To those you played a ton of Doom and Quake, which do you think is better designed in terms of combat?

[ChickenShred]

These two games are probably my favorite boomer shooters, though I've always how they compare in terms of enemy/weapon balance, ammo management, level design, etc.

[Ffabbia]

Doom, no contest. Quake is a great game, but I don't think the maps have quite the same flair and diversity. Also I prefer Dooms huge monster-packed rooms with enemies you can just blitz down, compared to Quake's fewer, but more bullet spongey enemies.

[Tuttermuts]

There's already some great answers about the weapons here that don't need much more debate.

I feel mapping wise Doom feels like just the right balance between modular mapping and freedom.

You got the barrels, the keys, lava, crushing ceilings,... just enough elements to force mappers to get creative and think out of the box.

Quake allows for much more stuff which is also fun, because you can suprise the player a lot more with unexpected elements. But it takes away something of the sort of modular-ness and the puzzle like nature of the game.

[V I D A L]

I love both original Doom (Doom 1, Doom 2 and its expansions) and Quake 1. I've played a ton of those and I can't really pick a favourite.

Doom has probably the most perfect balance of weapons and monsters.. almost as if id got lucky and never manage to create such a memorable roster of monsters with distinctive attributes that perfectly complement each other. And the arsenal is perfectly tuned for each monster.

Quake 1, as we all know, had a very troubled development and the result is a bit more sloppy, but the controls are better and the level design in real 3D shines.

I will never get tired of those games.

[Unseen]

Quake was way more revolutionary imo, doom had competition. But nothing was like quake at it's time.

[cold soup]

quake is fun enough, the controls are superb and i prefer its deathmatch to doom's, but otherwise doom beats the hell out of quake for me and it's not even close. the weapons are better balanced and more varied, the monster roster is larger and generally better designed, and i'll always prefer games that focus on having larger amounts of weaker enemies to fight over games with smaller amounts of tankier and more threatening enemies.

there's also the fact that there really aren't many games like classic doom. while it's still a fast-paced run-n'-gun boomer shooter at its core, it's a lot more tactical compared to games like duke 3D or quake. especially in tougher map sets. the way every enemy closes in on you on top of the lack of verticality places this huge emphasis on area control. while there are fights where the only goal is to run around, shoot enemies and avoid damage, there's others where you're moreso trying to keep control of the arena and avoid being overwhelmed. there's absolutely elements of that in other games, but doom just does it in a unique way. hell i feel that's one of the reasons why doom's mapping scene is still huge compared to other games from the era

meanwhile quake's a lot more of a pure run-n'-gun experience, and a lot of games from that era and even today do that same sort of thing. and in my opinion a lot of those games do quake's thing better. doesn't really help that i don't really love a lot of quake's enemies

[QUAKETALLICA]

They're the same game, you know. Just one is true 3D and the other is 2.5D. Both are excellent in their own rights, I can't pick a favorite baby.