74 3 years ago

    I may be a tad late to the party, but for what it's worth Quake 2 on Psone is one of the most technically stuning ports ever made, and anyone who says otherwise is really wrong, needs a brain test, and eye test and a crotch punch.