View Full Version : Gamespot gives Quake 4 (X360) 6.6
The Iron Weasel
11-21-2005, 06:56 PM
Gamespot gave Quake 4 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/quake4/review.html?sid=6140243) for the Xbox 360 a 6.6.
Quake 4 could have been a great game, but the performance issues are so heavy that they have a negative impact across the board. The gameplay suffers both online and off because you often can't see exactly what's going on. With the Xbox 360 launch already stacked with quality first-person shooting, Quake 4 sits squarely at the bottom of the pile.
I've seen a couple people wanting this game, maybe you should rethink and get it on the pc. The pc version is also cheaper.
Evil Avatar
11-21-2005, 07:32 PM
I guess it was a good thing that UPS fucked up and didn't deliver this title to my local Gamestop. I was all set to purchase it today.
Performance issues? That just screams that someone at Raven didn't do their job - I've got DOOM 3 for the Xbox 1 and it runs fantastic.
Axiom
11-21-2005, 07:33 PM
They gave PDZ a 9.0 as well...
Suicidal ShiZuru
11-21-2005, 07:36 PM
I thought Xbox360 was superior? Hahahahahaha, I think Ill play some Quake 4 on my PC in a few minutes without any lag or other issues...
The Iron Weasel
11-21-2005, 07:39 PM
And Kasavin reviewed PDZ so you know its legit.
Pnorcio
11-21-2005, 07:39 PM
The fact that they say this game gets "pretty ugly in some spots" makes me want to vomit all over myself.
Heretic Machine
11-21-2005, 07:40 PM
Like Evil said, this sounds like someone on the dev team didn't do their job. I would recommend just getting PDZ anyhow, it's got a huge amount of deapth to offer.
I bought the PC version and have been playing it today. It doesn't stack up with the likes of HL2 or FEAR. But it's a fantastically fun game nonetheless. Looks like they strived to get your adrenaline pumping in an alive and hectic world and I think they pulled it off nicely. Been awhile since a game put me in a groove with my blood pumping like this one does.
Other engines may have caught up graphically but the feel, movement and control of an id engine is still heads and shoulders above the rest.
Suicidal ShiZuru
11-21-2005, 07:41 PM
Q4 is one of the best looking games available... you must be blind...
The Iron Weasel
11-21-2005, 07:43 PM
Yeah, Quake 4 is insanely good looking I have to say. And they pulled off normal mapping on the characters without making them shiny!
Suicidal ShiZuru
11-21-2005, 07:50 PM
It still looks shitty sometimes. Just like HDR now...
Chagrinful
11-21-2005, 07:52 PM
OMG ITS AMAZING LOOKING!!!111 I didn't know they could reuse the same handful of textures in so many ways, lol! Its a pretty shitty game its refreshing to see a mainstream review site to be honest about it.
aversion2k
11-21-2005, 07:53 PM
Quake 4 looks much better then F.E.A.R, cept for the poo like outdoor textures.
Quake 4 also has much more interesting and varied levels
I thought Xbox360 was superior? Hahahahahaha, I think Ill play some Quake 4 on my PC in a few minutes without any lag or other issues...
360 is superior asshat, Raven's port babies are not, though... :p
As someone stated previously, they got Doom 3 running just fine on an XBox, so it has nothing to do with the machine, it's the people doing the work, plain and simple. Granted there could be all kinds of circumstances during developent, but it's not the machine.
So, NO your dad CANNOT beat up my dad and yes, the X360 is still technically superior to the average gaming PC. Get over it. :rolleyes:
aversion2k
11-21-2005, 07:57 PM
.. the X360 is still technically superior to the average gaming PC. Get over it. :rolleyes:
Give it 6 months :P
Suicidal ShiZuru
11-21-2005, 07:58 PM
No its not, really. Q4 isnt the only crappy looking game thats also on PC, CoD2 is another one as well as NFSwhatever, I dont know if it looks worse but I know it looks at least as good on my pc.
As for Doom 3... it looked like shit.
~And wait for new GPUs and the new PPUs if they work like they should/could...
Citizen Philip
11-21-2005, 08:07 PM
Let's not get into a flame war. Xbox 360 is nice, PC is nice.
Everything is nice. Let's all be happy.
About the only thing I could think to add, as both a positive and negative: Xbox games are tweaked (hopefully) to work as well as possible on the system, optomized in every possible way for the best experience. PC games are not optomized and can have higher and lower qualities than what the designers were intenting.
That is all.
Give it 6 months :P
BTW, I'm not having a "PC's suck and consoles rule" fight or whatever, just I KNOW for a fact that the average PC around today IS NOT as powerful as an X360.
Will it be outclassed in 6 months by the latest and greatest? Probably (granted I'm still waiting for 4ghz to become prevelant).
It won't matter, though. The average consumer wants PLUG and PLAY. They don't want upgrades, new cards, drivers, switches, etc... They want to pop it in and have it work, period.
BTW, I'll be now getting Q4 on my PC, since they've managed to cock-up the X360 version. Oh well, who wanted to play it on a HDtv in surround, anyway?!
Well me, since you can play it on a higher res on a PC ;).
Suicidal ShiZuru
11-21-2005, 08:13 PM
I just love how everyone says its so superior then here comes launch... and everything looks horrible. Also I dont care about raw power, if its not being used not bother mentioning it, which essentially its not more powerful. You dont join a race on a bike when you have a ricer in the garage.
Everlost_MI
11-21-2005, 08:21 PM
I am skeptic of this review. When I went to the Quake 4 preview a few month ago the title played damn well on the PC and 360. The 360 did not chug during the massive firefights. Granted, I didn't play the entire game but I played the identical levels on the PC and 360 and had no qualms about picking up the 360 when it came out.
The Iron Weasel
11-21-2005, 08:24 PM
I am skeptic of this review. When I went to the Quake 4 preview a few month ago the title played damn well on the PC and 360. The 360 did not chug during the massive firefights. Granted, I didn't play the entire game but I played the identical levels on the PC and 360 and had no qualms about picking up the 360 when it came out.
Watch the video review, the game looks significantly more washed out. I don't get it because I've scene stuff for CoD2 while it doesn't look quite as good as the PC version, it looks damn good.
Morrolan
11-21-2005, 08:32 PM
Man, it is utterly amazing how quickly the Quake name has lost its power. I mean, people still look out for the next quake game, and all that, but between Quake 3 being UTTERLY destroyed by Unreal Tournament, Doom 3 being junk, and Quake 4 using the Doom 3 engine, thus picking up some of that stigma, the name Quake no longer seems to send shockwaves anymore. It also has to do with the fact that Id are no longer the only ones making rediculously pretty engines.
novicius
11-21-2005, 08:35 PM
Exactly why I said, "Quake 4 shipping?"
"So. Fucking. What?"
:p
Man, it is utterly amazing how quickly the Quake name has lost its power. I mean, people still look out for the next quake game, and all that, but between Quake 3 being UTTERLY destroyed by Unreal Tournament, Doom 3 being junk, and Quake 4 using the Doom 3 engine, thus picking up some of that stigma, the name Quake no longer seems to send shockwaves anymore. It also has to do with the fact that Id are no longer the only ones making rediculously pretty engines.
I stand by what I said about Quake4 and to this day I'll support Quake3 over UT. I thought the UT games were all crappy until maybe 2k4. They can pack all the gameplay modes in they want(which is the only thing it had), the weapons, levels, models and controls all sucked.
I'm not sure how you define utterly destroyed, maybe by your opinion. At the very least they were both close in both sales and players online.
Bubby
11-21-2005, 09:07 PM
I was always envious of the awesome Unreal engine maps in any given generation of their games but to this day they still haven't got the "feel" of multiplayer right. I'll stick with Q3, thanks. I suspect there will be no Q4 community shortly (if there ever was one to begin with).
Morrolan
11-21-2005, 09:20 PM
I don't really like the gameplay of the UT2K series. But UT99 (original) was amazing.
UT and Q3 had similar numbers of players out of the gate, but after a while Q3's number dipped dramatically, where UT's actually increased, probably from old Q3 players.
H.Bogard
11-21-2005, 09:25 PM
It won't matter, though. The average consumer wants PLUG and PLAY. They don't want upgrades, new cards, drivers, switches, etc... They want to pop it in and have it work, period.
Well then if you end up with a game like quake 4 x360....then youre pretty much officially and literally screwed.
Atleast if you're going choppy on a PC you can always shell in an extra $90 (plus resale old vid card) to get things smoother.
trip1eX
11-22-2005, 12:24 AM
I have an x800 xt and I was having some pretty nice slowdowns in parts of Quake IV. Mostly it was the outdoorsy parts.
I liked Q4 better than FEAR. FEAR had better firefights, but it go so repetitive cause it was all the same. Q4 is more old school but has alot more variety to keep things interesting. Plus tho the story ain't anything special at least you feel like you're a part of it. They involve you in it.
FEAR kinda left you shooting the same soldier in the same endless level for what seemed like hours at a time without really getting you into the story/game.
Anyway id games are more kind to Nvidia cards and they also probably rushed it to make the 360 launch.
earthworm48
11-22-2005, 01:05 AM
Wow. Another fucking FPS. I got bored of these in 2001 after many years of enjoying them.
Heh, thank you for that comment earthworm!!!!
Quake3's numbers took a couple years to dip.
Rirath
11-22-2005, 04:40 AM
Wow. Another fucking FPS. I got bored of these in 2001 after many years of enjoying them.
Yeah, another FPS. Ya know what, let's stop making them. Let's also stop making
* sports
* sims
* racing (subclass of sports)
* RPGs
* card based games
* platformers
* fighting games
And more! I mean, I've /played/ them already. Why bother? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go import some obscure game from Japan like Densha De Go!. Oh wait, that's probably still a sim. Ya know, sometimes I wish we'd all just drop the genre titles and play a game for what it is. Who cares if it's a fps/rts/rpg/mmo/mud? I'd rather hear about the game itself, than its genre. You're missing out if you haven't played Metroid Prime, HL2, or BF1942/BF2 (to name a few) because of a label.
Aren't you praising Perfect Dark Zero in another thread?
earthworm48
11-22-2005, 06:31 AM
Sort of. Well I didn't really explain myself this morning as it was early and I couldn't be bothered. Its another FPS with shoddy design (basically a shinier version of Doom 1 with all the space station like stuff e.t.c.), I played through Quake 4 but the fucking thing gives me a headache as it is so damn DULL in its design. With PDZ, I'm more interested as it seems like theres been a little effort put into some of the designs and the large areas don't hurt. I don't think PDZ is particulary original, just maybe a bit more interesting. I wasn't praising it though, merely saying it seems that my faith that it will be decent, when the general concensus was that it would be absolute shit.
In fact I think that all the genres you put there have either never appealed to me or at least to bring something done extremely well or new to the table to be worth buying. Quake 4 is just.... so generic. It doesn't even do anything particulary well. (Adventure games need to return too, as long as they are GOOD adventure games. Bone was decent enough).
With regards to the Rev. - I don't know. It might make an impact but I do still feel that it will end up being very gimmicky. I did believe that with the DS and that seems to have proved me wrong this year, but I wouldn't neccesarily say that the games were better because of the dual + touch screen(s) and microphone. Those things are pretty neat though. Its nice not to have a menu brought up with the inventory e.t.c. when I can look up and see what I need. My biggest gripe with Nintendo is the reliance on their old huge franchises to pump out mario Party X and Mario (enter sport here). They could make something a bit more fresh. Mario Kart DS is a great product though.
I will say I'm not in the best mood today, so I am probably being over negative. I'm reminding myself of being like one of the sandpeople from Star Wars today.
aversion2k
11-22-2005, 12:31 PM
...just I KNOW for a fact that the average PC around today IS NOT a
The average pc is an office machine used for typeing. Only a very small minority of PC's are for gaming, This one of the reasons publishers like consoles, they know around about how many are out there, and they know 100% of them are used for games
aversion2k
11-22-2005, 12:35 PM
I stand by what I said about Quake4 and to this day I'll support Quake3 over UT. I thought the UT games were all crappy until maybe 2k4. They can pack all the gameplay modes in they want(which is the only thing it had), the weapons, levels, models and controls all sucked.
The controls is UT are EXACTLY the same as quake 3
I meant to say the control, not controls. My mistake.
Zanzibar
11-22-2005, 03:10 PM
Well then if you end up with a game like quake 4 x360....then youre pretty much officially and literally screwed.
Atleast if you're going choppy on a PC you can always shell in an extra $90 (plus resale old vid card) to get things smoother.
Launch title on new hardware. Launch title on NEW hardware, launch, title on new hardware LAUNCH. Title on new hardware. Launch TITLE on. New HARDWARE launch title.
The devs haven't even scratched the surface of what the X360 can do - they won't know how to make the GPU really sing until after they've had access to the final hardware for 6-8 months. Look at Wreckless' graphical quality compared to the Xbox 1 launch titles - only Halo really stood out as graphically impressive.
Watch out, the really frickin' impressive X360 games are gonna come right around the time the PS3 launches. Sony will have the same issues you're seeing now for the X360, and the result will be that even if the PS3 is vastly superior technologically, the new games for the X360 will look better than PS3 launch titles.
Right around the time the PS3 launches PC games will have surpassed it. And I'm not sure how being a launch title excuses performance problems.
hawkeye
11-22-2005, 03:40 PM
Why does anyone listen to Gamespot. They hate every company but the precious playstation. There a bunch of 11 year old who do not know how to rate anything.
And now that I've played some Quake4 deathmatch I can confidently say it'll be getting a lot more playtime from me than UT2004 ever did. Ultimatly it's the weapons. Not into the spray and pray mashing of every iteration of UT.
The Iron Weasel
11-22-2005, 07:54 PM
Why does anyone listen to Gamespot. They hate every company but the precious playstation. There a bunch of 11 year old who do not know how to rate anything.
dude, they've given every other exlusive launch title 8+. I'm a xbox fanboy but yet I still love Gamespot
H.Bogard
11-22-2005, 08:12 PM
Launch title on new hardware. Launch title on NEW hardware, launch, title on new hardware LAUNCH. Title on new hardware. Launch TITLE on. New HARDWARE launch title.
The devs haven't even scratched the surface of what the X360 can do - they won't know how to make the GPU really sing until after they've had access to the final hardware for 6-8 months. Look at Wreckless' graphical quality compared to the Xbox 1 launch titles - only Halo really stood out as graphically impressive.
I guess you love playing Splinter Cell chaos theory on the ps2 then?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.