Do you see much potential in the Quake II Engine?

[Ranger366]

[goldenboy]

[Sajt]

[GiffE]

[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]

[Irritant]

[Downsider]

[Sajt]

[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]