🚀 go-pugleaf

mnob...@monmouth.com (Michael Nobilio) wrote:

>On 27 Jun 1996 03:32:51 GMT, rot...@ix.netcom.com(Eric Rotbard )
>wrote:

>>In <31CE08...@istar.ca> Greg Sewart <dse...@istar.ca> writes: 
>>
>>>Have you finished it yet?  I have, now I'll just go crazy waiting for 
>>>the full release.  Love those polygon enemies and light source shading.
>>>
>>>Greg
>>
>>I'm a bit disappointed with Quake.  It is evolutionary rather than
>>revolutionary.  I was expecting a lot more, but its just Doom with polygon
>>enemies and nicer graphics and better 3D.  There is still very little
>>interaction with your environment.

>I thought Quake was excellent.  Did you head into the areas where you
>have to dive underwater and come up in the cavern for air?  That was
>pretty slick.

>I don't really know how much farther they could have pushed the title
>graphically, as the single-CPU PC can only do so much.  

It's not in the area of graphics that I find Quake dissapointing, it's
in gameplay.   I have to agree with the original poster, when you boil
it down to the basics, it's just DOOM with a better graphics engine.
I guess after all the hype surrounding this game, I was expecting
something more.   I guess if you strip away the hype and take the game
for what it is, it's pretty cool.  If you compare it to what it was
hyped to be though, it's not even close.

>From what I've been reading, Prey and Unreal will be closer to what I
expected Quake to be.  Time will tell.