Talk:Quake (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sequels

re: (which cannot be regarded as true sequels due to different settings and storylines)

In the medium of video games, the storyline is often secondary to the gameplay; which is nearly identical, and continually refined in the game's sequels. Although the decorations, the environment and the avatars changed, each Quake game was still Quake and a true sequel to the original.

se‧quel 

a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.

an event or circumstance following something; subsequent course of affairs.

a result, consequence, or inference.

172.162.70.95 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

(Moved from Collaboration to Peer Review, due to size of article) This is a classic and important game, with a huge community of fans and I think it should have a better organised page than this. Currently, the page is disorganised and hard to read for a non-fan and is too focused on a Gamefaqsesque jumping guide and details of source codes. Let's make it more encyclopedic and honour this famous game! Coyote-37 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mario Jump

Why is is said that the Mario jump is "a complete violation of physics"? Picture this: you are standing on a stepping stone. 0.01 metres away, there is another stepping stone at equal level. You jump on it. Ta-da! Physics.

Maybe they mean mario jump as in, you jump unrealisticly fast, or unrealisticly high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBloves2rock2626 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah ... read the rest of the article. This is referring to your ability to change your movement vector in midair, even though you have no contact with the ground or other realistic way of propelling yourself in this way. Much like Mario or certain other platform games - both in those and Quake you can (rocket) jump straight up, then operate the forward/back (and left/right) controls to drift onto a nearby ledge without having taken the necessary run-up on the ground. Though this may be a necessary kludge in order to allow the impression of more natural finesse in controlling your character with relatively simple controls (ie keyboard cursors and jump/crouch keys) that would otherwise be possible. It is, however, still a violation of the laws of physics - unless of course your battle suit has a number of miniature reaction thrusters built into it... the actual jump height and running speed is fairly realistic, though you can of course exceed those limits with cheat tweaks to the game engine, for example gravity strength :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Title?

Why is this article at Quake computer game instead of just Quake? There is only one thing I'm aware of that we would want to cover that is known as "quake". The fact that in colloquial English the word "quake" is sometimes used as a shortened form of "earthquake", does not warrent disambiguation; an encyclopedia would never have an article called "quake" and have that article be about earthquakes. Therefore no reasonably intelligent person would ever link to quake expecting to directly link to an article about earthquakes. I'll move the article myself in a few days. --mav 01:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, quake is also a noun: "An instance of quaking.", and a verb: "I quake with fear." However, you may be correct. A search for "doom" doesn't turn up information on "Inevitable destruction or ruin", it points directly to the entry pertaining to the computer game. After reviewing the wiki naming conventions, I'm still not sure what should be done in this case. If we follow the guidelines for movie titles, though (which seem appropriate in this case) it seems the objective is disambiguation. "Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms." "Quake" is a term, so I would presume that the "computer game" suffix may be proper. This may be a unique case, however. Personally, I'm okay with it the way it is. It might even be 'proper', infact, to alter the entry for Doom to "Doom computer game". Both are terms, and rather ambiguous. --Clone 17 Aug 2003

Hello Clone and welcome to Wikipedia. Note that "mav", who made the original suggestion, just happens to be the most active Wikipedian, with around 40,000 edits to his name, so he probably is aware of the naming conventions :) Quake sounds fine to me. -- Tim Starling 03:13, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Now that's what I call being a suck up! The Wikipedia Mafia rules!.

As a matter of fact I helped write the naming conventions and was the person who majorly refactored the naming conventions page. :) --mav

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we would never have an entry on the dicitonary definitions. --mav 03:22, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Page moved per above. --mav

---

I suppose the naming conventions might need some clarification, then (at this point in my involvement I don't feel qualified for such an addition =/). I did check out Mav's user page and was most impressed. An alternative point of view should always be welcome, though; simply because someone has held a position longer than most does not necessarily mean that they are always irrefutably correct. I agree with you, though. Unless someone else voices confussion or concerns over ambiguity (I simply typed in "Quake" to begin with, anyway, so it would have saved me some trouble), we'll leave nouns and verbs to the wiktionary :). Glad to start contributing to the project. --Clone 03:53, 17 Aug 2003

Thanks! :) --mav

---

Quake has perpetuated an odd misuse of the word "strafe"

Strafe does not mean to step sideways or run sideways; it has no relation to movement, lateral or otherwise. How it came to mean what it does in Quake et al is a mystery I would like to solve.

As a verb, strafe means, "to attack (ground troops, for example) with a machine gun or cannon from a low-flying aircraft." As a noun, it means, "an attack of machine-gun or cannon fire from a low-flying aircraft."

It originates from the German phrase Gott strafe England ("God punish England") a common salutation in Germany in 1914 and the following years.

It was used (originally by British soldiers) in various senses suggested by its origin: To punish; to do damage to; to attack fiercely; to heap imprecations on. In later military usage, it came to mean to attack from low-flying aircraft with bombs or machine-gun fire, etc.

(References: The Oxford English Dictionary, various other garden-variety desktop dictionaries, dictionary.com)

My suspicion is that its use in the lateral-movement sense in Quake and other FPS games perhaps arose from some kind of simple mistake, and the mistake went uncorrected long enough that the (mis)usage thus became compounded and eventually accepted within the FPS gaming world?

I would dearly love to be enlightened further on this subject.

--c3k 06:08, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

I guess it came from holding down the fire key and walking sideways, thus "strafing" down the enemies. As such, "strafe" is only used improperly as long as you're not shooting at anything. And if you aren't shooting at something, you aren't playing an FPS anyway :) Fredrik 02:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, this use of the word "strafe" dates back to Doom, at least Blufive 11:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strafe in context of Quake is most often a shorthand for circle strafe - literally circling the opponent while firing at her. --The Merciful 18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Strafing" likely referred to the fact that you're supposed to use it when engaging in combat with enemies. At that point, it becomes useful to be able to walk sideways. I'd say that it's a very correct usage if you look at it that way. —Michiel Sikma, 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolfenstein 3D already called the sidestepping strafe left and strafe right in the manual. Cgbuff (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First true 3d game?

I feel that the wording in the intro is inaccurate. Quake was not a major advance in 3D games in that it used true 3D worlds and 3D models - many games had done this before - its only new graphics feature as far as I know was the lightmaps. It's probably true that Quake was the game that spurred the transition from 2.5D to 3D, but that should be clarified. Fredrik 02:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

not that I'm aware of - you might want to enumerate those games you feel provided full 3d worlds and models. --wgm

Unfortunately I don't know any titles, but I would be surprised if there weren't any non-textured fully 3D games before Quake. Fredrik (talk) 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's rather safe to say there weren't any FPS games. But truth be told, even Elite was 3D. And there were many games (all links to galleries at MobyGames) like Abrams Battle Tank (1988), LHX: Attack Chopper (1990) or Stunts (1990) that were actually fully 3D. Of course, the "3D" environment mostly consisted of a huge plane with a bunch of tetrahedrons thown in the mix (so it wasn't much more 3D than even Doom). As I see the history, personal computers were clearly too slow to render realistic 3D worlds in late 80-s/early 90-s, and so programmers either had to create low-quality true 3D untextured worlds, or seek other ways. id Software managed to created sufficiently simple limited 3D (e.g. most of the time they had to texture only about 25% of a 320x200 screen) for Wolfenstein 3D to make VGA texturing possible. Of course, after that making an untextured game became bad taste. And these could not be made 3D until 486/Pentium, which is when Quake was released. So I think we may safely say that Quake introduced 3D worlds. Explaining that there were games which were fully 3D but extremely simple 3D and untextured and games which were textured, but not really 3D, would not add anything to the article and only confuse the reader, imho.Paranoid 10:21, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned below by an anonymous editor, Descent was an FPS with a fully-3d, texture-mapped environment, including enemies. It pre-dated Quake by about 16 months. Blufive 11:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Joining the debate 2 years later) Even if we are just talking textured 3D first-person shooters, Alien Breed 3D got there first too. Marasmusine 10:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I take that back, because AB3D used sprites for enemies. It was certainly the first time I had seen a spiral staircase though. Marasmusine 10:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Although there might not have been any PC games, it seems to me there must've been console games. Super Mario 64 was released less than a month after Quake, and was probably predated by at least a couple of 3D PlayStation games. Anyone who knows the specifics? Fredrik (talk) 17:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The big question is whether we should care about that. :) Seriously, though, Battle Arena Toshinden 2 was released in December 1995. Lemmings 3D were released in 1995 too, even on the DOS platform (though AFAIR they used sprites). There surely were a couple other games, including Destruction Derby that were textured 3D (with really sucky quality). I think we might want to very briefly explain that Quake's 3D was one of the first, the first in a PC game and the first with decent image quality on all platforms. Paranoid 18:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No Descent was pretty good, fully 3d in world and models, before quake.

Actually dude, descent used sprites, not 3d models. Descent didnt have 3d models until the 3rd game. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually - There might be at least one. Terminator: Future Shock was released in Dec 1995, and the sources I've found say Quake was released in June 1996... So, T:FS vould be said to predate Quake by a few months. Also, I think the first tech demo for Chasm: The Rift came out before the demo of Quake did, but the final game didn't come out until 1997... Mechwarrior 2 certainly came out before both Quake and T:FS - it came in july 1995. And MW2 did have "3d worlds" even if it wasn't a FPS. If I remember correctly, MW2 included some very nifty graphiocs for its time, too - including hi-res support. Krank 14:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's true. Terminator: future shock predates Quake, and is using full 3D world, and characters. And not only that, the "free-look" or "mouse-look" is also first done in Terminator: future shock, so quake wasn't first there either.

And not only that, did you also know that this was the first FPS game where you could climb into a car and drive it in the 3D world? Hadirajan 16:01, 08 March 2006

I vaguely remember reading that although Descent didn't use the standard 2.5D model, it was still limited in that all rooms had to be "deformed cubes", or something like that. The article currently says that "Cubes can be deformed so long as they remain convex", but I don't know how that fits with the definition of "true 3D" (which the article also claims Descent was), or whether a concave space could be trivially simulated by sticking multiple convex ones together. --DocumentN (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Descent's levels may be convex or concave in any way you like; the lowest level building blocks were convex because of the rendering algorithm (you start with the cube the player is in, figure out how each of its sides cover the display, if any of those sides are marked as 'portals' into other cubes, you allow the other cube to draw but only to the section of the screen that the face of the original cube would have been visible on, and repeat until the entire screen is covered with solid walls — it's a simple but effective way to not do any overdraw, saving lots of CPU time) but the worlds they could describe were completely arbitrary. — 78.105.17.36 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought Descent would count as a sim rather than an FPS. Or is that being pedantic? --PenguinCopter (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't simulate anything, other than shooting :> Marasmusine (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was a space sim. Unless the main character was wearing a really elaborate helmet that looked like the inside of a spaceship... --PenguinCopter (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I feel there should be mention made of the change in physics of quakeworld from the original quake. There was a large number of people who wouldn't play quakeworld, in spite of somewhat better management of latency effects, because of these differences. --wgm

Agreed. Quakeworld made things difficult because different clients will render different events due to client-side prediction. --ChrisRuvolo 11:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, according to id, there were no changes to the physics code or rules, even if the behavior sometimes may feel different due to client-side prediction etc. Matthew Vaughan 22:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

If anyone wonders, I got the 4 million figure from John Carmack via e-mail. Fredrik (talk) 08:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cool! :)

---

Can someone increase the brightness/constrast of the pic ? Its almost black on my monitor which has a scale of Brightness=80 and Contrast=80. Jay 11:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Better yet, could someone upload a PNG screenshot instead of the JPG? Fredrik (talk) 11:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I just uploaded a PNG screenshot generated with a modified version of the ProQuake engine. It is gamma corrected by the engine and is using a proper 4:3 aspect ratio. I tried to get the same shot from demo1. It is pretty close. --ChrisRuvolo 11:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Couldn't see a better place to post this. The sentence, "At that time, despite Assembly language optimizations, there were few computers that could run the game at acceptable performance levels without having to disable some of the more advanced graphical features in the game (such as lighting effects).[3]" is wrong in that lighting effects CANNOT be changed, or any other 'advanced grapohical feature', for that matter. Instead, one had to reduce the size of game's viewing window to improve performance. If you read the reference link given (an old Usenet post) you'll see it has been misinterpreted.

Seperate Quake II/III info out to those articles?

I was thinking about seperating out the content that is specific to either QuakeWorld, Quake 2 or Quake 3 into those articles and leaving this article for the original Quake only. Candidates for removal include sections like Double Jump, Bunnyhopping, Plasma Jump and much text interspersed in other sections. Comments? --ChrisRuvolo 16:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This article is only about 'vanilla' quake - plasma jumping doesn't concern me :) I will leave it for someone more knowledgeable to do though! -DesdinovaUK 12:34, 23 Jun 2005

Category Free Software

Why was the Category "Free software" added? Last I checked the game was still commercial. As I look through the other Free software entries, maybe it refers to the engine? This article is about the game though. --145.254.244.60, 6 Feb 2005

See Quake#Source_Code. Yes, it is for the engine, which is part of the game. --ChrisRuvolo 01:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The engine is NOT free software. It is licensed, open-source software.

The engine is GPL licensed so it is free software —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.134.181.224 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I guess the Mac OS X port by Fruitz of Dojo should be mentioned too.

Merge notice

Simon P, why did you remove the merge notice for Chthon (Quake)? The information doesn't stand well on its own and would be better in a list of bosses in this article. Orange Goblin 10:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All two of them? --Shadow Hog 15:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've played the game (which is why I didn't do the merge myself) - I thought there was a boss at the end of each zone. Still, I think the merge would be for the best. Orange Goblin 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a user, who was just trying to look up a monster name from Quake, which I remembered being similar to the word "chthonian", I was disappointed that the Wikipedia article had no match for "chth" anywhere in it, or no link or list of creatures from the game. (Fortunately, the external link to the "Quake Wiki" had the info I needed, but I would vote in favor of a simple list of creatures being included in the Quake entry here). JMD 23:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since there were no dissenting views about the merge and there was a request for a list of monsters, I merged the info from Chthon (Quake) into this article and created a section titled Bosses and Monsters. Those of you who play Quake should add more of them to the appropriate section. Alexlockhart 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Monster List?

Does anyone else think a list of the monsters in Quake would be appropriate? It only needs a summary of each, perhaps highlighting points such as the Shambler's resistance to rockets and grenades...

there's already a list of the monsters in wikipedia. However, the list only shows the description and any weaknesses, not HP. I think that should be changed soon. XanaBlade 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list including monsters added in the Scourge of Armagon and Dissolution of Eternity add-ons? One of the enemies is mentioned in this article, Hephaestus, as being "children of Chthon", but no other monster from the add-ons are mentioned and so there's a lack of consistency. If a seperate list doesn't exist I suggest either adding the add-on monsters to the Quake article, or removing the note about Chthon-like enemies. D Boland 00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC )

I fixed a spelling error on scource of armagon to scourge of armagon. Just to let you know D Bolan. oh and for wiki heres my proof with a link to the id software website showing that its spelled scourge, not scource. http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quake-mp1/ --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tidy up this article

This article is a muddled mess, for some reason overly obsessed with source codes and jumping techniques. Considering this is on of the key landmarks in the history of gaming, I'd love to see it made more readable, with more relevant facts about it listed. The games' impact and legacy should be more prominant and if the article needs padding, then there should be details of the weapons/monster types, not a Gamefaqs jumping guide. I'll try and change what I can, but I don't know the game well (I came here to learn more about it and failed!) and I know there's millions of dedicated Quake fans on the net who could do a better job than me. Coyote-37 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week - nominate it if you so choose. --Shadow Hog 16:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Done. Coyote-37 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The "jumping" part definetly belongs to WikiBooks. Wikipedia isn't a walkthrough or a strategy guide. --The Merciful 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've trimmed the fat a little, but I still think the page needs work. The jumping is gone in it's entirety. Sorry to the person who spent their time putting it in, but it's not necessary to an encyclopedic article. Gamefaqs will tell anyone really interested what they need to know. The History section I've left untouched because I don't feel qualified to judge what is and isn't relevant. However, the section is almost unreadable to a non-fan and needs serious work. Could someone who knows the history of the game take a good look at that section and delete anything they consider irrelevant to the article? Maybe a few more words should be put in about the legacy and importance of the game to gaming history? Coyote-37 13:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

New vocabularity created or established by Quake

I think the article should note the words and terms introduced or stablished by Quake. These would be circle starfe (see "strafe" above), clan (originated by MechWarrior 2, but really established by Quake IIRC) and rocket jump (but we don't need the detailed descritions of various jumps the article had before!). As far I know, these terms were adobted by FPS games pretty much because of Quake... --The Merciful 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Other versions

Surely, you have missed official Amiga ports of Quake (ClickBoom), Quake II PPC and Hexen II PPC (Hyperion)

Also, much of the Gothic style monsters and plots which was a huge difference to Hell-Driven Doom is missing

--Rastavox 23:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Publishers

The assertion that Activision was the publisher of this game is just plain wrong. They are but one of the many companies that has at some point published Quake.

The varied publishing history of Quake 1 goes something like this: id Software was flush with cash from the Doom Series and was tired of being pushed around by their previous publisher, GT Interactive. So they got ambitious and decided that they would publish their new PC game (Quake) themselves using an offshoot of the popular shareware model. They created the first episode, Dimension of the Doomed, which constituted the first fourth of the game, and gave it away for free via download on BBSes and the Internet. But they also did some unique distribution deals, where this first episode could be purchased on CD-ROM (along with the NIN soundtrack) for around $7, not only from software stores, but also from 7-11s. Once the player had installed the game, they could call id’s 1-800 number, purchase the full game (for maybe $30 more). Once purchased, they could either decrypt the rest of the game from their CD-ROM, or if they didn’t already have one, it would be shipped to them.

I don’t remember if GT Interactive had a hand in distributing these shareware-only versions of Quake, but eventually id decided to use GT Interactive to publish the full version of the game on CD-ROM the traditional way. By the time the Mac version of the game hit shelves, the shareware model was quickly being abandoned, and MacSoft published the full game, also on CD-ROM. On the consoles Midway published the Nintendo 64 version of Quake, while Sega published the Saturn version. Eventually id’s contracted with GT ended (or they ended it), and Activision picked up the PC publishing rights to Quake 1. But by then they were already involved with the mission packs and Quake 2. Since then, Activision has been the only publisher of id’s games on the PC.

This leaves the grand-total of publishers of Quake at six: id Software, GT Interactive, MacSoft, Midway, Sega, and Activision.

-- hgb

Test version

I'm fairly sure that the test version was called qtest1 rather than qtest. Cpc464 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

GameSpy refers to it as "qtest". But I do see references to "qtest1.zip" online. -- Hardgoodbye 08:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It was always known as qtest1.zip since 1996 I reckon. I also have Quake shareware 0.91 :P CheapAlert 07:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since when did gamespy ever define the community of quake except when it took over PlanetQuake and destroyed the history (mod websites, files etc) of our favorite game. - L2D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.161.125 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

"Although a GPL release of all of the quake1 maps is planned"

I have removed the statement: "(although a GPL release of all of the quake1 maps is planned)" from the article, because I think it's an unsubstantiated rumour. Anyone who wishes to re-add it, please provide an off-site reference. --65.87.249.137 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gameplay cleanup

The Quake#Gameplay section reads like an IGN review and needs cleanup. Here's a possible start:

Quake's gameplay is a natural evolution from iD's previous shooter, Doom. Because Quake's environments are truly 3D, however, players have much more freedom of movement, leaping or rocket jumping over pits.

24.71.91.173 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Source Engine is not based on Quake1, or anything!

Please read: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-3.html "By the end of the summer it became clear that Valve would need a new game engine to pull off its ambitious goals. (Valve licensed id Software's Quake engine for the original Half-Life). While Valve looked at licensing an engine for the sequel--such as id's Quake III engine--the team concluded that no outside technology was a good match for Valve's ambitious plans. "Id's stuff is always cutting-edge, but this time we wanted to cut some different edges," says Valve cofounder Mike Harrington. Valve, it seemed, would have to build its own engine from scratch." Moreover, the GldSrc page does not mention the Source engine. If you're going to make stuff up, at least be consistent! I'm removing the mention again. DoomBringer 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

John Carmack disagrees. http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/johnc/Recent%20Updates/Archive?news_id=290 CheapAlert 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

as well as the entire quake engine programming community, http://www.quakesrc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5301 CheapAlert 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I don't know what to think on the issue. Personally, I doubt there is much code left over from Quake 1. A few questions: does Id receive royalties for it? At what point, in terms of overall code percentage, perhaps, does something stop being derived from and a wholly new engine? For instance, Windows, at one point, contained BSD code (in the network stack) IIRC. No one ever claimed that all of Windows was based off the TCP/IP stack from BSD or whatever. Given that I don't have full access to the source engine source code, I can't investigate the issue in depth. DoomBringer 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Press hype shouldn't be relied on as real reliable information about engines. Gabe Newell also claimed Valve created the HDR effect in Lost Coast's commentary too (It was originally concieved in 2002). Also note that HL2 still retains alot of commands and such carried from Quake and Half-Life, such as "impulse" (which was removed in Quake2), chase_active/thirdperson, and the movement physics (NOT Havok physics, I am referring to general player/projectile/entity movement). If you cut past the hype and study closer and inspect hard, you'll find it's obvious inner Quake workings. CheapAlert 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of Quake left in the Source engine, that much is obvious. Upon technical inspection, it still uses very much the same map format. The SDK game code reveals the same basic structure for most of it that Quake had (although it was converted to C++). Anyone who's played Quake recognizes the exact same movement physics as Half-Life and Quake had. Source is based on HL, which was based on Quake, and there is still enough Quake in the final product that I think it's legitimate to call the Source Engine a Quake Engine spin-off. For a comparison, you can look at the Doom 3 engine, which, despite being written by the author of the Quake engine, has far less in common with Quake than the Source engine does. - Sajt 09:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this will close this issue raised by comments by Valve. HL2 is derivative. --Tei

... and isn't listed again! 189.34.0.70 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quake's release date

It's not May 31. It's July 21 or 22, for the final v1.01 release anyway.

June 22 is the shareware 0.91 release date, which was rather buggy and had alot of things changed between 1.01 (such as "Quake power" instead of "Quad Damage". CheapAlert 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just getting started

I don't want to discourage anyone else from editing, but I have just gotten started on adding much more material and re-writing (and doing the same with associated articles, as seeminly every time I followed a link, I found something else to edit...). I have only done a fraction of what needs to be done. As more material is added, it will then get easier to chip away at it, removing the irrelevant, re-writing, re-organizing, and splitting topics off into their own articles as appropriate. So it is early going yet, I have much more I plan to do, but it will take a while. I will also read over this discussion page more as I come back to this to see what other people think it needs. There is good information here, too, such as the publishing history, and yes, I will try to add the monsters, levels, items, credits, etc., and fact-check dates and more (I have seen conflicting publication dates in different sources, for instance). And document sources, which I'm not great about usually but will probably obsess over at some point. But probably not today! Matthew Vaughan 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article now contains most of the needed technical information. But it is somewhat large and unwieldy. And does it adequately communicate the true importance of Quake, its impact and influence on subsequent games and gaming?

Besides simply being popular, and making advances in the engine graphics (leading to use of the engine in other games), in what other ways was Quake influential?

- TCP/IP capability combined with the full client-server model and multiple players per game (instead of just 1v1) allowed for widespread online gameplay on the then newly-popular Internet, and the rise of clans, ladders, regular tournaments, etc., not to mention just hopping online to hang out on game servers as a common (not to mention addictive) recreational activity. (I am SURE that we haven't adequately depicted how addicting the online gameplay was, and why, particularly amongst responsible adults, not just susceptible teenagers, or how much of their lives people devoted to the game, in terms of gameplay, creating mods, organizing tournaments, and both reading and writing about it.)

(this, then leads to QuakeWorld, which made online gameplay truly playable and fun for most, and another major increase in its popularity as an online game, in addition to allowing players to literally play on servers around the world)

- multiplayer-specific levels that emphasize balance and control of resources (without usable multiplayer, there is little use for multiplayer levels)

- reliable "in eyes" demo recording and playback allowed people to learn from how others played, increasing the skill level of many, as well as spawning new artforms and gameplay styles, such as speed running and Machinima (which also took advantage of the ability to edit the camera angles etc. after the fact), as well as increasing the popularity of tournaments and competitions far beyond their participants, turning Quake into a spectator sport (and firing the imagination as to how such things could develop in the future). (And maybe also some note of things like "Quake TV", which allow live viewing via proxies. Not really related to demo/movie recording technologically, but still an aspect of spectator involvement.)

- modifiability allowed for huge numbers of new levels, models, textures, etc., as well as modifications of gameplay rules and new gametypes.

What else was important, and should be emphasized? What should someone who doesn't know anything about Quake REALLY get from the article? While I at first thought it was important to list the basics, the weapons and levels and all that, I think there has been a huge overemphasis on, for instance, the Lovecraftian influence or the details of the single-player monsters. After the first few days of playing, such things become unimportant, and they were not responsible for any of Quake's important influences on other games or on electronic gameplay generally. And despite the attention to ports, the vast majority of people played it on PCs or the Macintosh. Most of the other variants might never have existed and it wouldn't have impacted Quake's influence or popularity one bit (the only possible exception being Unix servers, which facilitated it being installed on existing servers at ISPs, universities, etc.).

Other things that I think might be a bit more important or interesting than are commonly recognized, but which are taken for granted and not talked about much, are teleporters, bots, and the now-common mouse+keyboard navigation technique (particularly the rise of "wasd"). Teleporters weren't unique to Quake, or widely copied in any form that approached their success in Quake, but do have interesting and unique influences on Quake's particular gameplay, particularly affecting style and tactics in the multiplayer game (think DM4 and DM6, for instance). Bots (in terms of attempts to make smart multiplayer opponents) weren't made by id themselves, and never became hugely popular, but DID have a big influence on future games, such as Unreal Tournament and Quake III. This technology brought a whole new gameplay experience to the single-player game, allowing more players to experience the higher level of intensity, unpredictability, and replayability found in multiplayer games, something that gave the games a "rush" and fun factor they didn't often achieve with typical single-player gameplay (and transforming the game from a ambience and suspense-laden dungeon crawl into a sort of sport). As for navigation, if everyone were fluent in mouse+wasd movement and navigation (a particular combination that was NOT remotely popular or standardized until Quake arrived, was adopted gradually among many Quake players, then gradually became a standard layout for subsequent games), it could solve many problems faced by 3D navigation, on the Internet and elsewhere.

We've also done a remarkable job of avoiding any discussion of the controversy over games and violence, often centering on id games such as Quake. :)

In addition, as the article has grown larger, it increasingly has needed to be split. But how? What areas would warrant becoming articles unto themselves? Quake multiplayer would seem the most likely (which would pertain to both Quake and QuakeWorld), allowing for more of the history of clans, leagues, and tournaments, as well as discussion of the people involved. Demo recording generally, as both a precursor to Machinima and as it influenced gameplay (multiplayer/tournaments, and speedrunning), perhaps? Modifications and add-ons? What else?

Matthew Vaughan 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Chthon really invulnerable?

Just asking - is Chthon really invulnerable to anything except the lightning trap? I'm asking this question because there's a famous speed run, Dimension of the Gibbed, where a group of people destroy Chthon with rockets (well, the idea of the video was to gib everything in the game, and Chthon isn't exactly gibbed by the lightning trap...) Anyone care to read some QuakeC, or try this out with a half a dozen other players in multiplayer? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a fairly large Quake patch. I'll check the original source when I get home, but I'm pretty sure there's a check in the TakeDamage() function which causes it to return. Toby Douglass 13:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chthon is officially invulnerable, you're probably watching a demo that involved a mod to give him a damagable flag. Shub Niggurath isn't invulnerable though, but a very high crapload of health, though the game crashes if you kill shub with other means than telefrag (unlike the prerelease, where grenades over a wall is key to killing shub instead of telefragging). CheapAlert 08:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chthon is not invulnerable, weapons just dont work on him. The strange thing I noticed was that if u toook an axe and hit chthon, you would hear a *dink* like your hitting a wall. However if he was invincible the two electrdes wouldn't work. XanaBlade 10:30 September 29, 2006

Chthon is invulnerable, CheapAlert is correct. There is nothing in the code that allows him to take damage. The Electrodes run increment a counter and finally run a seperate sub rountine that plays the death animation. You cannot inflict actual damage against Chthon tho. Surely a more important question is why a monster who's only vunerability is electricity would decide to build a lair directly beneath two giant electrodes... the estate agent that sold that one must really have been on fire that day. Elaverick 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he is being held against his will there? ;) 207.112.36.15 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Designer: John Carmack?

As far as I know, he only did programming on this title, and a more appropriate designer to list on the mainpage sidebar would be John Romero. The article itself even makes mention of Romero's importance to the design.

Shub-Niggurath

Fixed the references describing the final boss as actually being Shub-Niggurath; it's not, it's a Dark Young. The creature depicted in the final level is nowhere near big enough to be the Black Goat herself and doesn't look anything like the description of her. Hrimfaxi 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quake is not a game based on the Mythos, the designs aren't direct depictions but rather inspirations. I rephrased the Shubby part a bit, though the meaning should stay the same. 82.139.47.117 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok for stupid people who dont pay attention. And probably never have played the game before. The charecter is called Shub Niggurath and heres proof.http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quake-mp1/ --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.  Xihr  01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• The point is not what the character is called, it's what the character is. Look at [[1]] and tell me honestly; which of the things pictured looks more like the final boss of Quake, the huge hovering thing or the Dark Young below her? Herr Gruber (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not for us to determine. Please see our policies on WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• • It can be verified that the image we have of a Dark Young is virtually a carbon copy of the creature from Quake; the Quake one is white instead of black and only has three tentacles, but the intent is obvious. The most obvious citation would be Chaosium's monster descriptions for the two creatures and / or Robert Bloch's description (though in his story what ended up being a Dark Young was supposed to be a Shoggoth), though sadly I don't have my sourcebook for a page ref anymore. WP:OR is not for removing conclusions any rational human being is able to make. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, uncited comparison of one image to another is unpublished analysis. The model is not a carbon copy. Personally, yes, I see that the Dark Young image is the inspiration, but we'll need a source that explicitly states this. Marasmusine (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I don't think we do. All we need is to cite the relevant Chaosium page for the image / description to say it resembles that description more than it resembles any published description of Shub-Niggurath (it's particularly easy since Shubby in Chaosium is one of those mile-long mass of "we're not going to describe it" deals, and I don't think any other source has actually described her at all; also, you don't seem to have a problem with the equally unsourced claim that the monsters don't look like what they're supposed to be, which is pretty much the same level of ORishness). Herr Gruber (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, found a reference on Quaddicted.com, which is already used for one ref in the article and notes the connection to Bloch's "Dark Young" description specifically. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1)I haven't yet thoroughly gone through this section. 2) Quaddicted should not be being used as a source (WP:RS). The best bet might be an Edge-style "making of" feature. When I get time I'll go through my archives, but we only make comparisons that reliable sources have made. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Acctually, In game, It is DIRECTLY stated in one of the text info-screens, that "quake" IS shub-niggurath, and the final boss IS shub-niggurath. 67.193.181.166 (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rocket vs Grenade damage

When I first put this in, I believe I stated that rockets and grenades do the same damage. It was later edited to say rockets do slightly less damage than grenades. It has more recently been edited to say rockets do MORE damage than grenades.

Here's what I glean from weapons.rc and combat.rc (about which I am far from an expert, please correct me if my reading of this is incorrect):

When a grenade explodes, it does 120 base splash damage (variable with distance) to all targets within range.

When a rocket explodes, it does either (a) 100-120 (random) damage to a target it hits directly, or (b) 120 base spash damage (variable with distance) to targets within range that it does not hit directly.

(Shamblers take 50% of either rocket or grenade damage in any case, whether direct or splash.)

So if a rocket is doing splash damage (hits the floor, etc.), then it does the same damage as a grenade.

The comparison gets trickier if the rocket hits the target directly - there is only a 5% chance the damage is as high as the splash damage base, but it is not reduced by distance either. I don't know how that usually works out in actual gameplay.

To be as accurate and correct as possible without going into all this complexity (which is even more complex than I've outlined here, in terms of calculating splash damage), should we perhaps say something to the effect that rockets do ROUGHLY the same damage as grenades?

actually it depends on what kind of rocket and/or grenade youare talking about.....like afrag grenade. XanaBlade 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First Clans

Should someone put up the first 2 clans which were Dogs of War, and Green Panthers, as I recall? Might make sense to give credit to the two groups.

I think that is getting into too much detail for an article that is already becoming too large. I have already suggested splitting out Internet play into a separate article, in which it WOULD be appropriate. Matthew Vaughan 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, how does one go about splitting internet play out?

Hmm, I don't recognize those clans, and I was pretty active back in the day. The clans concept (within Quake, at least) was popularized by an individual known as Moebius of a clan called Red Dragons. He was commonly considered the originator of the practice. I'm particularly certain of the name, as my own nickname was also Moebius, but of another clan, Dark Requiem. I was often confused for him - he was RD-Moebius and I was [DR]Moebius :P Pimlottc 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. Clan Red Dragon is still around and has a nice history section that also reprints an old article retelling the history of ClanRing, at the time the "major leagues" of Quake clan tournement play. Ah, man, really brings back some memories... Pimlottc 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops my mistake, got confused, they were two of the first teamfortress clans.

Maps/levels

It would be good to add some more information about the maps, specifically the deathmatch maps. DM1-DM6 are ingrained into the memories of many deathmatchers :) I can add this but do people think it is over the top? -- Chuq 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough info, history, strategies, etc. to possibly put that in a seperate Quake deathmatch article. It could cover 1v1 strat (DM2, DM4, DM6), 4v4 strat (DM3), important online competitions (Clanring tournament, MLQ, etc.), LAN parties (DCCon, Quakecon), notable clans, and so forth. Your thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly - I would think that some other articles could include more generic information - like Deathmatch (gaming), LAN party, rocket jumping - then specific game articles like Quake could include their own section on "Maps" (or levels? I call them maps) and "Strategies", either as a generic section, or a section specific to each map. Wikipedia is not a usage guide though so this may not be suitable -- Chuq 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Added episode/map table

The episode/map table was removed at some point without information. I think it's useful (and it's the only i was able to find which contains credit information about the maps), so i brought it back from an older revision that contained it. I added it below the single player node, where it seems to belong (although i'm not sure i like it so close to the top of the page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badsectoracula (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because this is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. See WP:NOT. Xihr (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

decs

How is a list of the levels and the name of the creator of each level a game guide? A game guide would be saying how many rocket launchers there are, how to get the quad damage, and listing the best places on the map for camping. -- Chuq (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's only information that is useful to people playing the game, which is how the Wikipedia guidelines define game guide material. To those interested in an encyclopedic article about what the game Quake is fundamentally about, it is irrelevant -- and Wikipedia requires the latter, not the former. See, as I said, WP:NOT, and while you're at it, WP:VG/GL. Xihr (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the name of the level and the name of the creator of the level assist in playing the game in any way? Can someone explain? -- Chuq (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I was simply interested in the background of the game's development (being interested in game development history) and wondered who made each map, which has zero usefulness when it comes to playing the game (but it's useful to someone like me, who is interested in such things). As WP:NOT says, i 'expected' to find such information here, but did not. However i remember reading somewhere that the full list was in Wikipedia and since i found nothing here, i thought to dig the archives. So i found it and given that this has nothing to do with game guides (i saw that comment, btw), i just restored the content. Kostas ''Bad Sector'' Michalopoulos (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable omissions

I was amazed there was no references before to NetQuake (network quake with the original LAN-based quake engine, as opposed to quakeworld) or VQuake (the first 3d accelerated version of quake, pre-dating glquake). I've gone and added them. Pimlottc 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because there is no seperate "NetQuake" - it's only referred to the non-QW clients and servers. CheapAlert 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NetQuake is a pretty common retronym in the multiplayer community to differentiate from QuakeWorld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Story

I have added the offical story found in the quake game manual, I thought it was needed, rather than a paraphrased version. Shocked me that it wasnt there already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livethefire (talk • contribs) .

I have reverted this edit because it is a copyright violation.—mjb 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it accually :S, Sorry never knew, its the offical story, so i thought it belonged, that isnt even on the idsoftware website, only on fansites, and in the manual. Sorry (Livethefire 11:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Mplayer.com

Mention should be made of the websites around which quake play centered. I say this because I had hoped the quake article would link to the Mplayer.com article. Mathiastck 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Forces edit

See this edit. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Dark Forces another game that uses a technique similar to Doom for rendering? Therefore, isn't it true that it cannot have floor-over-floors, and that looking up and down is still done via y-shearing? Admittedly, I've not played Dark Forces, but if the game had that many new techniques applied to it I'm surprised Quake's engine was anywhere near as ground-breaking as it was. --Shadow Hog 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Forces was doom-style. It used a similar "faked" look up/down mechanism to that in Doom-engine games like Heretic. As such, that part of the assertion in the edit comment is false. However, the core assertion stands - Descent was released significantly before Quake and, as far as I know, was the first true 3D world with 3D models for enemies in an FPS (though flight sims had them somewhat earlier, I think). That part of this article needs a bit more work in any case - Wolf3D didn't allow look up/down, and nor did the original Doom (though some later Doom-engine games such as Heretic did) the current text implies that they both did. Blufive 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Hi! While being new to wikipedia, I think that that this part seems a little "weasly": "It can be said that the original Quake game pushed most PC hardware to its limits"... Can it? Even if it probably is true, it seems like the writers opinion. Maybe a rephrasing? Hotdogger 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition the 486 *does* have an integrated FPU. --84.209.210.1 09:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the 486DX class, not the SX. Leileilol 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right, Hotdogger. It is ungrammatical, POV, and full of unverified or unverifiable supposition. I started to try to fix it, but then I realized that the useful bits were already detailed in other parts of the article. I've removed it. Here's the paragraph as it appeared.

It can be said that the original Quake game pushed most PC hardware to its limits, due to never-before-seen features it offered: complex textured 3D environments, polygon-modelled enemies with certain intelligence, and the like. Quake was able to overshadow almost all 3D-shooters at the time, including Blood and Duke Nukem 3D, both based on simpler 3D requirements and sprite-based characters. In fact, the slow operation of Quake on most 486 processors due to their relatively weak (compared to the original Pentium) integrated floating-point processor (486SX CPUs were not supported at all because they did not have a working FPU) pushed many people to upgrade to Pentium processors, while the excellent performance of the Pentium Pro, coupled with a fast graphics card, led to many servers and high-end workstations being used for Quake gaming. Its mixture of dark, horror fantasy with good 3D shooting action was a major departure from other light-themed games of the time. The game was hyped very intensively before its publication and single player mode was a slight disappointment for people who had waited game to be as revolutionary as Doom was. After Duke Nukem 3D, released half years earlier, Quake was not such jaw-dropper as Doom had been, but it anyway became unbelievably popular especially as multi-player game.

—CKA3KA (Skazka) 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

obvious things ???

"In single-player mode, players explore and navigate to the exit of each level, facing many challenging monsters and a few secret areas along the way. Usually there are buttons to press or keys to collect in order to open doors before the exit can be reached. Once reaching the exit, the game takes the player to the next level. Quake's single-player campaign is organized into four individual episodes of about eight levels each (each including a secret level, one of which is a "low gravity" level - Ziggurat Vertigo in Episode 1, Dimension of the Doomed - that challenges the player's abilities in a different way). As items are collected, they are carried to the next level, each usually more challenging than the last. If the player dies during a level, he is restarted at the beginning of the level and loses all his items. However, games may be saved at any time." I think all of this is obvious for all first person shooters. This is redundant isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.103.180 (talk • contribs)

No. Look at games like the original Half Life for a counter-example. This article should be a full intro to anyone who has never heard of or played the game. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying Release Date

The article lists the release date as June 22. This reference - http://www.bluesnews.com/archives/july96.html lists the Retail release date as July 22. What was the June 22 Release? a mail order release, or online/bulletin board release?

Perhaps we should clarify and list the retail release date as well.

--Windsok 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The June 22 release date is the original 0.91 shareware release date. July 23 is the finalized 1.01 build retail release. Leileilol 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

July 22nd is when it went gold/final? Liv3d (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannon

Enforcers weapon is "ice cannon", not laser cannon. 82.141.159.95 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no Ice Cannon in Quake. LASER.MDL is clearly orange. Perhaps you're playing a mod? Leileilol 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quake-Wiki

Is there a Wikia for Quake? Morris Munroe 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.quakesrc.org Leileilol 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSrc.org is permanently offline, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Replacement artwork

I think that additional section about replacement artwork for Quake should be added - namely: Quake Revitalization Project (higher quality textures and models) Mindgrid:Audio - Quake (higher quality sounds)

Cuts

Could we get some info on the ommissions from Quake as has been done with the HL2 page? Romero later released an extended introduction to one of the levels (Episode 2 something IIRC), but I can't remeber if it was cut for length or development time. Also there's not much mention of the dragon that was so iconic in the earliest pre-release shots. I know that was dropped because of issues with the AI, but made a semi-reappearence in the Disoultion of Eternity Mission pack. I think most of this was gone into in an interview for one of the QExpo's but I can't remeber where that was. Elaverick 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruft

I fail to see where Halo has lists of every single gameplay thing (i.e. as if it were a game guide). It is Ok to describe them in the gameplay section, but there is no reason at all to have lists of them. Nemu 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Halo article has this information, it is just in prose format, not list format. That is why I thought if the problem was the format, not the content, then the most appropriate response would be to re-format/re-write, not to delete outright. The information is verifiable, notable in the context of the game, and is written from a neutral POV, so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be included - the content is not a walkthrough, or a list of game tips or advice. -- Chuq (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with both the content and the format. The Halo article has general information. It has nothing resembling anything in here. It describes the weapons in general, not every one of them. None of the information can be turned into acceptable prose. I cannot take the list of enemies and say more than "The enemies are generally x."

This is definite game guide material. Listing every enemy is something a guide would do. This is totally useless to anyone besides a person needing specifics in the game. To restate, we need a general description of the sections; keeping this information will not help lead to it. Nemu 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeamFortress paragraph is innaccurate.

The TeamFortress mod for quake 1 was not strictly Capture-the-Flag based, but allowed the map designer to create customized goals through a kind of scripting system. While many of the popular maps were CTF, there were notable exceptions - CanalZone being the most obvious. See also border1, and the "colony" maps, among others. This should probably be reflected in the TeamFortress section under Mods, which currently suggests that it was purely CTF. Daeval 06:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, this is a valid complaint. One of the most popular Quake TF maps back in the day was Well2, and it had no flags whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Threewave CTF was not the first major Quake mod.

The Way Back Machine shows the original threewave.com website by the mod author claiming he wrote it in September 1996. [2] The local Wikipedia article on [Team_Fortress] claims a release date of August 24, 1996. Quake history sites [3] claim TF was created July 25th 1996 and released August 24th 1996.

Does anyone have a source that contradicts this? If not, the article needs changing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.244.215.90 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

See - Quake History In A Nutshell by Methos [4] "David "Zoid" Kirsch sets up the first Threewave Capture The Flag server on Oct 2nd, 1996." Methosq.com has been running since at least 1997, so the information should be accurate, however... there is also a post on BluesNews from Oct 2nd, 1996 [5] where Blue has posted an email directly from Dave Kirsch (the author of Threewave CTF), which seems to indicate that his CTF server has been running for at least day or so already. My server (and my friends) are packed pratically 24hrs a day - David "Zoid" Kirsch Oct 2nd, 1996. Since the very first version of Threewave CTF took "a couple of days to code" [6], I would say September 1996 is correct. Megazoid 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Enemies

Quake had memorable enemies. The article should reflect this. Vranak

Memorable? Maybe. Notable? Definitely not. Ong elvin (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude what he hell are you talking about, he never mentioned notable. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quake.gif

Image:Quake.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WinQuake and GLQuake

WinQuake wasn't released after GLQuake, it must be the other way around. WinQuake was released before GLQuake. OpenGL graphics were quite new at the time, and could only work in a Windows based program. — Raffaello9 | Talk 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From Michael Abrash's Black Book, Chapter 70[7]: "Verite Quake was the first hardware accelerated version of Quake.", "The second (and, according to current plans, last) port of Quake to a hardware accelerator was an OpenGL version, GLQuake, a native Win32 application." WinQuake is mentioned after this (though not explicitly called the "third" port), and then QuakeWorld. At any rate he does say that VQuake was "first" and GLQuake was "second", which means that WinQuake came after. (Though the order of the sections puts QuakeWorld in a curious position.) - Rainwarrior 04:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Abrash is just listing the hardware accelerated engines next to each other. WinQuake wasn't hardware accelerated; WinQuake was purely software rendered.

Comparison with SecondLife

The article talks about the high graphical requirements of the SecondLife "game". I would like to know what makes the game any more demanding than games like GarrysMod - which deal with network players creating and destroying *physics* objects in real-time, as well as rendering the standard HL2 effects (shadows, post-processing).84.9.166.253 12:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In a game with breakable and movable objects, the map polygons defining the play area still make up a far higher polygon count than those few scattered objects. A game like Half Life 2 has the player crawling over piles of debris, fallen rock, shattered buildings, and so on, that cannot be moved or changed in any way. Removing backfaces from these static objects reduces the engine processing by 50% or more, freeing up 3D and CPU processing for more shadow and lighting effects.

Second Life cannot do any backface removal, since anything can change at any time, and hence the rendering load is far higher than any retail game, and lighting and shadows are far more difficult to do.

GarrysMod operates similar to Second Life and can't pre-render the world, and similarly has less CPU available for effects, though the complexity of a GarrysMod world will likely never reach the full complexity of a Second Life environment with thousands of individually-rendered non-static objects. A true equivelance would be to start with just flat open ground and construct buildings and a whole landscape with only breakable physical objects. Such a space would render very slowly with GarrysMod.

DMahalko (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

• Aug-Oct, 1996 - Verite Quake betas (VQuake)[8][9]

• Jan 22nd, 1997 - GLQuake released in beta [10]

• Feb 5th, 1997 WinQuake .99 (v1.07) open beta [11] - Megazoid 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

good article. The information on the graphical aspect is great! thanks a lot for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.112.79 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

more mods

Added more mods that were not listed. and mods could run on both quake and quakeworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhcompy (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is getting UPtarded

Why is there all this 3D rendering crap on this page?! And stuff about CAD and graphics cards? Someone please trim this down or move it to the proper pages or I am gonna come through here with an axe and a fine-toothed comb. This stuff is totally off-topic and not relevant to Quake. Dudeman1st (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider summarizing it here under the "Quake engine" section and then pasting it into Quake engine? I don't think the material is particularly off topic (Quake was a landmark in 3D games), and a lot of it is worth keeping, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in this article. - Rainwarrior (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the content is reasonable for the Quake engine article, but is verbose and inappropriate here. Xihr (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I completely agree that the information is well written and deserves an article, just not this one. It is definitely appropriate and would fit wonderfully under a Quake engine article. I have placed other suggestions below. Dudeman1st (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and I see you've contributed volumes of quality content to wikipedia already Special:Contributions/Dudeman1st so you're obviously an expert on article development. Do you know anything about the revered history and legacy of Quake in the development of 3D gaming as an industry? It is not totally off-topic as you put it, but I won't argue with a moron. Sections moved to quake engine. DMahalko (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

DMahalko, while it is true that the engine provided leaps and bounds in 3D technology and gaming, Dudeman1st is still correct in that Quake isn't quite the right place for so much detail. Such detail is more about the engine and a history of 3D engines, rather than about the game itself. Furthermore, the same engine base is used in all Quake games, and a very large number of other games (Half-Life notwithstanding). As I recall, all idSoftware games after Quake use an engine derived from the idtech engine, so it is better organisation to just leave a "the engine of [original] Quake was a major technological breakthrough" on the Quake page, and a link to the idtech engine wiki. The question here isn't one of "do you know anything about the history/legacy of Quake in relation to 3D gaming." The question here is "Does information about the technological innovations of the Quake engine in this level of detail suited to being on the Quake wiki, or should it be split off." Ong elvin (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the article where I think that it should be split off. I have placed the credits where I think the article should intuitively end. I guess other stuff might be included (that I left below the credits), maybe picking up at "Source code and Legacy...". Sorry if I offended anyone with my original post. Just a gut-reaction to a page that is still 17 printed pages!, even after someone trimmed it down. I guess I think that 3 other pages could be created: Quake Mods, Quake Speedruns, and Quake Alternative Releases. Otherwise, another single page could be created with those topics, with a name such as Quake Alternative Gameplay or Quake: Progeny and Descendants. If there are no major objections, the next time I check back here I will cut the mods, speedruns, etc. into a single page and see how it feels. Dudeman1st (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Production / Development, Reception sections

Quake has no 'Production' or 'Development' section. This is fine, 'History' fits the fusion of Production, Development, and Release that the material covers, but I can see from above that not having one is letting people take away things that are sought after and often lacking in other articles.

Quake also has no 'Reception' section. Kind of a no brainer, I guess, but still no numbers. Anarchangel (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Quake 1 engine games.

Two points. First, I removed Take No Prisoners_(video_game) from the list becuase it uses Raven's own Vampire engine, not a modified Quake 1 engine. Second, someone please cite where Half Life 1 uses the Quake 2 engine as well. There's plenty of evidence that it did not, such as the press releases and advertisements (June 1997 Sierra On-Line press release) claiming "advancements" in technology that are already in Quake II (16 bit color, colored lighting, translucency etc.), Half-Life uses a modified Quake 1 .mdl format, and not the Quake 2 .md2 format, and the net code for the launch version was about on par with Quake 1's under-preforming internet code as opposed to Quake 2's more stable version. 68.98.37.37 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Vampire engine is a heavily modified Quake 1 ID Tech 2 engine. Raven was a sub-company of ID Software and had inside access to Quake 1 source code, etc.Andwan0 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Quake 2 Wikipedia page has a list of games derived from Quake 2 ID Tech 3 engine. So I can't see why Quake 1 Wikipedia page not have a similar list to show the games derived from Quake 1's ID Tech 2 engine.Andwan0 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

mod revert

undid recent update removing most of the mods. no reason for the list to be deleted because the mods listed do not have wiki entries. most of them have proper linkage detailing the validity of them on the list and the ones that dont have websites can be verified other ways. basically, if we are including mods there is no reason to limit them only to mods that have wiki entries. if we need to move the mod list to its own page because of length, that is another story, but as it stands there are no descriptions listed, only names, and that doesnt take up much room. Bhcompy (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "Ranger" in Quake 3

Does there really need to be a citation indicating that the protagonist in Quake 1 can be found in Quake 3, and is named "Ranger"? I think this is fairly common knowledge to anyone who has played both Quake 1 and Quake 3, I don't see why there needs to be a citation for this (referencing the Quake 3 manual).

The Quake III Arena manual states that Ranger is a veteran of the Slipgate War. It doesn't state that he was you. Xihr (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2.5D Contradiction

Hello, this is my first time I say something in Wikipedia. I was reading this article when I read that it mentioned as a 2.5D game to Duke Nukem 3D.

The engine of Duke Nukem 3D, based on the engine of Doom, had already corrected this error. I say this because I played in this game (I think it's the year 1996), and I have seen scenarios with balconies, ramps, etc.. Where several characters appeared in various altitudes.

This has been a small concern that I wanted to tell and I hope that someone from the community corrected this error. Thanks. PS: I do not speak English =)--Nicoluna (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D IS a 2.5D game. See the 2.5D article. also, you say "I have seen scenarios with balconies, ramps, etc.. Where several characters appeared in various altitudes.". This is also true in doom, where there are people and monsters at different altitudes. The difference with Duke Nukem 3D, is that it allows multiple floors for one x-y coordinate. Regardless, Duke Nukem 3D is a 3D environment game rendered using a 2D sprites, making it 2.5D by definition.happypal (Talk | contribs) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right. I was trying to say that. I don't speak English.. hehe --Nicoluna (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D is not based on the engine of Doom (Id Tech 1) but on the Build Engine. --Finnw (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Art Style

How would one describe the somewhat "bipolar" art style of Quake? The closest factual term I can think of is "retro-futurism" - but is there a more specific term for the combination of a Gothic and futuristic aesthetic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.167.89 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is clear that it was two separate styles, and each level is either one or the other. Steampunk and retrofuturistic are true combinations of historical and futuristic; Quake is neither of those.

Each episode had a differetn arcitexture style or combination. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I always liked to think of it as medieval-punk. John Carmack himself called it Cthulu-like in a recent article (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/17/quake-v-like-quake-1/). You can't really cite a specific term, though, as there is no colloquial term that describes the theme properly.

{{Fact}} tag on the bots section

This edit is inappropriate. The whole sentence:

These were introduced to provide surrogate players in multiplayer mode, and are a particular challenge of artificial intelligence behavior implemented with the limited scripting system of QuakeC

is unsourced, and the assertion by Posix memalign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that

Even to the inexperted reader it is obvious that an integrated scripting language in a GAME has limitations compared to a full blown programming language

isn't even obvious to me, a CS graduate. Many game scripting languages are Turing-complete, and this is increasingly the case. If the original statement can't be backed up with a reliable source, it should be removed, but in the meantime this is a perfect place to use a {{fact}} tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As a corollary, QuakeC is Turing-complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this article cleaned up

This is the messiest "high importance" article I've seen, and perhaps we should have a concerted effort to get it beyond "Start" class. Several areas that are proposed for splitting should be vetted for WP:Verifiability and WP:VGSCOPE first. Quake's plot is simplistic and can be reduced to a short introduction for the gameplay section (WP:VG/GL), the remainder being either original research or unverified content. And so on. Quake is important in VG history and deserves a better article. Marasmusine (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trent Reznor/NIN Soundtrack missing?

Why is there no soundtrack section discussing the soundtrack, which was done by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails?

It's mentioned that he did the music. What more is there to say? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't the tracks have song titles? Do video game soundtracks get the same treatment as film soundtracks? StevePrutz (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam release date

Is the Steam release date really something that needs to be included in the opening paragraph? Almogo (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's marginal.  Xihr 

It's misleading, because if any release date is given in the first paragraph, people will expect it to the original release date. Unless the original date goes before it, it should be removed. 122.60.138.173 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

License of the map sources?

This article states that the map sources were released under the GPL and has a reference link to an article on John Romero's site that confirms that the sources were released, but I can't find a statement there that it was under the GPL. Or am I just missing it? Can anyone confirm somehow that this is the case? 217.209.86.254 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw now that the read me file in the zip file says that it's released under the GPL. I hope he also releases the Doom map sources under the GPL. 217.209.86.254 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Care should be taken in updating the article to reflect this, though. The original compiled map files have the textures baked in, and those are still copyrighted. Only the map geometry and entity locations are GPL, so only the map sources are GPL. The already compiled maps included in the game files are not GPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy Petersen

I think the general article understates the influence that Sandy Petersen had on the development of the atmosphere of Quake. Sandy Petersen was one of the designers that worked on the Quake project (and Wolfenstein 3D, and both Dooms), and also was the one who wrote the first editions of "Call of Ctulhu: The roleplaying game" when working on Chaosium. Most of the lovecraftian inspiration came from him, and his departure from ID in 1997 marked the return of the company to the sci-fi like themes. If it is relevant, I can try to locate some references if you want. 62.83.144.222 (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Honestabe

Hi, it would be fantastic if you could find some references (or even one reference, if reliable and hopefully independent!) There is a fair amount of unreferenced material in the relevant sections at the moment, so anything to add as a ref would be great, and also of course we do want to represent the history of the game accurately. Certainly the Lovecraft versus sci-fi split is one of the major themes in the plot and setting of the game, so deserves proper coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again (I created an account to not be anonymous anymore). I was able to locate a couple of interviews: an old, email one (beware: pre 00's look will burn your retinas), and a more modern one. Both (but specially the email one) have relevant passages that indicate that Sandy Petersen was an important determinator of the darker setting that quake had.

You must be something of a fan of H.P. Lovecraft. Were you the force behind "Cthulhuing-Up" Quake, or are there other Lovecraftians there? It couldn't have happened without collaborators, but I doubt there would have been so much direct Lovecraft influence if I had not been working here.

The magazines where I read this info, sadly, were not published on internet, so I can't quote directly my original source of information.

Is there any particular information that is missing to the current article that would be worth investigating? Abethehonest (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Abethehonest: sorry for the slow reply. It's not so much missing information (though the article would perhaps benefit from some re-organisation in terms of what goes where and how much detail is devoted to certain areas), so much as a lack of sourcing, or in-line sourcing at least. So for example the entire first four paragraphs of the "Development" section are completely unsourced - the information presumably comes from somewhere, but there are no inline citations to explain where.

It's clear from the emails you link that Petersen did indeed have a key role to play here. A slight problem is that these email records are not really reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Though you could perhaps get away with citing "1 More Castle" as a source, but it would be easily challenged by anyone who objected (it's a volunteer run site to which anyone can offer to contribute).

An important point here is that printed (dead tree) magazines are entirely acceptable as sources, even if their content has never appeared on the internet. Printed magazines (if not ultra-low-distribution fanzines) generally would have had a full time paid editorial staff, and a policy on accuracy and fact checking, which many volunteer-run online sites may lack. One simply cites the magazine by listing the title of the magazine article, its author (byline), the date of publication (or month or volume or whatever), page number, name of the magazine and name of the publisher (if available). So adding such sources would be great.

It may help to have a look at other video game articles that have reached Featured status, so for example Devil May Cry (video game) is peppered with inline citations to support its content. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quake (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061022171208/http://rome.ro:80/2006/10/quake-map-sources-released.html to http://rome.ro/2006/10/quake-map-sources-released.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)