Where did Quakeman get his Axe?

There does not seem to be any explanation as to why a Marine is carrying an axe with him, and one that looks pretty crude to boot. At least in Doom 3 they came up with a valid explanation on why would you find a chainsaw on Mars.

Yeah, they also used rocket launcher to “dispose of” toxic waste.

Good question, though.

I do not believe there is any other answer to that - following a very narrow frame of original ‘Quake’ lore - other than stating: ‘Quake’, is syncretic and it simply blends together some themes and iconographies from all over the place, merging them in a - fortunately - well executed formula of a first person view shooter game, the development of which, the ‘id Software’, was known to have mastered.

What if ‘Quake’ was a board game, nonetheless? The axe, could then remind of the actual game board.

Something similar happened in Blood as well, as in, why was Caleb buried with a pitchfork? And who buried him in the first place, in a sort of mausoleum no less? You’d think he’d wake up in a ditch or something. Guess this is the sort of thing the devs didn’t concern themselves with back in the day because it wasn’t really important; turns out these games were great regardless.

The axe in Quake looks crude because everything in Quake looks crude. Maybe Quake Guy / Ranger is some special forces lumberjack marine?

As for Blood:

[quote]Caleb awakens in cold and damp in a body he no longer knows. It has long
lain as a corpse that refused to rot, protected from putrefaction by some
unearthly link to its master. The pain of protesting muscle and flesh
invigorates and awakens him. He welcomes it. It distills his hate into the
maelstrom raging in the center of his mind.[/quote]

So looks like he is basically not in his original former body, but inside someone else’s. So the question is, why was this other person buried with a pitchfork. :slight_smile: I guess the developers could’ve put some unavoidable pitchfork pickup in that area, but just didn’t bother?

The question is, are we even supposed to try sort this out?

I mean, there is clearly no evidence the devs had any deeper thought behind it. It just looked good, it was catchy. Besides, there had to be something and it had to be very readable to the consumer; it had to sell. Simultaneously, it had to differ enough from other things that were meant to sell as well.

Conclusion, is that the “FPS” game protagonists, are a bunch of farmers.

I imagine that back in the day, there was no such thing as “being indie” going around, therefore it was nothing wrong to try sell oneself. In fact, it seems that the favored community creations, often were turned into commercial projects, in a way of telling appreciation.

I think that nowadays, the axe, would be a fireman axe, picked up randomly.

The old John Carmack ‘story in a Porn movie’ thing I guess.

I think that is the primary answer.

Damn, some nerds were cool back then.

In my opinion, digital games, were meant to embody the pure joy of tech doing something fun and extraordinary - particularly in the field of interactive, immersive environments; the natural continuation of which, is virtual reality - but now, since we have become used to this “extraordinary” condition; as well as with the phenomenon of digital games itself, turned into an obnoxious industry; what quality, are they going to offer, in order to convince us, that these games, are still any worthwhile time and energy investment?

I mean, your primary hardware, is your brain - thanks to that piece of hardware, you can partake in the biggest game of all: life.

Life, at least, cannot really be spoiled, because it is unique to anyone capable of experiencing it, individually. It is also worthwhile to note that according to some social theory, the only meaningful things in life, can happen in relation between humans - that is, how we are possibly wired.

Nevertheless, I do not really think that the computer, the gaming console or any other kind of available digital gaming device, is particularly making us more social or reaching out to other humans, nor that the “multiplayer”, is any substitute for organic social relations. On the contrary: I think it is a caricature, at best.

Not to state, however, that technology, is a problem itself - the technology, is a wonderful space, extending our capability to communicate; the only problem arises, when we convince ourselves, that the technological realm, can substitute for organic living.

But hey, since ‘Quake’, is fantasy, maybe the axe, was handed to the protagonist by some diety?

Next question: where did “Quakeman”, get is mustache?

Warning: tricky question.

Nope, don’t get it.

“Shambler” gave it to him.


Still don’t get it.

Good for you.

Marines at whatever year this is are using these axes. Standard outfit. Like a sapper shovel in World War II also quite bulky by the way.
That’s it.

[quote=Alex Ros]Marines at whatever year this is are using these axes. Standard outfit. Like a sapper shovel in World War II also quite bulky by the way.
That’s it.[/quote]
Which makes them apparently a bunch of lumberjacks.

I always thought that in terms of sci-fi setting, the “axe” would be a common name for some low-tier energy weapon, like a weak lightsabre, which could be used to bash the enemy to death, rather than to swiftly cut through.

Clearly, that is not canon, though. I do not think there is any “canon”, when it comes to ‘Quake’.

Perhaps the hero of ‘Quake’, is a dwarf; dwarfs in fantasy settings are always lumberjacks, unless they are miners - or mad berserkers.

Quakeman realised he was in a case of emergency and broke the glass.

You just broke the matrix.

Just to point out Ranger is not a Marine.

Ranger is a Ranger.

If the Quakeman was Chuck Norris, there would be no axe needed at all.