🚀 go-pugleaf

> In addition, Quake is also supposed to feature true light-source
> shading, according to Id (and the two previews I have seen).
> There are a lot of things I like in the Daggerfall demo, but the engine
> is not one of them. It is slow (and yes, I know Bethesda says that

The demo is not slow if you use the recommended config.sys (ie lots of 
files and buffers)

> they will fix this, but it will take a lot of fixing to get the FR
> up to, say, Doom standards). Perhaps it uses light-source shading,

It DOES use real time light source shading.  Look at the demo again, 
but, I agree that the lighting effects aren't as dramatic as, say, 
Dungeon Keeper (which also has real time light sourcing check out the 
last two screen shots on their Electronic Arts homepage).  Go look at 
some screen shots of the outdoors in Daggerfall www.bethsoft.com (About 
Daggerfall)  and you should take back any claims about "even Doom has 
better graphics".  Ultima Underworld's graphics are TERRIBLE by today's 
standards, they're worse than Castle Wolfenstein.  The engine runs at 
30fps on pentiums.  That's fine.  As for the interface, if you'd 
followed the threads in this newsgroup before posting you would know 
that the interface/keys/controllers are completely configurable a la 
MechWarrior II.  The "clumsy interface" is the same as Ultima 
Underworld's (I thought you liked that game?)--it's designed for 
beginners.

I agree an overall game comparison is invalid between Quake and 
Daggerfall, but, since they both use advanced 3d engines a comparison of 
the graphics is valid.  I think the amount of detail invested in the 
scenes is defintely higher in Quake, but it seems that this is not a 
necessary issue of the engine, more an issue of [if their fantasy world 
is as big as they say it is they can't be wasting time adding 
crucifixion murals to EVERY corridor in EVERY dungeon].  Back to the 
engine's[well the graphics since neither game is out]--I think I'd give 
Quake a slight edge because of (1) detail (2) 3d monsters [Bethesda 
compromised this probably deciding that detail would be insufficient for 
a fantasy rpg].  However I'm pretty sure that I'm going to enjoy playing 
daggerfall much more because the emphasis in the game is interacting 
with a 3d environment in a much more diverse fashion (outdoors!!).  
Quake=hacknslash. Which is fun for a week or so before you start getting 
bored.  

> but it sure does not look like it does to me. The lighting seems
> pretty uniform. The graphics are okay, but not that much better
> than Ultima Underworld (other than the fact that they are full-
> screen) and definitely not as good as games like Doom or Anvil
> of Dawn (from what I have seen of it). They are not even in the
> same ballpark as the screenshots I have seen for Quake.
> This is not necessarily bad- Quake is an action game, and does
> not have a lot of extra things eating up processor time like
> Daggerfall probably does. If the gameplay is good enough, this
> could be an acceptable tradeoff.



> I could not make a comparison of the engines (not having seen
> the Quake engine yet). I do know that Quake's graphics are MUCH
> better, and I doubt that it will run as slowly or feature as
> clumsy an interface as Daggerfall (using past Id products as
> a basis for comparison). Based on this alone, I find the idea
> that Daggerfall's engine is a "superior product" to be absurd.
> Comparisons of the two games as a whole, on the other hand, is
> practically pointless. The two genres are like apples and
> oranges...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Benjamin E. Sones
> krf9...@uconnvm.uconn.edu