Today's shootingest video: Quake Wars

by Zack Stern { Jun 24th 2007 at 12:20AM }

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is one of the next big shooters from Id, and GameTrailers shows some in-game multiplayer footage. We've seen better demos of the game, but this video gives an idea for some of the gameplay and style of the title, just in time for the public beta. Is Quake Wars on your FPS radar?

See the video after the break, or view the HD version if unimpressed with the embedded clip.

Tags: enemy territory, EnemyTerritory, first person shooter, FirstPersonShooter, fps, hottest video, HottestVideo, id, quake, quake wars, quake wars enemy territory, QuakeWars, QuakeWarsEnemyTerritory, shooter, video

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

CalabreZ @ Jun 24th 2007 1:14AM

dos grafix are teh suX!oneone

Kevin @ Jun 24th 2007 1:25AM

I sure hope the grafix are a lot better for the release.

Kevin @ Jun 24th 2007 1:28AM

I sure hope the grafix are a lot better for the release. otherwise, it looks pretty intense.

Loki @ Jun 24th 2007 1:40AM

dos grafix are teh suX!oneone

Wow....

ridestowe @ Jun 24th 2007 2:04AM

been playing the beta here, and i have to say the mechanics are nice but it is poorly executed as far as programming and artistic style goes. if they took the gameplay designers and gave them a better team of people this game could amke it but right now it barely qualifies as fun, and the last thing it is, is a shooter; its completely luck-based if you kill or are killed.

mr.shane.sims @ Jun 24th 2007 2:41AM

@5

You shoot quite a bit in this game. That could change between now and release, but somehow I think the gunplay will still be there.

As far as luck having anything to do with playing this game, as far as I know, I did not need to roll any dice in order to make things explode.

FOR THE MAKRON.

fludblud @ Jun 24th 2007 5:00AM

am i the only one not impressed?

Bachus @ Jun 24th 2007 5:03AM

you know, ppl have been bashing ETQW's graphics for a little while now. all the bashers don't seem to understand this game a.) still hasn't been demoed on a retail scale (even in the current beta the detail is scaled back to download faster) and b.) this game was SUPPOSED to come out about a year ago but was delayed due to 360/ps3 support (so the engine and rest is dated).

The Enemy Territory series is a whole lote more about gameplay and team roles than it is about graphics. you get the offensive/defensive team setup from CS (but with REAL and LINEAR objectives) mixed with BF class system.

ETQW isn't supposed to be Crysis. It looks as good as source on my rig, and for a large team based game with zero lag that's about all i care about.

ridestowe @ Jun 24th 2007 5:25AM

@8: i know the game isnt about graphics, but you cant dismiss the fact that you cant even see where the bullets are coming from that are being shot at you. also, the sound is horrible, that same clicking sound everytime a bullet goes by me, wtf is that. these flaws among others are inexcusable in terms of buying. if this were free like the first ET i'd play it but unfortunately its not. on that note how can you called ET a "series"? they've only had one other game, thats called a sequel.

PS: battlefield = 5x bigger than this, looks fantastic and still NO LAG! oh gee wiz, what do they call that? oh yeah....BETTER.

PSS: show me an official link from the ET team saying the graphics are going to be largely changed in the final version and i might beleive you, but otherwise stop making baseless statements just because you have a hardon for a game that isnt even out yet and are in denial of its suckage. also, the strogg speak english rofl.

guises @ Jun 24th 2007 6:39AM

The game is multiplayer-only: the graphics need to convey meaning quickly and unambiguously, they do not need to look pretty. They are not there to set the mood or tell a story.

That said, a reminder that Id's advertising partners will be spying on you should be enough to keep anyone from buying this game:

http://community.enemyterritory.com/index.php?q=node/58

Shiro @ Jun 24th 2007 6:46AM

I still think I'll stick to Battlefield 2. I know they're different, and I'm sure Quake Wars is alright, maybe even pretty fun, but BF2 is still an amazingly good looking game and has awesome teamwork/strategy. (If only 2142 had been as good...)

Quakeulf @ Jun 24th 2007 8:10AM

I have never been able to stream a movie off GameTrailers.com, as every movie stutters beyond belief and often refuses to load at all. What is up with GameTrailers? No other gaming site with inline movies no matter the quality have this problem. I have never had troubles streaming huge as shit movies off Gamespy for comparison.

t_m @ Jun 24th 2007 8:26AM

looks like a kinda weird mix... too fast for much in the way of tactics.. yet a etup that implies tactics should be used. UT speed with BF gameplay?

dontlikeitmodit @ Jun 24th 2007 8:34AM

@13 If you have played the original Enemy Territory you would know it is a very fast game. Fast as in players move very fast through the world.

ETCW was a great game. It too had dated graphics, as it was free and came out quite a bit later then Castle Wolfenstien.

I haven't played the beta yet, but remember people who have, its a beta. Things may or may not be finalized so things can always improve, or worsen in some companies cases.

As long as the appeal of the original is in Quake Wars I will enjoy it.

ScreamingSkull @ Jun 24th 2007 8:39AM

I was hoping for a lot more from this game, I mean any time someone starts defending a (beta)game with statements like, "It's not supposed to be about the graphics, it's the gameplay" rings like H3 beta talk to me.
And granted this is no H3, but I really wanted a "next gen" team based open warfare game that lived up to those stills and this is not it.

Phaty000 @ Jun 24th 2007 9:47AM

Heh.

And people bitched about the Halo 3 beta.

RoboJoel @ Jun 24th 2007 9:59AM

DOOM 3 engine can't do outdoor vistas... Exactly why Prey looks amazing, it's all indoor organo-tech corridor industrial-alien environments.

DOOM 3 was never made to go outdoors, and that's probably why no DOOM game has ever had open environments in landscape esque settings. I wish id would realize this, hell, I wish they would have realized it day and date of the Xbox 360 announcement. Quake IV truly paled in comparison to the early Unreal 3 tech.

Game looks fun. Most id games tend to be (even these annoying outsourced ones...). Hopefully it will be the next great multiplayer shooter... and Hopefully, id Tech 5 won't be ass.

Evan @ Jun 24th 2007 10:06AM

id Software fixed the open environments problem with Quake IV. There's no drop in performance anymore.

abermaelon @ Jun 24th 2007 11:01AM

This game looks like pure garbage. Does anyone notice that the dev cycles are getting longer and the games are getting crappier? Am I just stating the obvious? Id stopped making good games a long time ago and noone seemed to notice, much like Rare. Rare had Goldeneye and Id had Quake. Christ, at least Rare tried to start other franchises. Oh, and not buying this game for my PC or 360. Of course this is just my opinion and taste.

Tyrus @ Jun 24th 2007 12:48PM

These are some pretty bland clips in terms of action. Are these just random beta testing clips stuck together? The graphics certainly don't look like they're jacked up to the highest setting compared to the screenshots out there, either. I wouldn't be surprised if these wonky claims that the graphics were scaled back for the beta are actually true.

At least it looks like it'll run on my piece of crap machine.

Yoshi @ Jun 24th 2007 2:02PM

Meh, I thought certain parts of the video looked great, other parts needed some serious attention. I'll probably pass on this one, but it's really too early to judge it since its only in the beta stage right now.

pinkmonkey @ Jun 24th 2007 4:19PM

@19 YES! Thank god, i thought i was the only one who noticed.

Lots of re-hashing, re-hyping of old gameplay styles with updated graphics (Starcraft 2, UT3 - i mean, c'mon, it looks good but gameplay-wise? Will it be any different from UT2004? If not, count me out).

'Next Generation' for gamers is *NEW* gameplay, next generation for dev's seems to just be updated graphics.
I've yet to see any title i would hands-down call 'next generation' on any machine, let alone PC.

Zeus the God @ Jun 24th 2007 7:22PM

Definitely. I loved ET:RTCW...

WizarDru @ Jun 24th 2007 9:42PM

Is this id's 'A' game, now? A year overdue or not, this looks little better than Quake 3. Dull environments that we've seen for years, unimpressive graphical tech and gameplay clips that bore to tears.

Traditionally, id created great engines with substandard gameplay...no they don't even appear to be making great engines. id doesn't have the field to themselves anymore...but apparently they still haven't really copped to that fact.

KiwiLord @ Jun 25th 2007 12:42AM

You guys just don't understand the concept of a "Beta" do you? This isn't a demo. This isn't current, up-to-date sound effects or graphics. This is a video from an earlier build of the game. All of your complaints are entirely moot and make no sense. You can judge a product before you see it's final result, but that's like saying you hate pizza after eating some raw pizza dough.

mko @ Jun 25th 2007 3:20AM

1. it is unpossible to see the detail of the textures in this video
2. After watching this video and then actually getting into the beta and trying it today the graphics are great and you need to actually see and play the game before you judge it on this small video with unknown graphic settings.
3. :P

G1ZM0 @ Jun 25th 2007 6:02AM

LOL at complaints about graphics.

1st it's a Beta and 2nd who cares. Most folks don't have the hardware to run full settings anyway, and may that do use the "pro" settings anyway.

Also the link to in game adds clearly states.

The company providing the ad system does not and will not store any personal information or data that otherwise can be used to identify you. All they track is if and how long you look at the advertisements.

Also ad revenue will help pay for updates and expansions. If they charge for then then you have a right to bitch. Until then STFU STFD.

Mike @ Jun 25th 2007 8:47AM

While the game’s defenders may have a point, I’d like to remind them that Quake Wars is currently in the beta testing phase. What does this mean?

FYI: Beta testing is the last stage of testing. As described by Webopedia, this phase normally can involve sending the product to beta test sites outside the company for real-world exposure or offering the product for a free trial download over the Internet.

If there’s any good time to put in the eye candy, it should be now.

WizarDru @ Jun 25th 2007 8:57AM

"You guys just don't understand the concept of a "Beta" do you? This isn't a demo. This isn't current, up-to-date sound effects or graphics. This is a video from an earlier build of the game."

Nonsense. You don't need to beta test with 60,000 clients, nor do you farm it out to random Gamespy clients to do it. That's a demo-in-beta's-clothing. And if the famed 'mega-texture' feature isn't being tested in the beta-test, what value does it truly have as a beta-test? Especially when this game is using a modified version of a pre-existing (Doom 3) engine....there should be significantly less testing required than previously. We didn't see this level of beta-test for Doom 3 or Quake 4....because a beta-test on this scale is unnecessary, unless it is intended for marketing, as this one is.

Do you truly believe that they're suddenly going to change the core gameplay and art assets after the beta? Post-beta is for fine-tuning, not for entirely new content generation. This game doesn't look terrible, it just looks bland and dull. I mean, we had this sort of gameplay in Unreal Tournament in 1999. Combining assualt with some classes is all good and well, but the video makes it look like Quake 3 more than anything else.

There was a time when id was innovating and dominating...but that time has clearly long-since passed.

Copperhead @ Jun 25th 2007 11:02AM

Very meh.

I've never been much of a fan of the "cheetah on crack" speed folks run at in Quake and in a tactical game rather than a bullet driven sprayfest, it's going to suck even more.

I'll pass and keep playing BF2/POE, thanks.

Tephlon @ Jun 25th 2007 1:03PM

You guys need to realize something-
This is Enemy Territory.

Not Battlefield.
Not Unreal.

But Enemy Territory. If you don't know what that means, I suggest you go play Wolf:ET to find out.

@Wizardru
The engine has been largely rewritten, especially from a networking standpoint. The beta is to stress the network code. (which, honestly, isn't doing super great right now. But hey, THAT'S WHAT A BETA'S FOR, RIGHT?)

@graphics people:
Locki (Owner of Splash Damage and ET lead designer) has said in mulitple interviews that the content for the game is done. He said they're almost purely in the 'Tweaking and Bugfinding' Phase. Does that mean they shipped the beta with the highest res megatexture they have for that map? Who knows. It's only 397 meg. In an earlier interview they said it would be more around 500mb a map (compressed down from a 5gb-ish megatexure). Maybe it's a bit lower res... maybe they got some better compression... maybe 500 was a wild guess at the time. It's anyone's guess. Bottom line, is we can't be sure. (also, if you fire up the beta and play you will see that they don't look too bad if your actually playing the game. This video doesn't do the game justice in any respect, as do MOST crappy online streaming vidoes of games.)
But you can bet that what it LOOKS like in beta now is largely what the final game will look like. I'm running the beta now and I think it looks great. Every bit as good as Battlefield. My only complaint is the performance isn't super great. Hopefully this last beta phase will take care of smoothness issues. But graphics... prolly not.
As for the sound comments, the dev's have stated on their forums that the sounds (particularly the gunfire) is messed up for most people. So expect sound tweaking to be fixed before release as well.

Wizdru said "A year overdue or not, this looks little better than Quake 3. Dull environments that we've seen for years, unimpressive graphical tech and gameplay clips that bore to tears."

I'll agree, the "nearly a year" overdue thing doesn't make me happy, but if you can't tell the difference between Q3 and this, you're blind, or your talking out of pure fanboisim or bias of some kind. Unreal 3 engine it ain't, but its not the ugliest girl at the dance... not by a longshot. See full screen hi res gameplay and you should agree.
Gameplay wise is that's purely an opinion. I love the gameplay. Others will think it's not tactical enough. As I said earlier, its straight up ET gameplay. It's not trying to be anything more, or anything less. Again, if you don't know what that means, or don't like it... then move along. I can admit that ET ain't for everybody. (BTW, if you wanted it to be tactical, maybe you should re-read the title; it's got the word QUAKE in it. That should be your first sign.)

pinkmonkey said "Lots of re-hashing, re-hyping of old gameplay styles with updated graphics (Starcraft 2, UT3 - i mean, c'mon, it looks good but gameplay-wise? Will it be any different from UT2004? If not, count me out).

'Next Generation' for gamers is *NEW* gameplay, next generation for dev's seems to just be updated graphics.
I've yet to see any title i would hands-down call 'next generation' on any machine, let alone PC."

This title is a sequel. It's got the same ET gameplay for a reason. Same for Starcraft, Halo, Unreal and any other sequel in a franchise.
People loved a particular game because that game played a certain way. Changing the gameplay is changing the game. People buy sequels TO play 'rehashed' gameplay set in the series or universe they grew to love.
I don't understand why people can't understand this.
Maybe that's why i hate what this 'next-gen' term has turned into. For some reason you all of a sudden have to reinvent the wheel to be nextgen.
I personally, played ET for 4 years. I loved it. I love the idea of having fresh content applied to the ET formula. And since i didn't pay for the last 4 years of fun, I certainly don't mind paying for it this time around.
I actually think the big press and attention this game has had has really killed it. People only see it on the surface as a shooter, and see vehicles and assume id's trying to cash in on the 'Battlefield Phenomenon'. Think that all you want, but it simply isn't true.
RTCW came out. Splash damage made Wolf:ET.
Quake 4 came out. Splash Damage made ETQW.
THATS IT.
Again, I understand some of you will prefer Battlefield. But here's the catch. HUH!? You can like BOTH. If you actually played it, you'd realize its not trying to be BF. So when you want to play in huge maps with lots of vehicles and capture flags with tacticle combat... play Battlefield.
If you want to play a faster paced game game driven by common team objectives that unlock progressive area's of the map until you complete the final objective... play ET.
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME FUCKING GAME.

As for this particular video... its pure garbage. They picked the most random stupid footage possible to show you. Didn't show a SINGLE objective being accomplished, (which is messed up considering this is an objective based game). You can be the best shot in all the land, but if you're stupid and not doing your job for team, they're gonna grab that objective right from under your nose.
There's no funner (i know, i know, not a word) thing to do then to sneak by the enemy team and plant dynomite on the objective, and then watch them scramble to disarm it, only to kill 3 people as the dynomite explodes, granting you access to the next objective.

Again, as with most other games, I can't come here and change most people's minds. People come to forums and blogs to bitch, and that's what they do.
But for those of you with an open mind, if anything I've said was news to you, do yourself a favor and check out the real retail demo when it drops.
Then deciede.
I still feel that if you loved Wolf:ET, you'll find plenty to like about ET:QW.

WizarDru @ Jun 25th 2007 1:51PM

"but if you can't tell the difference between Q3 and this, you're blind, or your talking out of pure fanboisim or bias of some kind. Unreal 3 engine it ain't, but its not the ugliest girl at the dance... not by a longshot. See full screen hi res gameplay and you should agree."
Having seen a higher quality video now, I agree, it looks much better than I though. Still, there doesn't appear to be much emphasis was on the tileset and design aspects. This really looks bland to me. What is that, some sort of generic industrial plant. Again? A small rustic European village? Again? Everything is a dull brown, dull green or grey...again?

I can see how this game might excite some folks...but compared to when games like Quake 1 and 2 dropped, there's not much excitement here. Not being familiar with ET and not being a fan of Battlefield, I guess this sort of game just isn't for me.

dness @ Jun 25th 2007 1:55PM

the settings aren't all the way up

tlg @ Jun 26th 2007 2:21PM

If you ask me, I like UT2k4 much better. Yes they are both objective based, but UT2k4 has

1. A bigger map than that sorry Sewage map

(and more usable places as well. The whole map actually serves a purpose.)

2. Much better vehicles

(The vehicles in QW can be described as the following: clinky, unresponsive, and generally harmless to the enemy. BF2 does a much better job here. As least there is no random lock-on rocket luncher that can shoot down a vehicle from a million miles away.)

3. Bland graphic (Yes it looks better than BF2, UT2kx, and RTCW; Who cares? The whole thing looks like HL2 future mode. The color is...RTCW is much much better in this catagory)

I could go on and on, but I will stop the ranting for now.

While QW is not trying to be BF2, QW stands to learn a few things from BF2. But more importantly, QW needs to learn *a lot* from the UT series.

PS: Luck has nothing to do with it- you can't do much when you can't find who is shooting at you, right?