Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quake2 vs Quake3

Last response: in Video Games
April 23, 2002 10:03:08 AM

The Quake3 engine is definatly more crisp and clear and geometrically superior. But is it just me or does the Quake2 engine seem more realistic? I'm mainly comparing DoD to MoHAA. Don't get me wrong. The graphics in MoH are fantastic but I feel more "surrounded" by the atmosphere in DoD than I do in MoH. Or maybe it's just a modeling and texturing issue. I dunno. I know I'd sure like to see the DoD guys make an update with the new engine to see how it would turn out. Any comments?

More about : quake2 quake3

April 23, 2002 7:39:29 PM

I have played both games, and i do feel that both are unrealistic. I really dislike the effect i recieve while playing on that piece of crap quake3 "engine" as they call it. IMO, it ruined jedi knight II as well. What's with the lag when people die? Why do i feel like i'm trapped in the game? I can't figure out why, but i hate the q3 engine. I do play quake2 every day though and enjoy it much, much more; realistic or not. :) 

home is where you hang yourself
April 23, 2002 8:14:02 PM

The Q2 and Q3 engines are both extremely old and inefficient! They suck at managing large textures!

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 24, 2002 5:39:53 AM

i really like the serious sam engine. large textures, bright landscapes, grass and ooooodles of bad guys!

Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
April 24, 2002 7:11:29 AM

I'm not saying either are super great engines. I just feel more "into the game" due the graphics in Q2 engine games. Maybe I'm just oldschool. *shruggs*
April 24, 2002 11:17:22 AM

Yes, the Serios Sam engine is beautiful! The textures for the clouds are bright, clear and not pixelated like the low-res textures of Q3.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 3, 2002 4:26:09 PM

graphics aside, I think Q2 (multiplayer CTF) was and still is the best game ever, nothing comes clos, just a pity that the graphics arnt too good by todays standards,also things like not being able to tell where someon is shot etc, but its still got to be the best game ever

If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
May 3, 2002 5:53:11 PM

You guys are on crack! The quake engines run better on more computers than any other engine. I have a pretty wimpy comp and it runs anything made on the q3 engine superbly. The Lithtech engine bogs down my comp bigtime and looks about as good as the q2 engine. The Unreal engine runs good but doesnt look quite as stylish as the q3 engine. I pretty much love every game built on that engine. So everyone quit ragging the master (John Carmack)!
May 3, 2002 6:46:38 PM

"The quake engines run better on more computers than any other engine"


Yes. I would agree with you. Most assuredly.

Let's see...

Alice will run very smoothly at 1024x768x32, at maximum settings, with a 733 Celeron and a GTS card overclocked to 210/350.

Unreal Tourney will studder like that evil sorcerer/professor in "Harry Potter" at 1024x768x32 (maximum settings) with a 733 Celeron and that same GTS card, while fragging some punk a$$ llamas in 'Facing Worlds' with 32 players.

Along those same lines, the Doom engine runs very well. The Duke3d engine runs excellent. SiN, Tomb Radier III, and Zork I are totally b*tchin'. Even the Apple II version of Conan: Halls of Volta engine is silky smooth.
May 3, 2002 9:03:13 PM

I love it how you can compare a engine that is years old to something recently released. It's an unfair comparison and the plain and simple fact is that the Q3 engine is still being used today. Comparing it to SS and saying that it is a POS because SS is better is not right. For a graphics engine to have this much life years later they must have done something right. Now if someone wanted to say that compared to SS the Q3 engine is inferior, well then that's fine. My whole point is just because something is a bit dated doesn't mean it's a POS. Give credit where credit is due. I thought RTCW was one hell of a good looking game. So is Jedi Knight II, so was Alice.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
May 3, 2002 9:09:55 PM

Dont worry most who have played DoD consider it a better game than MoH. Perhaps because it's strictly multiplayer and team based. You tend to become more immersed with your mission goals and defeating the other team. MoH is a pretty good game but it still often plays more like arcade shootem'up action than the team based strategies of DoD. Kinda funny how a freeware mod can beat out a full retail game.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
May 3, 2002 9:53:36 PM

Yes, but inefficient. RTCW and MOHAA use the Q3 engine and slow down significantly in texture intensive scenes. They aren't buffered properly.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 5, 2002 3:18:53 AM

I far prefer the DOOM engine.

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>