Oh, man, I’m about to relitigate an almost 30 year old nerd argument. Here we go.
I thought Quake looked like crap.
It’s brown, and blocky and chunky and in software mode at 320x200 it’s barely putting together a readable, coherent picture at all. Compared to what the peak of legacy tech was at the time, which was probably Duke Nukem 3D, I thought it was a genuine step backwards.
Now, it played well, it was fast and they got a ton of mileage out of the real 3D geometry to make crazy and cool level designs. But visually? Hot garbage.
You’re right that the game changer was actually 3D acceleration, and Quake did come to life when it started hitting HD resolutions of 480p or (gasp) 800p, comparable to what we were already getting in Build engine games and 2D PC games elsewhere, but the underlying assets are still very, VERY ugly. To me it all came together in Quake 2, which was clearly built for the hardware. That’s when I went “well, I need one of these cards now” and went to get a Nvidia Riva.
I have no complaints about Quake’s sound design, though. I can hear it in my head right now. No music, just sound effects. I don’t know what that shotgun sound is taken from, but it’s definitely not a shotgun and it sounds absolutely amazing.
Oh, and on the original point, I’m not super sure of “graphics can’t get any better” beign a thing that I thought, but I do remember when somebody showed me a PS2 screenshot of Silent Hill 2 gameplay in a magazine I mocked them for clearly having mistaken a prerendered cutscene for real time graphics. Good times.
I will agree with you. Quake came out and really stretched the hardware of the time.
I can remember timedemos on a 486/80-- a slow machine for the time, but one that would not be absurd for an ordinary home user- and it was pulling less than 1 frame per second, on a machine where Heretic was playable and had a richer, more exciting world. I could see, yes, the enemies are actually made of polygons instead of scaling sprites, but you gave up so much else for it.
I wonder if multiplayer, even more than the “true 3D” is what gave it the sticking power. The lack of story and olive drab level design didn’t matter there as much.
I think long term, absolutely. At the time, though, very few people were playing online, and a lot of the praise heaped on Quake was for the single player game and the visuals, which I never got.
I mean, I was on a Pentium 133, so I could play it pretty much as intended, I just thought it looked ugly. At that point in software mode I didn’t find it looked any better than Magic Carpet, which had stuff like animated waves and water reflections, and you could make a 3D volcano come out of the ground in real time. It’s pretty nuts how far the 3D characters took it.
Side note: Magic Carpet is a technological marvel and we don’t talk about it enough. Peak non-accelerated 3D environments ever, right there.
Oh, man, I’m about to relitigate an almost 30 year old nerd argument. Here we go.
I thought Quake looked like crap.
It’s brown, and blocky and chunky and in software mode at 320x200 it’s barely putting together a readable, coherent picture at all. Compared to what the peak of legacy tech was at the time, which was probably Duke Nukem 3D, I thought it was a genuine step backwards.
Now, it played well, it was fast and they got a ton of mileage out of the real 3D geometry to make crazy and cool level designs. But visually? Hot garbage.
You’re right that the game changer was actually 3D acceleration, and Quake did come to life when it started hitting HD resolutions of 480p or (gasp) 800p, comparable to what we were already getting in Build engine games and 2D PC games elsewhere, but the underlying assets are still very, VERY ugly. To me it all came together in Quake 2, which was clearly built for the hardware. That’s when I went “well, I need one of these cards now” and went to get a Nvidia Riva.
I have no complaints about Quake’s sound design, though. I can hear it in my head right now. No music, just sound effects. I don’t know what that shotgun sound is taken from, but it’s definitely not a shotgun and it sounds absolutely amazing.
Oh, and on the original point, I’m not super sure of “graphics can’t get any better” beign a thing that I thought, but I do remember when somebody showed me a PS2 screenshot of Silent Hill 2 gameplay in a magazine I mocked them for clearly having mistaken a prerendered cutscene for real time graphics. Good times.
I will agree with you. Quake came out and really stretched the hardware of the time.
I can remember timedemos on a 486/80-- a slow machine for the time, but one that would not be absurd for an ordinary home user- and it was pulling less than 1 frame per second, on a machine where Heretic was playable and had a richer, more exciting world. I could see, yes, the enemies are actually made of polygons instead of scaling sprites, but you gave up so much else for it.
I wonder if multiplayer, even more than the “true 3D” is what gave it the sticking power. The lack of story and olive drab level design didn’t matter there as much.
I think long term, absolutely. At the time, though, very few people were playing online, and a lot of the praise heaped on Quake was for the single player game and the visuals, which I never got.
I mean, I was on a Pentium 133, so I could play it pretty much as intended, I just thought it looked ugly. At that point in software mode I didn’t find it looked any better than Magic Carpet, which had stuff like animated waves and water reflections, and you could make a 3D volcano come out of the ground in real time. It’s pretty nuts how far the 3D characters took it.
Side note: Magic Carpet is a technological marvel and we don’t talk about it enough. Peak non-accelerated 3D environments ever, right there.