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.
(I've made this post in the doom + doom 2 steam forum though I want to also post here to get this forum's opinion).

[BPS_86]

I can't say much from Doom since I rarely play it. But from what I remember when I played it, it has faster time to kill than Quake. Weapon swapping isn't really required for me and I can just play all the way through most of the time with shotgun or super shotgun, and save all 3 big guns for big guys. Map size is small and easy to memorize, then it will increase over level and will introduce more much larger map on later levels, which's why it makes sense to have a map. It also introduce more larger battles since some level have large open area.

For Quake, it's slower time to kill but just feel right imo, and the environment vibe help a lot somehow idk why(maybe psychology or something). Weapon swapping feels more beneficial here. For example you can use shotgun and nailgun for squishies, then super shotgun for fiend, grenade/launcher for ogre(death by 2 grenades and will return 2 grenades), etc. Level design is somewhat small to medium, and because of that the game doesn't need map since it's easy to remember most paths. Most of the battles will happen in a room and hallway/corridor, while larger-open areas with some pillar/s will give suspicion on big guy battles(Doesn't stop the possibility of big guy standing in small hallway/corridor).

Ammo management for both game is fine for both game. If you able to manage it, you'll probably left with a lot of ammo and health when reached the exit. Both games also nails the enemy designs based on the weapon each games have, it just feels right. Both games are really good in its own way that I pretty much appreciate on how well designed these games are back in the 90s.

[Soul]

I personally enjoy Doom's core design a bit more.

Doom was able to fit a lot more enemies per level when compared to Quake, and being able to go around and slaughter everything is a lot more enjoyable for me. Quake enemies feel a lot spongier to counter the low enemy density (3D rendering was rough on computers at the time) and it makes the combat drag on a little bit for me.

Level design (assuming vanilla maps only) is definitely better in Quake.
Quake feels less experimental and most levels are at least decent.
Doom (and especially Doom 2) had a lot of stinker levels that dragged the overall games down. Knee-Deep in the Dead is peak classic Doom for me, levels feel somewhat refined and feels like thought was put into them. Episodes 2-3, and the majority of Doom 2 are very hit or miss for me. Sandy Petersen's levels being the worst offenders (no hate on the guy, I just personally don't like his mapping style).
Quake being fully 3D and allowing for room over room really made the levels more enjoyable, and the movement is peak.

Nowadays, Doom takes the cake for me. The amazing modding and mapping community behind it make it a very interesting game to keep coming back to. Some of the WADs I've played throughout the years blow anything I've ever played for Quake.

[ULTRA]

Quake. The flaws people will bring up about Quake are due to technical limitations (e.g. spongy enemies) and at that point you may as well say the lack of camera pitch control in DOOM was an intentional feature of the combat. It wasn't. Quake was simply a technological advancement of the combat over DOOM. Jumping, more sophisticated physics, pitch control, passing over and under enemies, swimming.

And yes Petersen's levels were almost all bad lmao, usually the best id levels are conceptualized by him and then finished up by Romero or stolen by Willits

[Sir Xeno]

Neither, they're both good for their own reasons. DOOM and Quake both have a lot of the same positives but with one important distinction, one is 2D and the other is 3D. Both modding scenes are fantastic, and I feel Quake's is underappreciated in comparison to DOOM, but I much prefer the speed of Quake's combat and freedom of movement. Quake's combat is much more nuanced than DOOM's, simply because of how much freedom being in a fully 3D environment offers to the player.

Not saying one is better than the other, because both of them are amazing but for different reasons. I don't quite feel the "spongy enemy" argument holds any real merit, because if you're using all of your weapons and taking advantage of infighting then enemies go down fairly quickly. I mean any time I see a Shambler, I just whip out either the thunderbolt or the super nailgun and then boom dead Shambler in no time. In DOOM, you can practically only use the SSG and get by just fine for most of the game. Not the same case with Quake, and it feels great learning to utilize your whole arsenal rather than being proficient with just one weapon.

[qsnoopyjr]

Sir Xeno původně napsal:

Neither, they're both good for their own reasons. DOOM and Quake both have a lot of the same positives but with one important distinction, one is 2D and the other is 3D. Both modding scenes are fantastic, and I feel Quake's is underappreciated in comparison to DOOM, but I much prefer the speed of Quake's combat and freedom of movement. Quake's combat is much more nuanced than DOOM's, simply because of how much freedom being in a fully 3D environment offers to the player.

Not saying one is better than the other, because both of them are amazing but for different reasons. I don't quite feel the "spongy enemy" argument holds any real merit, because if you're using all of your weapons and taking advantage of infighting then enemies go down fairly quickly. I mean any time I see a Shambler, I just whip out either the thunderbolt or the super nailgun and then boom dead Shambler in no time. In DOOM, you can practically only use the SSG and get by just fine for most of the game. Not the same case with Quake, and it feels great learning to utilize your whole arsenal rather than being proficient with just one weapon.

I agree with this.
Quake was a 3D game.

Early Quake too, people were learning how to use mouse, if you think about it. 2D game you don't really need a mouse, but all sudden now its 3D, mouse is a lot more important.

Hardly any gamers using mouse when Quake released. Joysticks, assassin ball and what not was popular, back then too during this time. Mouse was under the radar.

Anyways, ammo balance, very big deal. because you'd miss more back then due to learning curve going from 2D and 3D where you gotta aim and more dimensions to factor into aiming, people's aim was garbage back then. So its very dangerous low and out of ammo and going against monsters like a fiend. Using the wrong gun, or little ammo and swapping guns.

Some cases no rockets and have to deal with not being able to kill zombies, like The Necropolis, all these zombies in your way and if you outta rockets you gotta keep moving. Then when the zombies stack too from trying to figure out where to go.

These maps were like a maze back then, part of the 3D learning how to navigate, jumping, people didn't know all these trick jumps and what not back then to get around faster they were doing everything the hard way due to lack of knowledge. New technology. Stuff not known yet. Information sharing not as easy as today. Level designs not predictable due to shear of amounts of games played, Quake was like a first so predictable was not part of this game.

Secret areas, some of the secret areas are actually really well designed. As in being secrets.

Level designs, are good, back then I'd spend like days weeks on the same map. Sometimes have to go back because I could not complete the next map with low ammo and like 40ish health going into the next map.

Like The Necropolis, got those fiends jumping at you, big fight before the next map. Easily go into next map hurting and low ammo, tough.

Secret Areas were huge because constant feeling of hurting, low ammo, I need a huge break, and those secret areas usually a huge break by getting a double barrel shotgun a good gun or health or armor. huge.
Huge because the fights you'd be in or upcoming getting ready. Not everything is a walk in a park back then unlike today where great aim, great mobility. Been gaming several years I know how to strafe and do trick jumps and manipulate mobs and have great aim.

As for multiplayer, I played CTF, these not really designed for multiplayer DM or CTF maps, they better than the Quake Champions maps. Like Slipgate Complex blocking at that secret area to the exit and mega fake wall, simple change and all sudden good CTF. The flags not always in the same spots too, yet still fun. Bases actually felt like a base.

Level design, you'd have dark spots and spots with really high ceiling and dark or fake glass. Lots of places to hide. Or underwater. Lots of hidden areas. Like a beam by the same, you may be able to stand on it, Quake 1.
Quake Champions there is like next to none of places to hide, no beams in the sky to stand on, if there is its likely to get patched and removed, its sad, lack of hidden areas lack of dark spots, and so on.

[Ocelote.12]

I like free complex fan-made levels both for Quake and Doom. And commercial spinoffs like Doom 2 TNT Evilution or Quake MP1: Scourge of Armaggon.

For me the original levels of Doom/Doom 2/Quake are too simple in their level design.

[qsnoopyjr]

Ocelote.12 původně napsal:

I like free complex fan-made levels both for Quake and Doom. And commercial spinoffs like Doom 2 TNT Evilution or Quake MP1: Scourge of Armaggon.

For me the original levels of Doom/Doom 2/Quake are too simple in their level design.

Quake level designs are too simple? Explain

I feel like the new Quake level design is simple. Lack of secret areas, lack of areas to hide in, lack of darkspots, lack of ledges to wedge into, and so on.

[Delta Dagger]

I think I prefer Quake. Some may dislike the spongy enemies, but I actually like them. I find them durable enough to make the combat more compelling than Doom where I can just mow down the legions of hell with an SSG.

[Ikagura]

Delta Dagger původně napsal:

I think I prefer Quake. Some may dislike the spongy enemies, but I actually like them. I find them durable enough to make the combat more compelling than Doom where I can just mow down the legions of hell with an SSG.

A good Doom map would make it so you wouldn't always use the Super Shotgun.

The sponge enemies are mostly to compensate the technical limitations.

[Delta Dagger]

Ikagura původně napsal:

Delta Dagger původně napsal:

I think I prefer Quake. Some may dislike the spongy enemies, but I actually like them. I find them durable enough to make the combat more compelling than Doom where I can just mow down the legions of hell with an SSG.

A good Doom map would make it so you wouldn't always use the Super Shotgun.

The sponge enemies are mostly to compensate the technical limitations.

Well aware, but still prefer Quake as a result.

[GamerXT]

Doom, if that includes using a source port with mouse control and new maps, simply because I prefer the music and demon designs.

[simon]

IMHO
Doom - game play/gun play
Quake - atmosphere, theme and level design.

[Phoenix]

Single Player:

I think Doom is more balanced, and I'm referring to Doom, not Doom II. Every weapon has a purpose and works fairly well. The only really bullet sponge enemies are the Barons, Cyberdemon, and Spider Mastermind, and they're all end-episode bosses, even if Barons become more common in later maps.

Quake's enemies from the Deathknight up tend to just tank too many hits. Even Ogres take far too many shells to kill. You're fighting in more cramped spaces against tanky enemies and your best weapons - explosives - can easily backfire due to their blast radius and the tight map spaces. That, and three ammo pools are shared by two weapons, and the nails and shotshells get used twice as fast by the more powerful versions.

Multiplayer:

Doom's multiplayer is so freaking fast that landing a hit with anything short of the Plasma Rifle or Rocket Launcher can be difficult. The biggest problem with Doom is that multiplayer-centric maps were not part of the original design. Still, the Shotgun and Chaingun get a decent workout. Doom II's addition of the SSG tends to skew the combat toward using it since it's a high-damage, low-risk weapon, as compared to the rocket launcher, which is a high-damage, high-risk weapon, so combat tends to focus around grabbing the SSG and ignoring the other guns.

Quake's multiplayer is definitely better in respect to the design and movement speed, but where it suffers is the weapon utility, or lack thereof, for everything beyond the Rocket Launcher. I found Quake's multiplayer to boil down to whoever has the rocket launcher and camps the red armor the best wins.

Between the two I prefer Doom's multiplayer. It may be hard to hit anyone, but at least I don't spend half the game looking at the screen sideways from endless rocket splash. Quake does have the most glorious sound when you telefrag someone though!

[Ghosttown]

I think both were made with a very good approach of a balanced level design, a fair amount of enemies taking in the difficulty and many ways to reach the goal. I never had any problems with Doom on UV, yet Doom I was always my favourite regarding the levels. Doom 2s levels used to be partially heavy with high narrow corridors, while Doom 1 was more like shooting through the infested bases.

Quake added real 3D, including swimming, which was a new experience. It was different and Quake has tougher enemies taking muchg more ammo to die, while Doom had armies of weaker foes for some fun battles and ammo harvesting. In Quake I always had to look for my shells and rockets on hard difficulty. For me the quick switch of weapons and automatic opening of doors (no space key anymore needed) was some kind of backstep, it felt strange.

As well Doom as Quake had a very nice roster of enemies with different challenges. Doom's variety was better imho, the enemies were better designed. Zombie soldiers, Imps, Hell Knights, Reventants, Mancubus in comparison to Knights, Ogres, Shamblers, Rottweilers and Enforcers were more inspired, had a larger set if ideas, were more different. So in battle also very different, e.g. the homing missile of the Revenant always added some plus action to the fight in Doom.

For me both games are well-balanced in their unique way, showing how talented the guys at id used to be.