Quake or Doom: Which was better and why

finnw said:
I just played through Quake 1 on "nightmare" and most of the time I was thinking "this is way easier than Doom on UV."
I'm not sure now though. Doom seems easier now that I've come back to it.

Well, on NM Doom is definitely harder. In fact it becomes not a game anymore, it is a hard work with going deep into details, planning routes, planning almost everything and hard training.

xvertigox said:

The potential to be the best duel game ever - which it accomplished. Sif act like because it's a multiplayer game that's a bad thing.

It had potential to be the last single player fps game that had the perfect mix between between gameplay and aesthetically pleasing environments. Doom is still the best duel game ever.

Leo Sosnine said:

Well, on NM Doom is definitely harder. In fact it becomes not a game anymore, it is a hard work with going deep into details, planning routes, planning almost everything and hard training.

Agreed. I don't think you can compare the two "nightmare" skill levels. In Quake it just makes the monsters more aggressive (no change to monster or projectile speeds and no respawning.)

The comparison I had in mind was Ultra Violence (Doom) vs. Hard (Quake.)

Reasons why Doom might be harder:

• Greater monster numbers
  
• There are situations in the standard Doom levels where the player must fight from a narrow ledge without falling off.
  I don't recall any in the standard Quake levels (though no technical reason why there can't be.)

• The player moves more slowly
  
• The player's weapons are weaker.
  
• Slightly tougher monsters. Also one of the most deadly (the Fiend) appears very early in the game.

finnw said:

• There are situations in the standard Doom levels where the player must fight from a narrow ledge without falling off.
  I don't recall any in the standard Quake levels (though no technical reason why there can't be.)

Quake did have falling damage, and the lava was much more brutal than Doom's lava. However, overall Doom was still harder

Quake is most definitely a lot more brutal than virtually any FPS today I'll just say that. Many shooters from the 90s were far less forgiving in your mistakes or ability to play well.

If I were to compare Doom to Wolfenstein 3D however I'd say Wolf is way harder. The damage is outrageous at close range and you can't necessarily rush rooms full of enemies. It's also easy to waste ammo with the chaingun when used like a regular weapon.

And fuck those Mutants.

I'm glad this topic sparked such debate.

And about falling off narrow ledges and having to fight on them. I'm very far in Half Life 1 and finding extremely tough and annoying to walk narrow cliffs... and since run is always stuck on its very easy to fall off... or get shot because you can't strafe.

Quake Nightmare has the same monster/item load as Hard. It makes the monsters attack in faster intervals, i.e. continuously, and removes their pain frames. The attacks remain the same except for the vore missles, which have a higher speed than on the other skills.

Doom Nightmare is definitely harder, because the respawning monsters mean a constant threat, especially in maps that require the player to backtrack, and most importantly, the ammo and health situation that becomes increasingly precarious as more and more respawns occur.

I like both Quake and Doom, but still, Doom will always be my most favourite game. Simple level design, lots of action, and both fun and challenging at the same time.

... playing Half Life 1 which uses a modified Quake 1 engine.... I'm 13 hours in and wow the game is getting excessively difficult. But its awesome in a way. I like it a lot better than I ever did Quake. Also I ponder the thought of 1 man against an army... and helicopters... and tanks and I don't find it unbelievable, I find it awesome. Meanwhile with Doom and Quake, I don't even stop to ponder 1 man vs millions of monsters... its like everyday life in that game universe.

Nice, posting this on a website called 'Doomworld' hehe

Since you're a lil late... yeah I suggested someone post this on Quakeworld.

Doom by a mile, much more variety in level design, enemies etc and a lot more fun and fast paced in general.
Although quake did have a good soundtrack and a great modding community.

Definitely Doom but since I have played Doom 1000 times more than Quake (I have years to touch it) I might be biased because I am so familiar with Doom that I have grown specific brain cells :)

So, I'd say things that I didn't like in Quake.
- Dark brown colors. Well, the environments are good though. And it doesn't spoil the fun.
- Most weapons are uninteresting and crude. You have a powerless shotgun replacing the pistol and then a double shotgun that is the same exactly style, being fat chunks of polygons, it's like they didn't took effort to actually design good weapons (this changed a bit in Quake 2) always speaking of aesthetics of course. Because in terms of originality it's worse. It's like what they did in Heretic, replacing something for the pistol, something for the machine gun, etc. Only Duke Nukem 3d at the time did something original in both graphic design and features on weapons, with it's frozen, shrinking guns and other crazy ideas.
- Monsters were crude polygons too and uninteresting.

The plus were:
+ 3D mouse look view. It really gave another feeling at the gameplay, among the real 3d maps, and I think it was a great feature for deathmatch. I think the game won over deathmatch players rather than single player.
+ The whole tech. Quake was an engine showing technical excellence. I enjoy reading Michael Abrash articles on the Quake tech, it's amazing how much research and experimentation he and Carmack did with this engine. It's just that since quake, ID usually releases yet another typical FPS game without real inovations just to show their new tech and usually other companies who buy this tech produce better and more interesting games.

I prefer Doom. One of the only thing I like in Quake that I would like to see in Doom is the grenade luncher in Quake 2 for the N64. In Quake, automatic doors in deathmatch is a negative point. It's possible to use more strategies with a door that you open manually in Doom. I like to close the door when somebody is trying to open it and then you kill him with a SSG shot in his feet.

Ive probably played Quake just as much as Doom/Doom2 (which is a LOT and probably way too much) and I love both, so it's a pretty close call.

To me it depends if we're talking single player or multiplayer

The physics in Quake are outstanding, I love all the tricks you can do with rockets, grenades etc. (if you have enough skills of course) not to mention the badassness of the grappling hook. It's gotta be my favorite fps for multiplayer ever. But if nobody is online, I won't play because I'm sick of the regular game and have never seen many good sp maps.

But single player, Doom/Doom2 wins hands down. I don't care about jumping, looking up and down, whatever. It's been almost 20 years playing the same maps and I don;t think I could ever get sick of it. Classic.

Me too, I don't care about jumping, crouching, looking up and down. I can do episode one over 100 times in a day without ever being bored.

There actually IS single player in Q3A, it's called bots.

magicsofa said:
Quake did have falling damage

Ayup. I played Quake online constantly back in high school and one of the more amusing things I saw in Quake DM was people occasionally getting gibbed from falling damage.

Doom.
Better weapons and more interesting monsters.
But Quake is great too.

DeathevokatioN said:

It had potential to be the last single player fps game that had the perfect mix between between gameplay and aesthetically pleasing environments. Doom is still the best duel game ever.

Doom is too simple to be as good as Q3/QL/QW. The maps can't be nearly as good and neither can the weapons (no middys, LG juggles etc). The weapon and item balance, ability to control the map/flow are all better in quake. Doom is just not technologically advanced enough to compete with quake in terms of dueling.

Disagree bitch.

xvertigox said:

...The maps can't be nearly as good...

That is an interesting belief.

DeathevokatioN said:

Disagree bitch.

+1

Quake's chronic brown syndrome, repetitive level design, difficulty in navigating through water, somewhat mixed up aesthetics (Lovecraftian? Militant? Alien? Demonic? Medieval?), and the absence of the hammer weapon and forest environments that were initially considered make it inferior to Doom.

With that in mind, the much needed jump and mouselook features, the weapons (particularly the nailguns and grenade launcher), and general art style, despite the browns, are all great. Hell, along with the maze-like levels and the demonic overtones, it's actually a close call. Doom is still better because I've felt more compelled to replay it more than Quake. I much prefer Quake to Quake 2, however.

Start map and a few ugly tech bases aside, I think Quake's brownness has been exaggerated. It has a lot of lovely greens and pale blue-grays.

jute said:

Start map and a few ugly tech bases aside, I think Quake's brownness has been exaggerated. It has a lot of lovely greens and pale blue-grays.

In quake's defense there is also some brownish yellows and oranges.

Quake did have a lot of earthly colors, but I don't think it was too much. The tech-bases were quite rusty, and there were some brown bricks in the castles and crypts. But then you had these bizarre levels of dark blues, marble-like textures. I think they were varied enough. Every level seems to have a theme about it that makes it unique from the rest.

NiuHaka said:

That is an interesting belief.

edit: just to clarify I mean the maps can't be as good in terms of duel/multiplayer maps, it's not referring to any inherent skill in mapping for either engine I just mean you NEED a fully 3D engine to get the most out of a duel game.

3D vs 2.5D is a world of difference.

Aerowalk
ZtnDM3/bloodrun
cpm3a

You lose way too much gameplay and strategy not having room over room + proper, fleshed out movevment physics (SR50 vs bhop, overbounce, crazy rjs, strafe jumping, circle strafes etc). Also the weapons are much more shallow. You can't juggle people, can't get middys really, can't plasma climb etc It's 100% down to a matter of technology. Quake is like SC/BW, it's been refined over the course of years specifically to be the best game for competitive DM play (that means duel/ctf/tdm).

Disagree bitch.

Prove me wrong then.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2MJiOoBdx0&t=4m19s

xvertigox said:

edit: just to clarify I mean the maps can't be as good in terms of duel/multiplayer maps...

Well in that case I agree.

I don't like threads with foundations in bullshit. You can't directly compare DOOM and Quake...I'm sorry. It'd be like comparing the 1931 Dracula(starring Bela Lugosi) to the 1987 film Near Dark(starring Lance Henriksen). Both are movies about vampires, and in the end both have their strengths, but they don't merit a direct comparison. Near Dark benefits from better technology, improved film techniques, years of cinema experience, etc., but there's something undeniably wonderful about Dracula(1931), with its great use of pacing, haunting scenery, and Bela Lugosi(arguably the best Dracula) with his hypnotic stare. There will be legions of fans on both sides who will defend one movie or the other to the death, but in the end both are good films, simple as that.

When viewed through that lens, DOOM and Quake follow much the same pattern. Both are great games, phenomenal even, but their differences make a direct comparison both impossible and useless.