Wtf are you talking about... ofc it doesnt fit the game that much cause the game is not designed around tech from 30 years into the future... its just an interesting project and the whole purpose of the video is to show you ancient 3d tech vs new on the same framework
Fog looks out of place, the original portal warping black matter texture looked a lot better, original teleport room looked better etc. You can't just add raytracing and lighting to the game that is all baked textures and expect it to instantly look better. Also not every light should illuminate everything around, some lights are not that bright.
agreed. the illumination from the sky should be moving, with shadows. it kinda just ruins the vibe. the red light is way too harsh. the design would be significantly different if it were made with raytracing in mind.
Original Quake: Perfectly playable. RTX Quake: looks nice at some places but it's overly dark everywhere else to the point it would be hardly pleasant experience to play. Also, you don't need raytracing to simulate those graphics, take Minecraft and its Optifine shaders for example. In the end, raytracing is nice but its effects on gaming are probably way too overhyped.
I disagree. If a game is built for a particular level of raytracing, it could be amazing. Imagine Splinter Cell or Thief designed around raytracing, using dynamic light to cast rays that increase the visibility of the player. The player would have to consider how much light is bouncing toward them and how different materials could change the lighting, such as a car driving by or a butler carrying a metal tray. Those game were already spectacular, but raytracing would take them to another level that's drastically different. It's possible to have shadows and silhouettes be detected without raytracing, but I would also love to see that.
@@Go_Coup Yeah, I agree. But as you say - the game needs to be built up with that level design in mind (ie. Thief games which utilize shadow pretty well). Applying RTX to existing games doesn't really work - eg. in this video the water is basically unplayable whereas in the original Quake ambient lighting was a feature as many levels requires you to navigate in water.
@@texx8205 , yes. I'm not against purely cosmetic upgrades, but it's definitely extremely overrated. I am interested in the ways raytracing can improve gameplay, though.
Short: needs adjustments Long: reminds me of ages-old musicians' wisdom that every musician re-confirms when a certain level of mastery has been reached - things you ARE ABLE TO do ≠ things you MUST do. As many comments said, the tech is fine, but does it fit here? Does it do justice to the original design? With a few adjustments like less brightness to areas that are supposed to be bright, and less darkness to those supposed to be dark would do the trick. A few filler lights or more "bouncing" for ANY light source could do the trick. The way it looks right now reminds me more of Doom3 aesthetics, with its "islands of light in an ocean of darkness" image and gameplay approach. But D3 was a more horror game than Quake 1, an action-packed fast-paced shooter that was dim (not pitch-black) at times. Episode 4 had this pitch-blak patches philosophy, so those levels could look prettier with this tech. But not every other level at all times.
I get that it will be "too dark" in many places as the game was not designed for this kind of lightning (and it also wasn't balanced for it), but honestly... to say "I'm not impressed" would be an understatement. The very first impression was "wow, this is so much better, and the colors are right", but with each new room... for one, it's too blurry, but that could be due to the recording/youtube, but secondly, this looks like the kind of dynamic lightning you got in the very first Descent. Which came out the year BEFORE the original Quake. Granted, that game didn't really have bounce light and neither you nor the enemies cast any shadow as far as I can tell, but still... if you need a strong modern PC in 2024 to run Quake with a quality of lightning that other games achieved running on a decent 1995 PC, that isn't all that stunning. What is definitly impressive is that some people took their time and actually made this, made the Quake engine do something it was absolutely not designed for.
Imagine takin this back to the two Johns at iD in the nineties, playing a video of it for 5 minutes, lookin them in the eye, then just leave with it and them staring dumbfound :D
I agree that it looks quite bad in many ways, but I disagree with leaving original art. QUAKE could absolutely look gorgeous if it were remade properly (even if it's only via light.) It might be my favorite game, but it is not a good-looking game anymore. (No, I don't particularly think graphics are very important.)
@@Go_Coup agree totally that it may look gorgeusly ! but have to be remade with caution to details and consistent art. yeah yeah. i am not against tech. i am only about respect to original authors
It looks too bright. Whoever modified the textures didn't do a good job at preserving the art direction.
I appreciate the tech, but this ain’t it
Agree, tech is cool, but it does not look that good. I'm more impressed by how good the normal game looks for being like 25 years old.
Wtf are you talking about... ofc it doesnt fit the game that much cause the game is not designed around tech from 30 years into the future... its just an interesting project and the whole purpose of the video is to show you ancient 3d tech vs new on the same framework
I like how all of the positive comments about the mod are regarding features that Quake has had since at least 2002 =)
Ope.
Fog looks out of place, the original portal warping black matter texture looked a lot better, original teleport room looked better etc. You can't just add raytracing and lighting to the game that is all baked textures and expect it to instantly look better. Also not every light should illuminate everything around, some lights are not that bright.
agreed. the illumination from the sky should be moving, with shadows. it kinda just ruins the vibe. the red light is way too harsh. the design would be significantly different if it were made with raytracing in mind.
quake engine is still impressive without raytracing...
Completely agree
Original Quake: Perfectly playable.
RTX Quake: looks nice at some places but it's overly dark everywhere else to the point it would be hardly pleasant experience to play.
Also, you don't need raytracing to simulate those graphics, take Minecraft and its Optifine shaders for example.
In the end, raytracing is nice but its effects on gaming are probably way too overhyped.
I disagree. If a game is built for a particular level of raytracing, it could be amazing. Imagine Splinter Cell or Thief designed around raytracing, using dynamic light to cast rays that increase the visibility of the player. The player would have to consider how much light is bouncing toward them and how different materials could change the lighting, such as a car driving by or a butler carrying a metal tray. Those game were already spectacular, but raytracing would take them to another level that's drastically different. It's possible to have shadows and silhouettes be detected without raytracing, but I would also love to see that.
@@Go_Coup Yeah, I agree. But as you say - the game needs to be built up with that level design in mind (ie. Thief games which utilize shadow pretty well). Applying RTX to existing games doesn't really work - eg. in this video the water is basically unplayable whereas in the original Quake ambient lighting was a feature as many levels requires you to navigate in water.
@@texx8205 , yes. I'm not against purely cosmetic upgrades, but it's definitely extremely overrated. I am interested in the ways raytracing can improve gameplay, though.
Short: needs adjustments
Long: reminds me of ages-old musicians' wisdom that every musician re-confirms when a certain level of mastery has been reached - things you ARE ABLE TO do ≠ things you MUST do. As many comments said, the tech is fine, but does it fit here? Does it do justice to the original design? With a few adjustments like less brightness to areas that are supposed to be bright, and less darkness to those supposed to be dark would do the trick. A few filler lights or more "bouncing" for ANY light source could do the trick. The way it looks right now reminds me more of Doom3 aesthetics, with its "islands of light in an ocean of darkness" image and gameplay approach. But D3 was a more horror game than Quake 1, an action-packed fast-paced shooter that was dim (not pitch-black) at times. Episode 4 had this pitch-blak patches philosophy, so those levels could look prettier with this tech. But not every other level at all times.
I get that it will be "too dark" in many places as the game was not designed for this kind of lightning (and it also wasn't balanced for it), but honestly... to say "I'm not impressed" would be an understatement. The very first impression was "wow, this is so much better, and the colors are right", but with each new room... for one, it's too blurry, but that could be due to the recording/youtube, but secondly, this looks like the kind of dynamic lightning you got in the very first Descent. Which came out the year BEFORE the original Quake. Granted, that game didn't really have bounce light and neither you nor the enemies cast any shadow as far as I can tell, but still... if you need a strong modern PC in 2024 to run Quake with a quality of lightning that other games achieved running on a decent 1995 PC, that isn't all that stunning.
What is definitly impressive is that some people took their time and actually made this, made the Quake engine do something it was absolutely not designed for.
Epsilon Mod + Ray Tracing would probably toast a modern PC.
This video could really benefit from side by side comparisons.
Better then Q2 RTX, but still not quite there. Too much bloom and either lack of contrast outdoor, or too much of it when indoor.
That what happens when developers try to do a design 🤦♂
I prefer the original lighting and animation, it's not realistic but has mystery and feels primitive, like I prefer
This looks amazing overall, but the neon blue water is ugly as hell lol
Maybe it's a placeholder
now add Vanilla Quake vs GLQuake vs HDQuake vs RT Quake
Wonder how is this compared to engines like Darkplaces (Still one of my favovite ways to play Q1)
Imagine takin this back to the two Johns at iD in the nineties, playing a video of it for 5 minutes, lookin them in the eye, then just leave with it and them staring dumbfound :D
They'd look at you and said 'it was better back in the old days hur dur'.
Please tell me this works with the new version of Quake on Steam. I will install in a heartbeat!
It does
I will give it a goo this afternoon! Thank you.
Rodriguez Jennifer Hall Brenda Davis Michelle
I want that on my phone !! This is sooo amazing
Looks terrible. Leave original art work untouched
I agree that it looks quite bad in many ways, but I disagree with leaving original art. QUAKE could absolutely look gorgeous if it were remade properly (even if it's only via light.) It might be my favorite game, but it is not a good-looking game anymore. (No, I don't particularly think graphics are very important.)
@@Go_Coup agree totally that it may look gorgeusly ! but have to be remade with caution to details and consistent art. yeah yeah. i am not against tech. i am only about respect to original authors