Slashdot Mirror
New Doom Details
Lasso Bob writes: "The Shugashack has a ton of details from Carmack's QuakeCon talk that happened just a couple of hours ago. We can expect a Linux port as well as OSX port for sure. Yeah!" Sounds pretty cool -- stuff like probably a big graphics jump and other fun to be had.
Actually, from what I recall from a friend, this was actually one of the "features" discussed for Win2K. It would automatically "fix" the MBR when you booted into 2K.
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Has anybody noticed how strange some his statements are?
- Doom will be going back to DLLs, and will be using C++ (with the exception of the rendering code) instead of C
Hmm, i well remember the whole discussion about virtual machines, code security, mods running on different platforms without recompilation, etc... what happened to that? apart from it: can you imagine ID coding something in c++ ? I've yet to see something even vaguely OO from carmack.
- Single player is the absolute focus, and Carmack feels it will be their best single player experience to date.
Do you remember the leaked audio-interview from pre-q3 days? Carmack basically said, that single-player games suck from a money/replayability point of view. He even said that he wouldn't start a sp-game nowadays, because of the ever growing development time. (and could only be done right with a _massive_ devteam)
- The game and editor/tools are now combined. You'll be able to simply type doom.exe -editor for example (Or maybe even an in-game toggle)
In the same interview he said, that he doesn't like integrated editors, and will never do so.
what happened to carmack?
... crusher[kreaPC]
Hmmm
PCXL Forever!!!!
Whatdoya mean, demons that go "yee?" All mine went "Hi-diddly hey!" and "I can see you!" and "Simpson, eh?" .WAD for a few weeks, I couldn't play any other way, because i didn't know what the original sounds were!
After playing that
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I never understood why people would pay 50 dollars for basically the same game they got a year before.
#1. It looks pretty.
#2. I'd rather play a current game with people than try to get a Doom game together with the two other people in the world who would rather feel righteous than have a good time with normal people.
#2 is reason enough for me, frankly. I loved Quake 3 for how little they changed things; it's a working formula, why mess with it? So what if I'm paying for an updated rendering engine, why do you care?
Just because it wasn't custom designed for you doesn't mean it's worthless. All you have to do is not buy it. Don't come bitching to me about why the games that I like aren't good enough.
--
This will be id's seventh basic iteration of a first-person shooter. In the previous six, none have had a story more substantive than "You're stranded on an alien planet (or the equivalent thereof). Shoot things." They've always relied on flash and graphics for user immersion. All well and good back in the days of Doom, when the rules were less clear-cut (and a masterpiece like System Shock could get buried by the dual factors of shareware distribution and a commercial distributor who just didn't give a rat's ass about it because they couldn't pigeonhole it).
Now look at what's happened since Quake II. Half-Life redefined the rules of the genre thanks to that terrific storyline. System Shock II, Thief and its sequel, Soldier of Fortune, Deus Ex...a strong storyline has become the rule rather than the exception, something to set you apart from the crowd in a single-player FPS. FPSes even get dinged by reviewers for not having a strong storyline. Gabe Newell buried a landmine in John Carmack's sandbox, and Carmack and his team have proven in the past that they haven't got the inclination to deal with this kind of threat.
(This is why I wondered about the ex-id players and their particular solo efforts. Daikatana's storyline always seemed to be a joke to me, and it turned out to be as shallow as expected. And even having Lewis Carroll as source material, I have very little hope that Alice will have some meat on her bones.)
I'm not big on multiplayer gaming due to my inherent asocial tendencies, so I look for strong single-player elements in my FPSes. However, I purchased both Quake III and Unreal Tournament. Why? Because I know what side my bread is buttered on. The greatest storyline in the world won't save a game that's behind the tech curve. My money voted for id's and Epic's development efforts in engine creation and other basic tech. I trust each company to give us magnificent efforts in technical achievement; I just don't trust them to do stories.
My thought on Doom III is that it's going to be a terrific glorified tech demo. However, I'll be incredibly and pleasantly surprised if Carmack and company pull a rabbit out of their hats and give us a story. I'll be waiting for this, but wary.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
Huh? "Great single-player experience" means just that. It has nothing to do with a story or a plot, and everything to do with gameplay. A good game doesn't need a plot, and a good plot does not make a good game. It's all about getting your priorities right, and that means concentrating on the gameplay, not the plot. Despite a few hiccoughs here and there, id have delivered pretty well on gameplay for the last 8 years or so.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The 2 weeks is for Quake 3:Team Arena, not Doom. The Shugashack article is about his QuakeCon speech, not just Doom.
It has been my experience that game with One-Player games and an option for multiplayer are far better. Quake 3 Arena is the game that brought be to the "Gaming world." I was disappointed since all there was, was deathmatch and capture the flag. But, since then with q3f and WFA, it's a little more fun but, sometimes you just feal like playing on your own and not on the internet. What are you to do for that with q3arena? Play a deathmatch with bots that just run around and if they see you they shoot (not neccisarily at you either)? Since then, a friend of mine gave me Quake and I enjoyed it a whole lot more. A barely visible plot but, still much more enjoyable. Then, another friend pointed out Half Life to me. I was instantly hooked. A long deep plot for the one player game, and a good multiplayer experience. Then, I got Opposing Force for it and all the fun of the one player game came back. Admittedly, the mods are definately a part of VALVe's success (especially Counter-Strike.). I got, after that, Unreal Tournament. It's a good game but, sometimes a person is looking for more than single player deathmatches. UT is a good game and I can't wait for it's Team Fortress clone. Then, I got Soldier of Fortune. I was definately happier with SoF than UT. A nice single player game and good multi player game.
Following that pattern, in order for the upcoming Doom to be any good is to have a very deep/complex plot for the multiplayer (and good mod support. Maybe better mod tools will help?). Having only Q1 & 3 as my only id gaming experience, I've never tried Doom or any of there older games. But I still look forward to this upcoming release of a new Doom and plan on buying it. Being a big fan of First-Person, Shoot-em-up games, I'll be buying it.
I don't see much of a future for internet only games like q3arena or UT. Hearing about Team Fortress 2 by VALVe might make it a little different though. The way it sounds, it will have scenarios similar to that of World War II and Counter-Strike. Having rescue the hostages, protect the VIP, etc. it sounds pretty good. But, in my opinion, it will never be as big and grand as VALVe's own Half Life. I hope to hear a lot on these companies future releases.
Have a nice day,
Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
Some other pages with info on Carmack's QuakeCon talk:
3DActionPlanet
Stomped
PlanetQuake
-jfedor
I play RPGs (Final Fantasy, etc.) for story. An FPS is good to me because it is fun, not necessarily because it tells a story. Lots of things can make an FPS fun -- multiplayer against intelligent opponents with intelligent teammates is one, sneaking around and figuring out puzzles might be another, challenging battles, a scary mood, finding secrets, impressive visuals,
The half-life story line was pretty lame, when you think about it. Soldier of Fortune's story was even more flaccid. These games were fun single-player, but for me it wasn't the story.
Does anyone else remember the hype for Quake back in the early 90s? Remember in the very first episode of Commander Keen how they had a "What's Next" screen; it told the story of a new game iD was working on. That game, even back then, was to be called "Quake". It was supposed to be a combination of a first-person perspective fighting game and a complex role-playing game. We were supposed to be able to talk to the artificial characters, (who were supposed to have real AI,) build alliances, explore, and ultimately, solve the puzzles necessary to reach the end of the game. We were supposed to use both our arcade-honed reflexes (ala FPS) and our wits (ala Zork or King's Quest). To me, this sounded like the best thing I'd ever heard of. What a tradgedy they opted to just implement the FPS portion of this idea. How 'bout it, Carmack? Can we have a *real* FPS-RPG/Adventure game combo?
Worldcraft is owned by Valve, and is only made compatible with Half-Life.
--
what comes out in 2 weeks? the test? the game? probably the hype .
The perfect first person game would feature:
- Morphing scenery : Imagine a game in which the landscape would change between each play. As if it was alive itself, like the towers in a chess game...
- Ultimate playability : Commander Keen [456]. Nuff said...
- Editing capabilities : Well, the editor will have to be excellent, quick and easy as the BeOS 3D mixing deck. This is the hardest point.
- Multiplaying abilities : Imagine if you could not only fight with or against one another as a warrior or as any creature or (why not) as a rocket tower or whatever...
- multiple view : So that it could fit most computers or displays :
- 3D
- 3D Isometric (like in Diablo)
- 2D, like in Keen.
Now, if a game featured all of these, do you seriously think it would be possible to abandon it once "finished" ?Do you also think it could be possible to finish it ?
I bet these are ideas that M. Carmack could follow.
But this could also man that Doom200 would be a cross between Quake3, Commander Keen and... Civilization. (I'd buy it for sure).
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'll be grumpy all day if they don't port to BeOS!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I thought they already had Steven King develop all their stories. They're so boring and hackneyed.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm betting that Carmack's evangelism of the newer Mac platforms will mean a resurgence of Mac gaming. Not that people haven't always been gaming on the Mac, but most of us will admit that Mac ports have been of secondary concern for most of the top games and companies for the past few years. (Of course, as an aside, I'd like to note that my intro to computer gaming was on a Mac, with Wolfenstein 3D and a Mac-only game called Barrack--anyone remember Barrack?)
I've noticed a bit of an increase in Mac ports of big-name games and an increase in advertising for them in Mac sections of ads from CompUSA and the like, and coincidentally(?) I've noticed this spike since a couple months after Carmack started praising the Mac as a game dev platform. Has anyone else noticed this, or have I killed too many brain cells and am now just imagining it? I'm curious as to what others think about this, and how others think Carmack's support might be positively affecting Mac gaming.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Well the Half-Life storyline was both realistic and intriguing. I mean, it was actually probable and along the way everything you encountered was pretty much feasable. It built a consuming reality, and have real goals that you *wanted* to achieve (if I get to the other side of the facility, the scientists might tell me what's going on; yay rescue is here - why the hell are they attacking me!)
Star Trek the Next Generation was high science fiction. It was very plausible. Every Star Trek past STNG has been a pathetic and lame soap opera and they should just shoot the franchise in the head to put it out of its pain.
And Independence Day sucked ass. (wow, aliens are attacking us, I feel scared, yet strangely patriotic and bonded to my fellow human being, disregarding any superficial differences we may have, let's fly fighter planes and upload a "virus" from a mac to the alien mothership). *YAWN* The only thing that was more hackneyed than that was Armageddon which couldn't even make the pretense of making any sense. (wow, I didn't know you could breath air without a space suit on an asteriod)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, my opinion is that D1&2 was entertaining mostly in singleplayer mode, but pretty kool in multiplayer too.
:)
:)
Q1 on the other hand was boring as #### as a singleplayer, but the multiplayer game.
Q2 was a nice single player game, better than Q1, more sneaking and strategies. But the multiplayer mode was way too slow.
Q3 is, well, kinda funny both in singel and multiplayer, but Q2 had better single player and Q1 better multiplayer, so... But, of course, the gfx was better in Q3. But that alone can't save a game. (Just look at Unreal(w.o. tournament;)).
I think D3 will really kick ass, remember those fireball throwers, or the flying cyclope heads? Hehehe... By the way, when will we see Wolfenstein2?
No, gimme Bubble bobble as a 1:st person shooter! Or commando, with Rob Hubbard music.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
It's time to change that "Quake" topic icon for an "id Software" one.
-jfedor
> what happened to that? apart from it: can you imagine ID coding something in c++
First of all, the fact that none of our deployed games used OOP does not mean that I don't think there are benefits to it. In the early days, there were portability, performance, and bloat problems with it, so we never chose to deploy with it. However, all of the tools for DOOM and Quake were developed in Obejctive-C on NEXTSTEP. Q3 also came fairly close to have a JVM instead of the QVM interpreter, but it didn't quite fit my needs.
I'm still not a huge C++ fan, but anyone that will flat out deny the benefits of OOP for some specific classes of problems like UI programming and some game logic is bordering on being a luddite. I still don't think it is beneficial everywhere, but, if anything, I think we are behind the curve on making the transition.
> Carmack basically said, that single-player games suck from a money/replayability point of view
This was a balancing act in company morale and politics. My first choice for future projects would be to pursue the snowcrash-like extensible virtual worlds, but most of the company wants to work on a game with a story. We have three new hires coming on soon, so we are growing somewhat to support it.
> In the same interview he said, that he doesn't like integrated editors, and will never do so.
That was a significant change in my stance over the last year. Did I actually say "never"?
You can just take the short answer of "I was wrong", but here is the longer argument (I went over this some in the talk):
Historically, we could make better games by using exotic and expensive development hardware or software that differed significantly from our deployment platform.
While early games with integrated editors were hurting their 640k memory footprint and forcing developers to work with a 320 or 640 res screen for tool development, we were using NeXT workstations with megapixel displays for our tools.
Given the option of a good rendering technology that required a lot of preprocessing, we bought first a quad alpha, then a 16 way SGI to do the processing.
Even when we moved the editor to WinNT, it used intergraph workstation graphics, while our deployment platform was mostly still software rendered or possibly Voodoo based.
The key thing that changed (after that earlier speech) was that the optimal development platform is now the same thing as the optimal deployment platform: x86 + nvidia.
That is important. The tools/editor/game HAD to be separate before. Now, the question has to be looked at with a fresh view.
There was a lot of code that was present in nearly identical form in the utils, editor, and game. Misc functions, image loading, model loading, pk3 filesystem support, etc. It was one of my big goals to make all that common.
The obvious step would be to make libraries out of them, but I have something of a personal dislike for managing code that way.
Rather than just endlessly debating the issues, I just took a day and combined the utility code into the main project. It went well, and I was happy with the many thousands of lines of code that got removed, and the increased functionality that resulted. Later, Robert did the same thing with the editor.
I do fret about code bloat issues, but I feel quite good about all of the common and not-quite-orthogonal code that has been removed, and in the scope of the entire project, it really isn't that much space -- it adds maybe a megabyte to the executable, but it will never be paged in if you are just playing the game.
I do think there are real benefits to the user community from having the tools with the game -- my earlier objection were always based not wanting to give up any possible advantages that we could have as developers.
The advantages are going to be especially strong for the linux and mac platforms: the entire tool chain will be available from day one on every platform the game runs on.
John Carmack
I'm actually surprised that this hadn't happened sooner. When you look at the massive potential for spaghetti code in the Quake engine, the man has to be commended for being on top of the entire engine for all this time. When id originally chose ANSI C for Quake, they said they did so for "speed and portability." Anyway, with the size of today's engines, you could see how this could make sense. Also, take note of how Carmack said they have 'a good sound programmer', and 'a good AI programmer.' Sounds OO like to me.
All I can think about here is that Carmack is going to take two years to code this new engine from scratch, which means that even if the dev tools aren't interactive for six months, there's a lot of time to create a new game with.
Alright. This is wierd. However, it's a natural progression. If we have ingame editing, most likely we won't be using BSP trees anymore, or perhaps we will turn culling off when we walk around. I think such a thing could be handled as a mod in the game. It just makes more sense than some win32 app that has completely different requirements than the game itself.
The only people who think Half-Life storyline is great are people who think that Star Trek is high science fiction and Independence Day is the best movie ever made. The plot was hackneyed from start to finish. It was on par with an episode of the old Superman TV series.
Well since I run Shugashack.com I figured I would clarify for you guys.
2 weeks was just my idea of a bad joke. A few years ago id was famous for saying '2 weeks' for release dates.
There was no actual mention of a release date given.
-Steve Gibson
-Steve Gibson
Shacknews.com
"In game editor" is probably being confused here somewhat. I am NOT talking about running around in the game, moving brushes around as you play. The editor is still a completely different user interface, with multi-view outlined drawing in addition to a 3D view. It just happens to live in the same executable as the game, and shares lots of code with it.
John Carmack
I don't think it's an "in"-joke at all. I remember "about two weeks" being the time estimate for a whole bunch of software projects, even pre-quake (remember those days?).
"It'll be ready in two weeks" really just means "it'll be ready when it's ready".
I suspect there is something about software engineering, that everything appears to be solvable within two weeks but during those two weeks new things pop up.
Remember that in the days of Doom, most people didn't even know that multi-player capabilities existed! You needed to start doom with command line arguments to set that up. And people still played doom for years. They made tons of single player mods and maps. The entire mod community has its roots in Doom.
Now think about the current best single player only games like Thief 2. I played Thief and Thief 2 through. Know what I did after that? Played it again on a higher skill. With self-imposed restrictions. Then I downloaded a bunch of user maps and played those. I'm still in love with those games.
Doom 2000's success as a game is tied into two factors:
#1: How fun the cooperative game mode is
#2: How easy the editor is to use
If the game is fun to play _with_ your friends, not against them, and if the editor doesn't stand in the way of creating good levels, the game will be successful.
-Ted
but most of us will admit that Mac ports have been of secondary concern for most of the top games and companies for the past few years.
;-)
Well, that's what you'll get when you use a computer with a mouse with only one button...
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
The qualities that made (make?) DOOM/II and Quake so re-playable have almost NOTHING to do with any real sense of 'story'. What keep you going in those games is a sense of urgency and mystery. The payoff for solving one mystery (level) is the unveiling of yet another. Both those games created a sense of place and space like no other, while maintaining an impossibly high level of interface/playability.
The much lauded (by some) System Shock lost me from the get-go due to it's poorly engineered interface. Why they chose to compete with ID on that issue I'll never guess, but they didn't come close enough and got dumped because of it. Their story and sound effects may have been great, but if the interface ain't up to par, people won't play it.
A bad director can take a great script and still make a bad movie.
A great director can take a so-so script and make a really good movie.
Don't even get me going about Thief or Thief II. Great ideas, miserable production. A buggy, unplayable mess as far as I'm concerned. They could have used the Q2 engine and saved themselves a lot of trouble.
Having recently started playing Balder's Gate, I must say, it's fun, but the level of 'storytelling' isn't really that much beyond the level of Quake or doom. It still boils down to 'slay monsters, reap rewards, advance, slay bigger monsters, reap rewards, etc.,'. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to brag about either.
**>>BELCH
I glad to see that Id is making a game that will fun to play as a single player, but what happens when you finish it? Play it again; maybe. But what happens when you play it couple of times; you play multi-player.
Good example is Half-Life. An very good single player experience, but the multi player sucked. The single player stuff only gets you so far, then it is a multi player game.
If you only can play single player, then you give it to your cheap friend and buy something else. With good online playing, you keep it, and play it online and recommending it to all your friends. A hugh online community builds up, and the software make tons of sales from word of mouth.
I, personally (I'm not a software sales tracker or gaming sales expert), think that games that target online playing do much better, and are more enjoyable to play. Q3 sucks as a single player, but online, rules. Thus, there are now coming out a bunch of great mods (q3Fortress, Urban Terror, Weapon Factory), with the new Doom, I think this will not happen. Ya, its great eye candy, but when you finish it you will toss it on the shelf and buy the "next thing" and not recommend it to friends.
Maybe its just me.
Linux O Muerte!
I forgot to mention what makes Doom and Quake so re-playable, after the sense of urgency and mystery is gone. I think that has to do with the sense of athleticism that comes with mastering the game at higher and higher levels, as well as multi-user play.
Quake II failed excelled at athleticism, but lost in terms of single-play, not because of a poor story, but because the maps and monsters did not create a sense of urgency or mystery. It was too easy to see through the curtain a bunch of hastily thrown-together scenarios.
I never finished single-player Q2 and never will. It bored me to tears once the 'tech marvel' nature of it was gone.
Cheers and high hopes for the new Doom!
**>>BELCH
Doom (1 & 2) was "focused on single-player." It had great single-player and great multi-player.
Quake 1 was "focused on multi-player." It had good single-player and good multi-player.
Quake 2 was "focused on single-player." It had terrible single-player but good multi-player.
Quake 3 was "focused on multi-player." It just sucked as far as gameplay goes.
Doom 3 is "focused on single-player." That could mean anything.
Of course, that is all my opinion. You are free to think otherwise. :) Also, I am rating the game itself with no special mods.
Anyone remeber The Lost Vikings? I want to see *that* as a 3D first-person game.
------
I get too good at my games and deathmatch is unfair against less experienced players on my network so I always look out for a good co-operative game.
What co-op games really need is a don't look at me shrug (simular in theory to q2,q3 taunt animation), for after you shoot your teammate in the back with a double barrel.
It's turtles all the way down.