Do you see much potential in the Quake II Engine?

[Ranger366]

and also since he already mentioned that he'd like the engine to support new model and audio formats, which means that his engine of choice would be a custom one anyway.

Yup, i thought its awesome todo this. stocking Quake 2 with MD3 is awesome. i thinked about the better model animations. the engine is really good, and only abit younger than the quake engine.

i never prefer Quake 2 in any case. its just a technology thing.

Making a Quake 2 Standalone TC would be more fun, this will bring so much positive reactions to this game. Quake 2 modding is really cool, if i would learn more about the engine code and the game code, i would say that quake 2 is my playground, not Quake 1.

[goldenboy]

The good thing in Quake II is that it dont uses QuakeC, i know QuakeC is good, but dlls are in this Case (engine side) better.

Wrong. dlls are operating system specific, which in this day and age == FAIL.

progs.dat can be used on any OS that can run the engine (in the case of Quake 1, a lot).

[Sajt]

and also since he already mentioned that he'd like the engine to support new model and audio formats, which means that his engine of choice would be a custom one anyway.

Yup, i thought its awesome todo this. stocking Quake 2 with MD3 is awesome. i thinked about the better model animations. the engine is really good, and only abit younger than the quake engine.

i never prefer Quake 2 in any case. its just a technology thing.

Making a Quake 2 Standalone TC would be more fun, this will bring so much positive reactions to this game. Quake 2 modding is really cool, if i would learn more about the engine code and the game code, i would say that quake 2 is my playground, not Quake 1.

You would not be able to tell apart a Quake TC and a Quake 2 TC, because they are TCs. The original engines are very similar. The model formats are both totally outdated (MD2 is in some ways worse than MDL), and wouldn't be used by any TC nowadays. That TC you linked to is a heavily modified engine, just like DarkPlaces. Either "base" engine (Quake or Quake 2) would be just as good if you were to modify it that heavily. In fact, you might as well just start a new engine from scratch.

If the only reason you prefer Quake 2 for TCs is that it uses DLLs instead of QuakeC, well, many would disagree, but it's your choice, and a pretty petty one actually.

"Its just a technology thing." - like I said, there's no difference between Quake and Quake2 nowadays, except DLL/QuakeC. And if you really wanted, it wouldn't take much work to strip QuakeC out of Quake and bring it into the DLL dark ages too. (I did it more than once in my confused youth...)

[GiffE]

but bringing Quake One to this standard will take many time, and will create more and more problems. The good thing in Quake II is that it dont uses QuakeC, i know QuakeC is good, but dlls are in this Case (engine side) better.

Excuse me!... NO! This is wrong on many levels. QuakeC makes quake modding possible for everyone from beginners to advanced coders. And you can achieve just about anything with the right extensions. If anything QuakeC is what sets Quake ahead of all the newer engines as far as modding goes.

Quake is simple, fast and easy to handle. But Quake 2 is something different. I never saw one Quake One mod with can be matched with Quake 2.

Clearly you have not seen Nexuiz(and the non-gpl)/Xonotic, Chris's Stealer Guy, motorsep's Steel Storm, hell even the smaller mods like Urre's strap-on-bomb car game.
There are countless older mods aswel which are easily matched for quake 2 mods.
Sure you can make the case that the mods I described use Darkplaces, but your asking about a modified quake2 so why not mention a modified quake engine.
If your not into darkplaces there are other quake engines (fitz) which give you some newer effects.

[leileilol]

You don't even need a modified Quake engine to outdo Quake2. See: Quake Rally.

The Quake2 version never completed to any playable form, they gave up waiting for Quake3 instead as early as 1998.

[frag.machine]

Even Carmack later admited the game dll idea was bad, and implemented a VM in Quake3.
So, in a nutshell: there are no good reasons to one use the Quake 2 engine instead the original Quake engine for a standalone game. If you want something REALLY better you should aim for Quake 3 or higher.

[mh]

Well the Quake II engine pretty much == the Quake engine, version 1.01. There is really f--k all difference between them in so many places and so many ways. The only real one single thing that Quake II has as a genuine advantage over Quake is areaportals.

[Irritant]

The netcode is the only real advantage of Q2 vs Q1. QC vs DLL(I personally am not a huge fan of QC, but to each his own). The model format of Q2 is horrible for animated meshes, and even static meshes have deformation issues.

The rendering in Q1- Q3 is very dated anyway, so you'd be rewriting the bulk of the renderer for any of Q1-Q3 if you were hoping to achieve a game with a reasonably modern appearance. My advice is, if you're looking to do such, you might as well start with the most advanced of the three, which would be Q3. Most of the Q2 engines that are still worked on(QFusion, CRX, etc) are done so because that was the latest version that was GPL'd at the time, and by the time Q3 was out the devs didn't want to have to redo a bunch of work.

[Baker]

I didn't vote but I look forward to playing Quake Remake which carries a lot of Quake 2 ideas.

Every few years, I try to play Quake 2 and lose interest before getting very far. I'm not sure why.

Other the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Half-Life.

I like the portability of QuakeC. And I like the minimal shell that Quake represents -- it gets ported to a lot of platforms because it is minimal ... maybe that is what makes it great as opposed to things that evolve so much they get crushed by their own overhead.

Engines like FTEQW, DarkPlaces and ezQuake I have always found interesting because they try to stretch out ideas in different directions [FTE = broad feature set and multigame compatibility, DarkPlaces = modding idealism at the expense of compatibility and performance, ezQuake = singular emphasis on bells and whistles to the deathmatch experience at the expense of losing the concept of "generality" like it is hardcoded for QW pak0.pak/pak1.pak DM alone]. I'd describe many aspect of each of those engines as extreme attention to detail to different concepts.

I don't think effects and modern rendering mean as much as some people think. They are remaking 2D platformers and games like Farmville and such and there are a ton of Flash games and any given game for the Wii looks like it uses year 2002 technology. Most modern games feel like I am running around ye old dot bsp with better smoke, water and player animations.

[gnounc]

If you want better formats thats a legitimate argument.
Darkplaces supports MD3 (quake3 model format) ZYM, PSK, DPM (darkplaces model format), and more recently IQM.

It also supports bump, gloss, and normal maps along with
ogg.

There are other very capable quake 1 engines as well.

Ok, finally looked at overdoses custom tech 2 engine. Its impressive.
Again though, what makes that mod looks sweet...is that the mod looks sweet. It could just as easily be done in a modified q1 engine.

[Irritant]

I don't think effects and modern rendering mean as much as some people think.

Maybe in some genres, and maybe in small retro-based communities such as this, but in the general FPS world, the first thing the average Joe judges them on is their graphical prowess.

[Downsider]

Yeah, but once you get to a certain point in the ENGINE, there's no progressing graphically.

Once you get SUPPORT for the graphical enhancements, it's up to the artists to make it look good.

Like, Darkplaces could make something that looks just as many games on the market. It's just the artist's job, and we don't see that in the community.

[Sajt]

The poll makes no sense... does Quake 2 have "potential"? Anything that's open source has unlimited potential! Nexuiz and the Q2 TC you linked to look nothing like the original games whose engines they were based on. They might as well both be original from-scratch engines... So yeah, it makes no difference. Actually maybe the biggest difference is whether you would feel prouder saying "this game was based on the Quake engine" or "this game was based on the Quake 2 engine" in your readme.

[mh]

Anyway, in the end I decided to vote "yes", but it's a cautious "yes", and a "yes" that should be interpreted as meaning potential in the Quake II formats rather than potential in the Quake II engine.

The Quake II engine is, after all, nothing more than a lightly modified Quake (QuakeWorld, really) engine. The question makes no sense in the context of this, and even less sense when you consider the fact that Ranger is denouncing use of a modified Quake engine in favour of use of ... (drum roll) ... a modified Quake engine.

[frag.machine]

I don't think effects and modern rendering mean as much as some people think.

Maybe in some genres, and maybe in small retro-based communities such as this, but in the general FPS world, the first thing the average Joe judges them on is their graphical prowess.

Maybe in the past, but not in the current console-oriented days...