Slashdot Mirror


Carmack On Doom III And The Evolution Of Graphics

Toasty16 writes "David Kushner over at Wired has a write-up on the progress of Doom III, hinting at a possible fall release, that is unless Microsoft convinces id to sit on the game until an Xbox version is completed. He also talks to Carmack about the evolution of game engines and the possibility of a "next-generation rendering engine [that] will be a stable, mature technology that lasts in more or less its basic form for a long time." Will this lead to a shift from coders to "technical directors," as Carmack believes? This ties into the Slashdot story awhile back about new titles for sysadmins."

51 of 547 comments (clear)

  1. Evolution is a lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The graphics were created by God at the beginning of time!

    1. Re:Evolution is a lie. by Trogre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right in saying they didn't evolve.

      The development of computer graphics has always been driven by (arguably) intelligent creators.

      People like to apply words like evolution to any developmental process presumable for the coolness factor, and in the literal sense they are right (change over time). But it's just silly to imply that CG has evolved in a darwinian sense.

      It makes a mockery of the thousands of hours that designers, programmers and engineers have put into developing such systems.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Evolution is a lie. by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems to me that some developments aren't obvious until a basic technology is in place. Once upon a time, all telephone calls were manually connected by operators. Most calls weren't automatically switched until the mid sixties. These systems did not spring full blown out of some engineer's forehead. I'll bet some people were thinking about automatic switching in say the thirties but other technologies (which themselves were "changing over time"...I'll avoid the dreaded `E` word") had to get there first to make it a reality. Lots of people worked on it at different times tweaking and prodding and refining until it was mature. The way it works now doesn't even remotely resemble the way it did in the Sixties so it definitely doesn't have one inventor.

      Even the most talented engine coders aren't going to be able to tell us exactly how computer generated 3D is going to work 10 years from now. It changes over time and so does the science on which engineering is based. Also, when fundamentally new technologies are going from the whiteboard to prototypes on a bench lots of ideas are tried and thrown out, tried and thrown out, ad nauseum until something sticks. Imagine that!, competing technological ideas going head to head in a fitness race. Sometimes, it's even automated.

      But no, technologies are born fully refined and completely debugged from the disembodied head of Thomas Edison which he preserved in his "last" invention.

      I won't say the `E`-word though. That might be carrying an argument that already tiresome in the life sciences into engineering.

    3. Re:Evolution is a lie. by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Computer graphics did evolve, they just evolved through a Lamarckian, rather than a Darwinian, process. Evolution does not mean Darwinism, they're two different words, and the former is more general than the latter.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  2. Another new graphics engine.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Oh bloody hell, the Duke Nukem Forever people will want to start from square one again.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Another new graphics engine.. by k-0s · · Score: 4, Funny

      Start you say? They've actually started? LOL

    2. Re:Another new graphics engine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      of course they did, and they even have achived something

    3. Re:Another new graphics engine.. by Munra · · Score: 4, Funny
    4. Re:Another new graphics engine.. by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 3, Informative

      HL was released, the SDK had not come out for quite a long time after that.

      People went *NUTS* over the SDK. Half-Life, at the time, had some of the most realistic lighting and best textures (Second only to maybe SiN in the Texture Dept) out there. Despite the fact that people did not have the SDK yet, there were already modifications being planned and lots of ground work already done.

      Half-Life is still one of the most actively modified games existing, even though there are many, many better engines out there. Natural Selection is a recent and popular example.

      Not only is the SDK useful, but it has a huge support base from the community AND from valve. In the past, many modifications to the HL engine have been made just to accomodate mod developers and server operators. They simply know how to treat their user base well, and it has paid off quite well for them. Not only did the original game make a lot of money, but the whole franchise and games made by *fans* made money for them... One of which was Counter-Strike.

      You are mislead.

  3. How does it tie to the older story? by poisoneleven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess I don't quite see how this ties into the older story about new titles for Sysadmins. Technical Directors have been around a long time, and have always existed in the game creation arena. It isn't just some new spin on Sysadmin or Computer user or something.

    1. Re:How does it tie to the older story? by telstar · · Score: 5, Funny
      "I guess I don't quite see how this ties into the older story about new titles for Sysadmins."
      • I think he just wanted to show that he actually searched for
      • something prior to posting the article.

  4. How do you bribe John C.? by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Offer him rocket fuel.

  5. Re:Typical by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the XBox delay angle has been reported on several places, including very pro-MS/pro-XBox sites.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  6. no. by Suppafly · · Score: 5, Funny

    This ties into the Slashdot story awhile back about new titles for sysadmins."

    No it doesn't.

  7. bored with first person shoot em ups by Brigadier · · Score: 4, Insightful



    Is anyone else a bit dissappointed that the focus on games seems to be the rendering engine and the color depth and frame rates. Doom/Quake sorta started all the emphasis on 3d graphics. I miss the old days of plain old gameplay. Games such as Zelda, Everquest, civilization really are the pinnacle of gaming for me. I like everyone else used to stay at work late so we could have a lan party playing doom, and quake CTF and download the latest patches and maps. However the concept has not changed since day one. shoot everything that moves. make a team and shoot everyone that moves. I think it's time the game concept and story line be updated.

    1. Re:bored with first person shoot em ups by ansonyumo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hear hear.

      However, I will take a different tact than you. I miss the simplicity of side scrollers, bottom shooters, etc. These were great little 5-30 minute diversions that didn't require reading a user's guide. There was also a lot of creativity that went into the design of the better entries in this lot. Q*Bert, Tron, Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Track and Field, Zaxxon, Defender, Robotron and Tetris (among others) were all groundbreaking games when they debuted. Sure, you can find all of these titles in various "museum" releases or on the emulators, but it would be cool to see what could be done with this genre using today's technology and wizardry.

      On the more cerebral front, I really enjoyed the Infocom games. Pretty cool that they have them all for the z machine on Palm OS.

      -brian

    2. Re:bored with first person shoot em ups by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have seven words for you--

      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      The brutal truth about DOOM, Quake and all the various spinoffs, wannabes and so forth is that the formula of amazing visuals tied in with dog easy (but difficult to master) gameplay can draw in even the most newbiesh of players (think about it-- how hard is it to learn how to fire a weapon with one mouse button, jump with the other, and navigate with either the keyboard arrows, the mouse, or both at the same time?). Sure you get more advanced crap like rocket jumps, deflecting off of walls and whatever, but in a team play environment even the shittiest of players can at least get the hang of it and enjoy it.

      Don't over complicate a simple yet fun gameplay experience with things it doesn't need-- chief amongst them, an engrossing storyline with idiotic cut-scenes and crap. I don't want story, I want death and destruction. If you want something else, go play something else and leave the rest of us FPS lovers alone.

      (As a note-- I do happen to enjoy RPG's, RTS games and other genres of games (been playing the new Zelda off and on for a week or so now), I just don't see why FPS games can't co-exist peacefully alongside other genres that are as guilty as of what you're describing as FPS titles (honestly, what's innovative about Wind Waker that wasn't already done in Orcarina of Time-- all I see are better visuals and more gameplay dynamics (small things), not large changes to the overall genre)).

      </rant>
      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  8. Graphics Engines by steesefactor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the most interesting parts of the article was Carmack's speculations about graphics engines. He sees the graphics engines getting to the point where new ones are no longer needed. After dynamic lighting, how much is there left to do besides minor refinements and optimizations? Carmack remarks that graphics engines will eventually only be done by hardcore enthusiasts. Anyone think that he's right?

  9. Re:Typical by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the article *does* quote Carmack as saying that Microsoft is offering Id a boatload of money to sit on the PC release of D3 until they've got an XBox port ready for release at the same time. Seems to me that thats one of the more significant news bits in the story, along with Carmacks musings that he might be out of a job soon.

    I guess Microsoft figures a lot of gamers will be upgrading their hardware when D3 comes out. If the XBox version is ready at the same time, those gamers might decide to buy themselves an XBox instead of sinking $300 into another new video card.

    --
    I am NOT a man!
    I am a free number!
  10. How long could an Xboxen version take? by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Informative
    that is unless Microsoft convinces id to sit on the game until an Xbox version is completed.

    The X thing is basically a PC running a form of you-know-what OS, with a Nvidia graphics processor, that you likely have to program with a well know M$ API the code already works on. How long could it take to get it running on the X-box if it's ready for Windows? Sure, there are differences, but I wouldn't expect any significant changed for an x-box port. Just add some code to let it reload saved games and/or boot Linux and it will be a sure winner.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:How long could an Xboxen version take? by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right. Plenty of games have been ported to xbox, or from xbox to PC, and it didn't take years or months to do so.

      The game isnt out because noone can run it. It's that simple. It still looks like it's going to require a $400 video card to be playable. I'm not talking super enhanced 2048x1024 with every bell and whistle on, I'm talking to get 30fps at 800x600 you'll need a GeForceFX or R9700.

      The market for games that require a 300-400 dollar upgrade just ain't there.

      I'm reminded of another FPS from years back (cant think of the name of it, but it was some highly touted Jurassic Park thing) that required a P2, when P2's were brand new and most people still had P200/MMX's. It bombed, because noone could play it, and by the time they had a system to play it on - it was old news.

      The same thing would happen if Doom 3 came out today. I wouldnt be able to play it. By the time I buy a new video card, Doom 3 would be old news, and I'd never buy it. Because lets face it, FPS games are in a 'flavor of the week' scene.

      Perhaps I'm wrong, and they've gotten the engine to scale down to be playable on average systems. But I'm pretty sure that's a major factor in the wait.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  11. Why not just reprint Wired? by Trifthen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously... This is like the fifth or sixth story from this month's Wired that's been posted to Slashdot. I got it in the mail and read all of these articles weeks ago, and yet they're still slowly rolling in. At this rate, Slashdot will have summarized each Wired article in the current issue individually over the course of the month.

    Can't people just go to Wired and read the articles that interest them?

    --
    Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    1. Re:Why not just reprint Wired? by ralico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we just read Wired, then we wouldn't have the opportunity to make comments and taunt each other like we can do here.

      --

      SCO to Hell
  12. Someone hit me by ralico · · Score: 3, Funny

    I sometimes get Carmack and Romero confused. When I hear Carmack, I think Daikatana, and this time thought, "Great, Doom III will never be released. But then I realized, he's not Romero.

    --

    SCO to Hell
  13. Re:Doom III demo by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tell your friend to buy a Radeon 9700, as the demo was leaked from an ATI booth at Comdex, and was specifically written to run on that set of hardware. (And multi-cpus as well, I believe it was kludged to run the sound code on a second proc)

    I've heard of people getting 20fps with the 9700, with only humble (1.4ghz, 512megs ) system specs.

    But this is really the type of question you should pose to the local 0-day w4r3z kiddies.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  14. Re:Doom III demo by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 5, Funny
    Has anyone on /. got the Doom III demo to run smoothly? My friend has a relatively new AMD Athlon XP 2100+ with 512 megabytes of RAM on an ASUS nForce 2 motherboard, and he was getting like 2 frames per second or something ridiculous.

    Well, don't expect it to run smoothly on such an old piece of crap computer. Try upgrading to a Quad P4-3GHz system with the best ATI Radeon you can buy and you MIGHT get 15fps if you're lucky. You can't expect a piece of artistic genius like Doom III to run on crappy commodity PC hardware can you? To get the real performance you need to buy an Xbox.

  15. Gaming after Photorealism by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How will game companies lure us after graphics become photorealistic? More variety? Better physics or AI? Games for girls and the elderly? Content on demand? More team play? Player-created content? Better sound? Better inputs? More handhelds than just Game Boy?

  16. Powerful enough? by BigChigger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doom III sounds like it will need mega powerful machines to look decent. Will the PIII 700 in the xbox be enough?

    BC

  17. Coders already outnumbered. by pmz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will this lead to a shift from coders to "technical directors," as Carmack believes?

    I believe this has already happened. Look at the credits for any recent big game, and you'll see that the number of graphics designers and other artists dominates the number of programmers on the staff. Seeing this has convinced me that the profession of "game programmer" will never be more than a niche.

  18. Re:Typical by sweetooth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with Microsoft maintaining a monopoly. They may have made a lot of money from the monopoly, but even if they had made the boatloads of money they have without a monopoly this would still be a wise move. As others have pointed out a Doom III release that was for all platforms at the same time gives the X-Box a small advantage. Some people might rather go out and buy an Xbox and copy of Doom III rather than spending $300-500 on a new video card.

  19. Lies! by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is no Doom 3. It is a fabrication of the desperate ID software infidels. Even as we speak the source code is deleting itself.

    Allah willing, Duke Nukem Forever shall emerge victorious over the ID Software infidels and their vaporware "Doom 3", AND be released on time!

  20. Forgive me if I disagree with Carmack by veredox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If John Carmack predicts that game engines might be tweaked in the future, having a longer life span, instead of being coded from scratch, I tend to disagree.

    Even as computer graphics rapidly approach the quality of those we see on the big screen, CG movies are still a long ways from convincing me they are real. Turing said that a good way to test the quality of artificial intelligence would be to see if it could fool a human into thinking it was a real person. The same concept can be applied to computer generated graphics. We haven't really reached the finish line until CG can effectively fool us into thinking we are looking at a photograph.

    As CG in games progresses, software and hardware will need to be increasingly effient (i.e. fast). This almost requires that game engines be written in fairly low level programming languages, ruling out heavy OO design and especially Component Oriented Design (which is the strongest candidate for long-life software).

    With each passing year and each passing game, we will be trying harder to achieve the true feel of reality. If engines were component oriented in design, changing one feature such as lighting would not necessarily effect other parts of the engine. In this way it might be possible for a game engine to last more than a few years. However, the fact remains that this is too slow and is impractical for our uses.

    Will we ever reach that finish line, fooling ourselves completely? Probably, but certainly not anytime soon.

  21. 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And in other news, following allegations by the RIAA that Microsoft had a long-running top-secret illegal "MP3" server on campus through which their employees could pirate music with each other, a DOJ raid on Microsoft headquarters revealed that Microsoft was hiding weapons of mass distruction.

    What was to be a routine DMCA2 inspection has quickly turned into an international incident, as police discovered in the subterranean tunnels of Bill Gates' house a number of missles which the DOJ estimates are capable of going several thousand miles further than the limit imposed on Microsoft by both UN resolutions and their 2002 antitrust settlement, as well as several barrels of chemicals which, pending testing, are expected to either be rocket fuel or chemical weapons.

    "This isn't what it looks like, i swear" said a beleaguered Steve Ballmer. "We were just going to use them to secretly bribe John Carmack with, to get him to make Doom 4 XBOX-exclusive. That was all. We weren't going to use them. Fuck. Fuck. I knew this was a bad idea."

    In other news, Canadian forces, afraid that a cornered Microsoft may decide to attack, have massed near the Seattle border.

    More news on FOXNews as it develops: We report, you decide.

  22. There is much to do by metalhed77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The physics of games is, and always will be based on fooling the user through tricks. You don't render a box on the molecular level, you make 6 squares and call it a box. The future holds refinement. Defining the mass of a wall maybe. Say instead of a wall simply blackening when a rocket is fired, a chunk of it is blasted out, based on the type of weapon, and to go even farther, we shoot a nailgun at that, and nails are embedded inside the crater.

    Another hurdle to pass is truly lifelike biomechanics, not just in movement, but in reaction. Get shot in the arm? Your arms gets forced backward forcing the rest of your body to do so. Want to run real fast, instantly do a 180 and jump? Maybe with correct modeling the game'll slow you down as you make that turn, and delay the jump.

    Modeling the physics of our world is no small task, and I, frankly think Carmack is thinking too much iside the graphical box he built, and not within the new physical frontier.

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:There is much to do by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another hurdle to pass is truly lifelike biomechanics, not just in movement, but in reaction. Get shot in the arm? Your arms gets forced backward forcing the rest of your body to do so. Want to run real fast, instantly do a 180 and jump? Maybe with correct modeling the game'll slow you down as you make that turn, and delay the jump.

      You make good points, and those are features i would REALLY like to see in games. But the problem is, that alot of people DONT want to see that---they want to be able to run and strafe and rocket-jump without a modicum of impairment. That's why more people play Quake-style shooters than MOH:AA and Ghost Recon, because they see the movement physics as impairment, not realism

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:There is much to do by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But the problem is, that alot of people [...] see the movement physics as impairment, not realism

      Your point is well taken.

      I think the most interesting thing about more realistic physics is that it has the potential of taking the game out of the designer's hands. The game can provide you the ability to modify terrain, but the player figures out you can use that feature to build a "dam", and then blow up the "dam" to flood your enemy, or use the dam to irrigate your crops more effectively. The designer only has to provide the problem and the simulation, but is freed from providing specific solutions to puzzles.

      Imagine a space flight simulator, where naturally a game designer would not have expert personal knowledge on. However, if the physics is properly simulated, it's not impossible for good players to figure out their own tactics and maneuvers that the designer never even thought of. I'm talking about that idea, applied to the other genres like FPS, RTS, or RPG.

      Basically, the opportunity to play in a world that doesn't even feel "designed", the way a Doom level must be. Many games today play like you're playing against the designer (in absentia), trying to figure out what he was thinking, which I think takes away from an immersive effect.

  23. engine coders will never obsolete by mbaranow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Carmack sugests that the only the _rendering_ engine will soon become stable and future improvements will be only incremental.

    This does not mean that engine programmers will be obsolete, relegated to support and optimization or that innovation slows down. Doom III and Quake engines has been optimized for tight, enclosed indoor spaces. There are lot of different possibilities not yet explored.

    Just off the top of my head I can imagine game engine technology spanning a decade into the future:

    - soft shadows or realtime radiosity lighting. This might be not that far off, but a lot of intersting research will be involved on top of current stencil-buffer and projected depth map based techniques.

    - high dynamic range (hdr) light calculation across the entire pipeline, including effects like light bloom and hdr reflections. you start to see some of this in Splinter Cell.

    - real-time, arbitrary resolution, procedurally generated texture maps and generated displacement maps (ex. RenderMan). The previous methods of doing texturing progressed from manually shaded (doom-quake3), to manually colored with normal maps for shading (doom3). The general case would be to use nothing except procedural shaders and geometry to generate all detail before approximated by texture maps.

    - arbitrarily dynamic solid world geometry. Current renering engines work with a heavily pre-processsed visible shell of the world, which can be modified only in special rigid cases. It will take some effort for an engine to deform or destroy arbitrary world geometry. Imagine taking off a chunk of the wall and seing the layers of concrete underneath, then having the building collapse when supports are removed.

    As the last point suggests some time into the future the latest engine might be quite exotic compared to the current ideas. I can imagine a type of voxel based representation with some image based rendering.

    Innovation will never stop.

  24. Ultraviolence in GTA3? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...the ultraviolence of Grand Theft Auto III"...

    Ultraviolence in GTA3? What ultraviolence? I wouldn't mind, but they claim it followed Doom.

    GTA3: Simulation of a city.
    Doom: Run around and kill.

    GTA has its moments, but ultraviolent is not the term for it by far.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Ultraviolence in GTA3? by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't know maybe the fact that in GTA3 you can

      1)Steal a cab.

      2)Beat the shit out of the cabbie for the hell of it.

      3)Drive around with the cab and do drive-bys with your Uzi.

      4)Pick up and have sex with a prostitute then beat said prostitute's head in with a baseball bat to get back your money.

      Which is the more shocking movie? Resident Evil or Natural Born Killers? Resident Evil has plenty of blood and violence but really is standard fare. On the other hand Natural Born Killers isn't any more bloody , it's just that you or me or Cowboy Neal can go of the deep end and do that stuff.

      Doom maybe about shooting up zombies and demons. However to the best of my knowledge you can't do that in real life(If it was I would be born again real quick).

      There's stuff in GTA3 that you CAN do and does happen in real life. That's why it's shocking and considered ultraviolent(and fun!).

      --
      >
    2. Re:Ultraviolence in GTA3? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "2)Beat the shit out of the cabbie for the hell of it."

      Yeah, you can bop him a couple of times until he falls. It's hardly shocking in light of Bugs Bunny catoons that we've all watched for years. It's violent, but it's not ultra violent.

      Ultra violent would be like the first part of the Animatrix where that group of men attacked the female robot, ripping her to pieces.

      I can't believe GTA3 is that misunderstood, considering how popular it is.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Ultraviolence in GTA3? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, but you're the one deciding whether to "beat the old woman to death with a baseball bat".

      You aren't required to do that in GTA3. The game allows you to do lots of things but you don't have to do all of them.

      If _you_decide_ to do violent stuff that disturbs you then you take a large share of the blame. Similarly if you decide to buy a game and play it even though it disturbs you, or let people who might be disturbed by it play it.

      I personally like flying the dodo into the sunrise, do loop the loops. Take a boat to the lighthouse, jump backwards all the way up to the top, etc. Try to push a boat to the other side of the airport (at a certain point an invisible force suddenly shoves the boat back really hard).

      But blowing up stuff is fun too ;).

      --
  25. iddqd dudez! by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    i started playing doom ii in 1994.

    i never played quake.

    i never played wolfenstein.

    i have, sitting in a row, my p100, my p333, and my pentium 1.5g, representing 1994, 1998, and 2002 upgrades respectively.

    i have mainlined doom ii on all 3 computers, playing it once a month at least, for 10 years.

    i look forward to doom iii mightily! ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. id is doing the right thing! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I would usually post some very anti-Microsoft sentiment right about now, but in this particular case, I believe that id is doing the right thing, if only on a matter of principle.

    I mean, what do you want to do? Counteract the practice of releasing for all platforms at the same time by boycotting all industries worldwide? If you expect id to release at different times for different platforms then you probably expect other things... "I mean, what's next, id stops releasing source code to their games for educational purposes?!"

    It makes sense to release a game for all platforms at the same time. How stupid would it be, for example, if The Matrix was released at some theaters first because they had DTS, two weeks later at other theaters because they had THX and a month after that to remaining theaters, which had Dolby Digital... How stupid would it be if the game were made available on platforms X and Y, everybody plays the game and gets sick of it, and then the game is released on platform Z? Nobody would buy it for platform Z.

    Consider this argument the other way around: id releases Doom IV for Windows, XBox, PS2 and whatever other platforms there are out there. But it takes them forever to release the game on Linux. How would you feel then? I think I would feel quite bad. In that case, it would make sense, again, for them to wait before releasing the game until the Linux version is complete. Consider another example in which they wish, also, to release a version for some new computing platform and operating system that sucks and nobody uses, but there is one customer in the entire world who is using that operating system and that customer wants to spend the $39.95 (USD) to buy the game for his platform. Suppose, also, that the entire design ideology employed in the design of this computer platform is completely, utterly and in all other ways different from anything we've ever seen, and the only compiler available for this platform is an INTERCAL compiler. In that case, id should wait until a C++ compiler can be coded in INTERCAL and the game is ported over to the new platform before releasing for all other platforms. In other words, the entire world should be made to wait because we need to be fair to that ONE person. We are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals, after all.

  27. Re:Typical by ecchi_0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It'll have net play without a doubt, so what would really be missing?

    Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Doom III singleplayer only? I don't think there would be any netplay to speak of.

  28. Original First Person Shooter? by emarkp · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article
    In 1991, coding a game called Hovertank, Carmack faced a challenge no programmer had yet tackled: how to get a computer to quickly render a three-dimensional world from a first-person perspective. .... It was the original first-person shooter.
    Um, I don't think so. The first first-person perspective game I remember is BattleZone, published in 1983. The first first-person shooter I recall is Xybots (or maybe you'd call it 3rd person), published in 1987.

    Id has been a phenomemnon, but let's give credit where it's due.

    1. Re:Original First Person Shooter? by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, I don't think so. The first first-person perspective game I remember is BattleZone, published in 1983. The first first-person shooter I recall is Xybots (or maybe you'd call it 3rd person), published in 1987.

      First, Battlezone is from 1980. There were 1st person games in the 1970s, specifically a few games for the PLATO system.

  29. Re:Typical by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Granted, they would all be professionaly made, but who cares? Most of the player-made doom wads were pathetic. "

    The player-made Quake mods were awesome.

    Don't be willfully ignorant to my point.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  30. Re:Doom III to be a letdown? I doubt it. by NerveGas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would like to see more effort be put into original game genres instead of rehashing the old ones

    They do, however, license out their engine, letting all of the companies who find that sort of genre profitable focus on the storyline, plot, etc. - and *still* deliver amazing graphics.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  31. I think id Software should take MS's cash......... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all, let's understand one thing: id Software does NOT need the cash. The company has a history of hits -- they create the technology next-generation games are inspired by, if not based directly on. They're one of the few companies that can spurn the Microsoft money machine and not regret it, because they've been more successful marching to their own tune than just following the easy money.

    Second, Carmack has said he's getting tired of making games. But he's not looking to call it quits and retire: he's looking at ROCKETRY, for goodness sake! So here we have John Carmack, one of the most technically saavy minds of our time -- he's a geek's geek, he posts on Slashdot, he doesn't give two shytes about the fame that people would love to heap upon him. Why, then, should the gaming public begrudge him the seed money that could very well open up a new door in rocketry?

    Sure, it'll push back Doom 3's release date -- we're still waiting for Duke Nukem Forever, aren't we? Give id Software its due -- let them have the cash, let Carmack make the millions he richly deserves. Because I want to see what Carmack can do when he really applies himself full-time to a REAL-WORLD endeavor.

    Yes, the X-Box will have another instant hit if Doom 3 comes out. Is that what some people are hung up on -- MS pulling a Bungie and buying their way to success? Not that it's worked so far -- they have a handful of AAA titles (Halo being the only one I've ever played), and the PS2 still outpaces it in sales.

  32. Atari 2600 Tunnel Runner by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This game must have been written by some real men then:

    TunnelRunner Screenshots

    Now these guys did "cheat" a little in that the cartridge had a little bit of extra ram in it. But hey!, we're talking about a first person game on a 2600 that isn't a low detail flying game. Tunnel Runner came out in '83 as well. The object of the game was to find the key that would let you go to the next maze. Three differently colored pac-man like Zots chased you and got in the way. Each Zot had it's own theme music that varied in intensity as you got closer to it. It made for some nice tension. Much like Adventure, they varied in speed/intelligence. Of course, the Red one was the most dreaded of all. It also had a random teleporter and the ability go through a door to the previous level. Not too shabby at all.

  33. Carmack: do a physics or AI engine! by writertype · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems like a number of games these days look really purty, even though the number of games that actually use the latest hardware or API seems woefully small. It's certainly true that Carmack's one of the key people pushing the industry forward, and that's an important point.

    On the other hand, even the prettiest games sucks donkey balls if the AI sucks, or the physics are clunky. I like the suggestion made by another poster--why not code a real deformable physics engine, or come up with a decent AI package for enemies?

    On a tangential note, I would be most eager to find out some add-on company bought some balls, some software engineers, some patents and/or R&D, and some cheap, cool X86 or RISC processors and said, OK, we're building an AI/physics daughtercard, and the industry tools to make it work. Oh, and that next-gen cards would be hybrid AI/physics/GPU systems. With PCI Express, we might just have the bandwidth to make it work.