It seems that you've already decided, if not recorded the thing, but Quakespasm is good. But unless the experience is fundamentally altered by playing in an engine, I'd rather go with the more slick version.Ī notable case in point where we decided to stick with the original was Silent Hill 2 - The remaster is largely considered a disaster, removing fog, changing the lighting, and generally doing a lot to worsen the atmosphere. There's a limit to this of course - I want the overall aesthetics to be the same. Mind you, I'm definitely not an old school quake player like yourself so maybe I'm missing something essential. And as far as I can tell the experience is not reduced in any way shape or form - its in fact enhanced.
But for me, the question I want to ask is 'what is gained by playing at the lower res and lower frame rate?'. We could certainly play it at those low resolutions. And I think that if I was to recommend it to my listeners, they would generally prefer to play in the engine as well. And the nature of PCs being constantly updated and upgraded (as opposed to console games) is that we expect access to higher fps and higher resolutions.
We want to answer whether Quake is a game worth playing today. So the stated goal of our podcast is primarily practical, rather than historical.
