Slashdot Mirror
Carmack Expounds on Doom III
Rainier Wolfecastle writes: "Non-high-end-comp-owning geeks rejoice! GameSpot is reporting that John Carmack has confirmed that Doom III is Xbox-bound. Carmack said that id is totally commited to bringing the game to Microsoft's console with its visual splendor intact. Best of all, the game could be available on the Xbox as soon as May next year." And Warrior-GS writes: "John Carmack gave a two-hour presentation about Doom 3 and engine technology. GameSpy reports on the presentations and analyzes Carmack's comments and how they apply to the future of gaming. There is also a look at the demo of Doom III"
The folks here managed to record the audio of carmack's speech despite the "no audio, no video" policy (who knows how they snuck it in!).
enjoy!
"i heard that it will be available for ps2 but gfx wont be as good as on pc/xbox because ps2 isnt powerful enough..."
I'm going to have to defend Mr Emir here. What he said is not flamebait, it's the truth. The pS2 has bottlenecks that render it impossible to achieve the same visual quality as the XBOX with this game. It's too RAM heavy. It's widely known that the PS2's texture buffer is very slim compared to XBOX or even GameCube. The fact that it doesn't have texture compression doesn't help it either.
The PS2 could get a version of it, but it'll definitely be noticably worse than the XBOX version. Call it flamebait if ya like, but I find it ridiculous to believe that anybody'd disagree with me. The PS2 wasn't built for that!
"Derp de derp."
My comment specifically regards the "shelf life" of a rendering engine. I think that an upcoming game engine, either the next one or the one after that, will have a notably longer usable life for content creation than we have seen so far. Instead of having to learn new paradigms for content creation every couple years, designers will be able to continue working with common tools that evolve in a compatible way. Renderman is the obvious example -- lots of things have improved and evolved, but its fundamental definition is clearly the same that it was over a decade ago.
This is only loosly related to the realism of the graphics. I don't think a detailed world simulation that is indistinquishable from reality will be here in the next decade, except for tightly controlled environments. You will be able to have real-time flythroughs that can qualify as indistinguishable, but given the ability to "test reality" interactively, we have a lot farther to go with simulation than with rendering.
John Carmack