BBC answers the question gamers want to knowL4D demo outGood Old Games enters Open BetaMirror's Edge Demo out today!L4D demo Nov 11thNatural Selection 2Breaking News: New Star Wars MMO Confirmed!Massive update for Warhammer Online in December
Cake or Death? - Watchmen style! - <a href=/forum/index.php?bb_topic=2522>Discuss this in our forums!</a> - Click to view larger image



Site © 1999-2008

Quake 4 - Review

Reviewed by: Ebow
Developer: Raven
Publisher: Activision

So, here we are then. The sequel to the sequel to one of the greatest games ever created for the PC. A lot of expectations, then. Or maybe just a lot of expectations from people that can remember the first 2 in the series.

Quake 2 totally defined my online gaming world. DM, CTF and Loki's Minions - these hooked me into online multiplayer (along with the excellent Lithium mod), and many an hour was spent in those arenas, both online and at local LANs. A milestone for me personally and for a lot of other people.

Quake 3 played the pretty card, and played it well. The bouncepads added some comical railing opportunities, and the level designs created some adrenaline pumping times. But it wasn't Quake 2, and your system started to affect how you played - low spec system + bad connection = "eh, WTF shot me?". The Threewave team added the off-hand grapple to CTF (plus more), so it started to play like Quake 2, but it still relied on your machine. Q3: Team Arena added huge outdoor arenas to the mix which, of course, required the tech to run them. So it was around this time I moved from the Quakes to the Half-Lifes.

I get bored of reading reviews by reviewers where they just write about themselves, but I think in this instance it's important to understand where this game sits in the history of the FPS genre. Not only is it a sequel of a sequel, it ignores whatever attempt at plot was in Quake 3 (erm, "frag each other!"?) and instead opts to carry on where Quake 2 left off.

This is fundamental in making Quake 4 the experience it is. Other sequels to classics have chosen the "similiar story, new engine" approach, and to some extent that's fine - it brings the game to an audience that craves appearance above content. There may be little or no plot to speak of, or a plot in the last quarter of the game after the tech demos have finished playing, but such sequels remind you of the good games you once played.

Quake 4 manages to meld both the eye-candy factor and plot together in a way that works.

Given that the game runs on the Doom 3 engine, the first few levels seemed more like the next in the Doom series than a Quake-with-plot game. Environments were similiar to Doom 3 and, although it looked as glorious as Doom 3, I had already played that and started to wonder if I'd been robbed. I left it a day and went back.

And then it all kicked off big-stylee and I couldn't play enough of it.

The single biggest element of the game that sets it above everything else is the plot. You feel like part of something, not the uber-hero out to protect the fodder other games would called "team mates". Yes, you do things that should maybe require a full squad, but then your squadmates are doing the same thing at the same time, so you feel part of it all, and not indestructible. This provided a sense of urgency to the game that I'd not experienced for a long time - I wanted to help my comrades, I wanted to complete my components of the overall mission: I wanted to be part of it all. It reminded me of Call of Duty.

Then the vehicle sections arrived. There's plenty of consolist comments that will probably be made in the comments section for this review about this. Although they were good fun, to me they didn't sit comfortably with the rest of the game - they seemed like sub-games to get you to your next place where combat was CQB and gritty. This wasn't helped by what appeared to be miniature enemy models rushing around when in the vehicles, out of proportion to the vehicle you were in, but credit must be given to developers Raven for giving it a go with the engine.

I've read a few reviews for this already and am a little disappointed that people are giving away what was, to me, an unexpected twist and one that made me sit up and feel slightly queasy. It's the reason the game is an 18, for sure. And that's all I'm going to say about it. Anything more would be like handing you a copy of Sixth Sense and saying "he's dead, you know!"...

The last third of the game I played through in a single sitting, so gripped was I by the events around me. Although there may be an argument for "well, it all looks kinda the same", it is all taking place in the same environment, so what was expected? Should the Strogg redecorate each section of their structures? I think not.

The levels look good, as good as Doom 3, with the addition of outdoor areas and what seems to be improved physics (or more physics-ized objects). Both of these added to the immersion of the game and yes, I'll admit it, I would often be wandering around levels impressed at the architecture after I'd killed everything.

The squad based elements play very well. No people standing in doorways apologising for getting in your way here. Although there are no squad controls, the AI of these comrades-in-arms was good enough to pull you in further. Gripes have been levelled at the game about the voice acting, but I couldn't find fault in it at all. There were enough semi-quotes from classic action movies (the ones about the ceiling made me smile, as did the cosmonaut-from-Armageddon accent of the engineer) to boost the already pumping adrenaline. The flashlight effects are glorious from your squadmates, and make for more than one frantic moment of "whats going on" when all you can see is their flashlights and muzzle flashes.

There are a number of sections in the game that seem to do no more than just have you wandering about, but for me these added colour to an already rich environment, giving more background on what was going on, what the people behind the scenes of the combat were doing and thought about it. My sense of direction may be fading as I get older, but at least I had something to keep me entertained while I was getting lost ;)

It took me about 10 hours of solid play to complete SP at second-from-noob difficulty. I've never been a fan of figuring out what to do after some nightmare combat - I just want to play through - so where I can I play through on an easier setting and hope the game provides enough that I want to go back at each of the harder settings. Quake 2 did this for me. And so does Quake 4.

If you're tired of new games ignoring where they came from, give this a go. It's not perfect (see the score boxes for gripes), but it is intense, playable and... wait for it... good fun.

And finally, it's the first game I've played for a while where when I finished it I felt a sense of fulfilment and indeed may have muttered WOOHOO. Raven, get hold of the Source engine and get to work on HL3 please ;)

(I've dabbled with the multiplayer, but DNM will be reviewing that in depth at a later stage)

Presentation10
What may annoy about the vehicle sections is more than made up for by the non-vehicle areas.
Gameplay9
Those pesky vehicle sections again. Just too arcadey :/
Value10
Replayable, seemingly great multiplayer. Does an avid FPS fan want any more?
Benchmark9
Well, it's a sequel to a sequel using another sequel to a sequels game engine. Extra point for remembering a game with a plot works better than one without.
Score9
It's as close to what I wanted it to be as it could be, with just the nods to the console crowds adding elements that keep it from being a 10. Well worth your time though.

Minimum SpecReviewed on
P4 2Ghz / AMD 2000+
512MB RAM
Dx 9c 64MB hardware accelerator graphics card
DVD-ROM drive
AMD 3000+
1GB RAM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)

 (click for larger image)