A comparison shot of Hyperblaster, Machinegun, Railgun and Shotgun, top image shows Quake2 weapons and bottom shows Quake4 weapons...

Alltough Raven did an admirable job on the weapons models, its clearly not the same weapons, something id expect from a sequel, unfortunatley this is something that can be seen trough the entire Quake4 game not only weapons but enemies alike...

In Quake2 the hyperblaster has a curved banana magazine, but in Quake4 it has an ammo cylinder ontop instead...

In Quake2 the machinegun has a straight magazine stick in the pistolgrip while in Quake4 it has the magazine infront of the pistolgrip...

In Quake2 the railgun is configured for the shoulder while in Quake4 its configured to be fired from the hip...

In Quake2 the shotgun has a drum magazine while in Quake4 we first have the shotgun being tube loaded while later uppgrade adds a straight stick magazine...

Alltough just minor changes that probably wouldnt bother anyone who has never played Quake2, these minor changes however adds up in the long run wich drasticlly changes the entire game completly, so from my viewpoint its hard to call Quake4 for an actual sequel to Quake2 since the game differs so much not just in apperance but in gameplay aswell...

I do belive in improving a game trough sequels not drasticlly altering the game, as it stands Quake4 is more similar to Doom3 than it is a sequel to Quake2...


Quake2


Quake4

Good review, if not just plain nit-picky.

I do want to point out that in quake2, v_hyperblast model used for the player view has the top handle pointing forward, but the g_hyperblast model used for the hyperblaster item pickup in the game has the top handle facing backwards.

I still like q4 even though you're absolutly right.

Its called artistic license.

Perhaps the Q2 models are the way they are because of polygon count restrictions, and that with Q4 removing the technical restrictions, they can make a better looking model with no impact on the game.

I prefer the Q2 style of the railgun over the Q4, but I dont think it makes Q4 any less of a sequel to Q2.

Next you'll be asking wheres the BFG and wheres the water, and how come theres all these vehicles that werent in Q2.

Where is the BFG and the freaking water?

One thing that seperates the Quake1 and Quake2 deathmatches from UT and other horribly generic deathmatches is that the creaters never say "Well water is useless and nobody would want it anyway."

Quake2 went so far as to cause a change in the angle of a bullet trail when it enters and exits the water to acomadate for refraction. (it was a randomized change, but still more detail than required)

There's also a +use option in quake1 and quake2 that was never used other than left available in the code for mods. These little details are what made editing the quake2 code more fun than just playing the game. Quake2 inspires me to create little detailed touches that make a game have more depth. This includes adding the ability to cause damage to a playe that you have fallen on. Remaking UT's Flack Cannon so that the damage rely's solely on the velocity of the particle. Causing fire_lead weapons to cause less damage as distance increases (especially with shotguns). Decreasing damage from rockets in the water and bullets in the water. Creating "stinger" style rockets long before quake4 was even thought up.

Little details can affect deathmatch dramatically. On the flip side, if you were able to jump or swim in Goldeneye it would have probobly been a worse game.

(while I'm on the subject. I created a Quake-mas map pack for quake2 before quake3 full version even came out. Where's my credit you cheap skates?)

Quote (AnthonyJ @ Jan. 02 2006, 5:12 am)

Perhaps the Q2 models are the way they are because of polygon count restrictions, and that with Q4 removing the technical restrictions, they can make a better looking model with no impact on the game.

But most of the Quake4 weapon models don´t look better... they look like generic scifi weapons and aren´t diversified enough, all vaguely roundish designs, lacking a typical shape like in Q2. Sure, the Q4 weapons are cluttered with detail, but more isn´t always better from an artistic point of view.

Quote (Tetzlaff @ Jan. 04 2006, 10:31 am)

But most of the Quake4 weapon models don´t look better...

better is obviously nothing more than opinion.

but let me make sure i get what you are saying...

after looking at the pics above you actually think the q2 ones look as nice as the q4 ones?

if that is the case, sorry man, i gotta disagree, those q4 weapons look great to me

Quote

after looking at the pics above you actually think the q2 ones look as nice as the q4 ones? if that is the case, sorry man, i gotta disagree, those q4 weapons look great to me

I'm going to have to agree with Telzlaff. (even though we're wearing the same exact dress) I see where you would say Q4's models are better just because they look nice. Yes to an extent quality and clarity that increases over time can make something superior. On the flip side I've only met one person that made the serious argument that any songs before the 90's were bad because of the terrible recording quality. From that mentality every beatles song and elvis song is horrible! Personally I think the puppets used in Star wars IV, V, and VI are not only more original but better than the CG used in Episodes I, II and III.

To me the new weapons are unimaginative and just because they have better technology, they look no different from the weapons in Doom3, Red Faction, Elite Force or even the newer UT's. A garble of smoothness and details without meaning as if they were designed to not even be noticable. The head on the Hyperblaster in q2 actually spins while I've noticed no actual function to the Q4 hyperblaster. The shotgun cartdridge in q2 also spins, no such luck in q4.

What's not shown are the Rocket and Grenade launchers which animate loading in Quake2 but I've not noticed any animation in quake4. I personally ignore these kind of minute details because for me inventiveness is much more interesting than a perfectly painted object.

Quote

What's not shown are the Rocket and Grenade launchers which animate loading in Quake2 but I've not noticed any animation in quake4

I've played a little farther into the single player and the rocket loading is animated. It's quite cool. The Hyperblaster also spins, but not very noticably.

Quote (Bishop Gantry @ Jan. 01 2006, 5:01 pm)

In Quake2 the shotgun has a drum magazine while in Quake4 we first have the shotgun being tube loaded while later uppgrade adds a straight stick magazine...

Wow... Really... nice... nitpicking.  

A drum or a stick? That's the question.

Quote (U.S.S. Speed @ Jan. 16 2006, 12:36 am)

Quote (Bishop Gantry @ Jan. 01 2006, 5:01 pm) In Quake2 the shotgun has a drum magazine while in Quake4 we first have the shotgun being tube loaded while later uppgrade adds a straight stick magazine... Wow... Really... nice... nitpicking.   A drum or a stick? That's the question.

besides your nitpicking and obvious blindness to the concept of what a sequel is, weapon diffrences is just a small part of everything thats wrong with Quake4 in terms of being a sequel to Quake2

The diffrence in weapons is just one single part of Quake4 thats diffrent, storyline, enemies, music, theme everything is totally diffrent the entire game,  its not a sequel to Quake2...

Since you seem unable to understand the bigger picture of coherency and what a sequel means ill do it for you...

Quote

Coherency: logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts Quote: Sequel: 1:Something that follows; a continuation. 2:A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

Quake4 is not a sequel to Quake2 or in case it is its poorly implemented in such a manner the coherency is non exsitant between the two titles...

Any resemblance between the two titles is only surface deep...