Slashdot Mirror


Carmack Addresses FPS Creativity Concerns

donniebaseball23 writes "id Software co-founder John Carmack defended the creativity of first-person shooter games in a recent interview. The legendary programmer, who was a pioneer in the shooter genre with Doom and Quake, said he doesn't like hearing from developers that shooters aren't good because they're not reinventing the wheel. 'I am pretty down on people who take the sort of creative auteurs' perspective. It's like "Oh, we're not being creative." But we're creating value for people — that's our job! It's not to do something that nobody's ever seen before. It's to do something that people love so much they're willing to give us money for... you see some of the indie developers that really take a snooty attitude about this,' he lamented."

39 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Still doesnt excuse by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doom III. I'm sorry but Doom III wasnt a game, it was a tech demo. While I understand what you are getting at, you have some big skeletons in your closet regarding this particular complaint.

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Still doesnt excuse by grumbel · · Score: 2

      I don't quite see the problem with Doom III. It did actually do a few interesting things beside the graphics. The sentry bots were pretty cool, the highres terminals that you could use directly from FPS viiew are something I still haven't seen replicated anywhere else and it was the first game I can remember that didn't allow shooting civilians by changing your cross-hair into a talk-symbol. Those aside, yeah, the whole flashlight thing was a bit annoying, it did have its fair share of monster closets and running through the same corridors could get a little boring, but that doesn't make it a techdemo.

    2. Re:Still doesnt excuse by black3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand what you're getting at. He only made two real statements, neither of which yours seems to counter.

      He said that developers need to create value that people are willing to pay for. Doom 3 sold well, despite it not living up to some's expectations, it certainly fulfilled this statement.

      Then he said that indie developers take a snooty attitude about this approach (implying in context that, rather, indie developers believe every game DOES have to be something that's never been done before). This has no relation to Doom 3 at all.

      It sounds like you're just taking the opportunity to bash Doom 3. Understand, Carmack is arguing here FOR on-rails shooters. He's saying that games don't need to be incredibly creative and new every time they get released, they just have to do their job - provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for. And you're arguing against that by marching out a game which... provides entertatinment that people were willing to pay for. ..

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    3. Re:Still doesnt excuse by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Turn off the lights with no one else in the room. Ensure that it's quiet except for your PC speakers. Soak up the ambiance and enjoy.

      I for one thoroughly enjoyed the game even if it was overly hyped as a tech demo. So much so that I must have played through it all over two or three more times. I admit, Doom III wasn't the best of games in the genre , but it wasn't nearly as bad as others claim it to be.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Still doesnt excuse by jampola · · Score: 2

      i completely agree with u :D

    5. Re:Still doesnt excuse by Miseph · · Score: 2

      Half-Life had some jumping puzzles. Indeed, the best parts of the game were the puzzles... a lot of them just happened to involve shooting things or lobbing grenades. The difference, of course, is that they did it right, while DNF did not.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    6. Re:Still doesnt excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      i and i agree with you, mahn.

      I'd like to see a shooter game mixed with Sims. People living their normal life and I can walk around like God or Rupert Murdoch fucking with them in ways they don't notice but directly makes their computer lives even worse. More than just destroying a town with a hurricane, I want to see computer faces breaking down and crying as I give their computer daughter cancer. Then switch to Murdoch Mode where I write headlines saying cancer is cured, so I can see their faces light up before they realize they've been scammed and they have to kill themselves.

      I'll call the game, Cunts are Still Running the World, with a hat tip to Jervis Cocker.

    7. Re:Still doesnt excuse by Count+Fenring · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an interesting article on FPS design, using Doom as the canonical example. http://vectorpoem.com/news/?p=74

      The thing I find most interesting is his discussion of relative speed, and what that does to the feel of the game. The Doom guy runs 50 scale miles per hour!

    8. Re:Still doesnt excuse by Miseph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And those guys are right, even if you don't like it. Transformers 3 made more money in a day than most movies will ever make. Nobody on that project was being paid to do anything particularly original or interesting... they were being paid to crank out a movie where robots blow shit up. They did their jobs, they got paid, the execs got precisely what they wanted from their employees... and hopefully a chunk of the money that the genuinely creative people who worked on it were paid for churning out the money-making-sequel de jour will go toward creating new and exciting works of art which will genuinely contribute to our culture.

      What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious. Who really thought Doom III should have been chock full of "original" FPS gameplay, anyway? If it had been a stealth-based puzzle game designed to comment Kantian philosophy, that just happened to be an FPS, nobody would have praised it for being "groundbreaking" or thought it was great that id put a new spin on the franchise: they would have called Carmack a goddamn moron for shitting all over what everyone expected with some random bullshit. They would have been right, too.

      Maybe you think it was shit, but it was still what you thought it would be, and you still bought the game based on that. If you see Transformers 3, you aren't expecting to have your mind blown by complex writing (it does feature some enjoyable snark, but every time Optimus speaks it makes you long for the depth and wit of a GI Joe PSA) or an intriguing plot (unless your definition of "intriguing" is XBox huge plot holes and characters behaving without any sort of consistency or logic), you're expecting to see giant robots that turn into cars and blow shit up. If, instead, you got Crime And Punishment, you'd probably be more than a little bit pissed off, regardless of how "original" it would be for Transformers to go in that direction.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    9. Re:Still doesnt excuse by SudoGhost · · Score: 2

      To be fair though, if I see one more indie tower defense game, I'm going to scream (queue the screams). Most indie games seem to take one approach or the other, either be a clone, or be completely different than anything else (or a clone with a *twist*! that might as well be a clone).

    10. Re:Still doesnt excuse by slackbheep · · Score: 2

      Really? HL2 is still brought constantly in the gaming media at the very least. Perhaps because it's the highest rated game of all time?
      http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/half-life-2

    11. Re:Still doesnt excuse by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

      Doom 3 gave people a first glimpse of what every other game that came after it had to aspire to.

      On consoles, maybe. For a PC game it wasn't that great. Even at the time, Doom 3 was widely criticized for exactly the same reasons it is today. There's little to it except the lights going off and monsters appearing, over and over and over. It managed to make surprise attacks boring and predictable -- "Hey, a power-up sitting in a beam of light at the end of a long hallway! Wonder what'll happen when I pick it up?". Granted, the darkness was nice, but it was also way overused. Half-Life 2 came out later that same year and there was no competition. With superior storytelling, design, and an interactive physics engine, it sold at least double what Doom 3 did. [Great game -- give it a try if you've never played it; it holds up well today.]

      Actually, even on the consoles it seems like Halo was more influential. I only played the first one, but didn't Halo invent stuff like the now-universal regenerating health mechanic?

      --
      Visit the
    12. Re:Still doesnt excuse by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Carmack is one of those guys who will tell you that big, dumb movies like Transformers 3 are just "doing their job" and that filmmakers making movies nobody has seen before are "snooty."

      I think it's more like a restaurant that makes an excellent steak, vs. more "artistic" restaurants always looking to wow you with something novel. Both have a place; the recipe for steak doesn't need changing. People enjoy the basic gameplay of first-person-shooters, just like they enjoy hitting a ball with a racket and don't need to change the rules of tennis every 6 months, because it's not about perpetual novelty. Multiplayer first-person deathmatch can't go away, not because developers are un-creative, but because people like it. Same with racing games. I don't want wild innovation in those, just ever-improving realism.

  2. "if the movie stinks, just don't go." by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He's placing the blame on shitty games on us, the gamers.

    Rightfully so. When a COD game can sell millions just on it's name alone, something's wrong.

    Although I think that his take on it is a little wrong. But I think Rage is kind of the right direction away from just the traditional walk, shoot, maybe hide behind some cover paradigm. If Rage for iOS is anything to go by, it'll not only be rich and fun with a good sense of humor but the racing aspects will be a nice touch.

    Yes, HL2(and ep 2) had those annoying boat and car scenes, but I trust Carmack and co to get this one right.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:"if the movie stinks, just don't go." by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, COD has a multiplayer component driving it, so when people pick up the latest COD, you want to pick it up too so you can play with everyone else online and take advantage of the latest multiplayer additions. That said, even a multiplayer game can be creatively unique--Team Fortress 2 is fantastic.

  3. Ugh by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not your job to do something nobody's ever seen before, sure. But raising the bar should be your goal nonetheless. Visuals are a solved problem, and the days of the tech demo are over. Even the hardware race is over--id's new game Rage is targeting six-year-old console hardware. So what else is there but to push creative expressiveness in a genre that's crying out for some artistic legitimacy on the level that movies and novels enjoy? It's clear that a game like Portal 2 would never come out of id Software.

    1. Re:Ugh by bigpet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Visuals are a solved problem

      Psssh, don't tell that to the SIGGRAPH attendees or engine developers because they'll smack you square in the face.

    2. Re:Ugh by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't need to say a thing. I'd just hold up the sales figure chart for Minecraft and watch them blink in astonishment.

    3. Re:Ugh by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Being creative is a terribly subjective phrase. As a level designer (I worked with Epic on the Unreal Tournament projects) I think I have a good perspective of this. Most games that come out do follow the general genre that it is made for - but you know what, so does everything else. You don't see Ford lamenting that they aren't "designing a totally new car..." It's a CAR. People expect it to have four wheels, seats and all the usual stuff inside a car. FPS developers are making a game that people who want an FPS will buy. Can you be creative? Absolutely. Look at titles like Theif for example. It is esentially a FPS, but with a brilliant twist. Same goes for Assassins Creed. You run around and (for the most part) kill folks.

      The sign of a truly innovative game (and therefore truly amazing developers) is to take a genre, like FPS and make subtle transformations to it to make it a more enjoyable experience for the gamers. Innovation is great, but making something TOTALLY different is a huge risk. Just look at Black and White. While very well done, it was so totally different in UI and concepts that it never became the smash hit that it should have.

      It takes a BRILLIANT game to push a genre a few steps to the left or right. You simply can't expect to make a title that is way out in left field and expect it to become an overnight smash hit. Not saying it simply cannot happen, but most of the time (especially when it comes to publishers financially backing games) you need to take small steps in the direction you would LIKE to get to.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:Ugh by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, Portal didn't come out of Valve. It was originally a student game from Digipen.

      A lot of publishers have the following cycle:

      1) Snap up a small team/company/indie that made a great game. Have them sell it at the company, or make a better version. Valve has Alien Swarm, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, etc.

      2) Either move the team on to other projects or run it into the ground with bad sequels.

      3) Lather, rinse, repeat.

      I think the best thing is a mix of the two. Bring in the good works of people from the outside (like how WoW encourages UI mods that can add a lot of value to the game), but also do a lot of work in-house. Sticking to either exclusively doesn't always work well.

    5. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't need to say a thing. I'd just hold up the sales figure chart for Minecraft and watch them blink in astonishment.

      1) SIGGRAPH has more than just game designers. I'm sure the medical and data visualisation people will be impressed!

      2) Would it surprise you to learn that "looks like ass" is one of the reasons I don't like Minecraft personally? I don't think I'm a unique and precious snow flake so there must be other people like me. Visuals will only be "solved" (as if the concept even applies to something so abstract) when it is possible to express anything you can imagine in real-time, it doesn't need to be realistic, impressionism works well, cell shading too, but it does need more vertices, textures and better lighting algorithms.

      It's really quite amazing how people insist "graphics don't need to get better" even when you can't even render 1000 NPCs fighting each other in real-time at decent visual quality, there are plenty of flaws that are easy to see yet they are readily ignored. This crap has been happening since the PS1's "photorealism", "we don't need better graphics" and yet the PS2 ate the PS1 and on and on, so much for that delusion. This really just feels like another "get off my lawn" type statement from people who grew up with 8-bit NES or even Atari proclaiming that "in my day graphics were blocky and pixelatted AND WE LIKED IT". Well, guess what? I grew up with that stuff too and it just makes me appreciate how far we've come more than anything else.

    6. Re:Ugh by Fluffeh · · Score: 2

      Taking what exists and adding enough innovative twists on it is also good enough. World of Warcraft did that with the Everquest formula, for example.

      World of Warcraft wasn't innovative. Not really. It was however VERY well polished. Where Blizzard excelled was constant adjustment of classes to ensure balance, putting in a lot of content and really trying to make it work properly. Now, before you start jumping in and saying how buggy it is come patch time or the like, I am not saying that EVERYTHING works perfectly in it, but I did play it for a number of years, and compared to problems in just about every other MMO, it is right up there as being one of the least buggy - especially in the last few years.

      A slight variant on a genre can make either a great game, or a game that just doesn't work. Take Unreal Tournament for example. The original took FPS, looked at the really fun bits, introduced a bunch of new game types that weren't really seen too much, made exciting, fun, tight levels that worked very well for multiplayer and introduced (at the time) amazing bots to play against. It was an AMAZING success. However, the follow-up just missed a few things that made the original so much fun. They focused too much on the technical and overlooked the "fun" aspects. So much so, that they eventually released a patch to make it feel more like the original!!

      What I am basically saying is that the marketplace (and certainly publishers) are happy for a little "creativity" at a time, but for them to accept something that is totally different to everything they have played requires something that really is magical.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Ugh by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      You do realize a polygon is composed of vertexes right? A vertex simply being a 'point in space'.

      Every Direct3d and opengl application on the planet, game or otherwise, uses vertexes to build polygons.

      Oh, whats that? You have no idea what you're talking about? My bad, should have guess AC.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  4. Indie anything = whiner by dave562 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course the "indie" developers are whining. That is what "indie" people do. They whine about how everything is not good enough and how they could do it better. Maybe some indie developer can come up with a revolutionary game where you ride around on a Vespa and go to poetry readings at various coffee shops.

    1. Re:Indie anything = whiner by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really, indie developers claim that they can do better and actually try to do better. It's pretty clear from your tone that you know precisely zip about what you're talking about. Otherwise you'd realize that indie developers do put their money where their mouths are. Often it doesn't work out well and sometimes you get something that nobody has seen before.

      But to dismiss it as whining when folks point out that the quality of games could and should be higher is just as ignorant as your suggestion of a game involving that vespa and coffee houses.

    2. Re:Indie anything = whiner by powerlord · · Score: 2

      ... Maybe some indie developer can come up with a revolutionary game where you ride around on a Vespa and go to poetry readings at various coffee shops.

      Grand Theft Goth?

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:Indie anything = whiner by sammyF70 · · Score: 2

      ... or with a game in which the world is blocky albeit completely de- and con-structable, a run and jump game including altering the timeflow to solve puzzles, a fighter adventure game involving rabbits and wolves, ... ah silly indy developers! Thankfully one can still count on formulaic games from the major outlets.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
  5. id makes and sells gfx engines, not games by hardtofindanick · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interestingly it seems /. agrees that a company that made wolfenstein, doom, doom, quake, quake, quake, wolfenstein, doom, quake should not be the one to comment about FPS creativity.

    Thanks for the technology, but their gaming experience is still where it was 15 years ago. To top it off, visuals have come a long way since Q1 that it is really hard to sell a game purely based on "pretty" gfx.

  6. Doom and Quake? 1993 & 1996... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > pioneer in the shooter genre with Doom and Quake

    When you're still known best for things done 15 and 18 years ago can you really claim "creativity" as one of your strong points?

  7. It's 2011 by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where's have the cool brackets+enter inventory system and use keys from 1994-97 gone to? We were doing so well until Halo came.


    Duke3D wasn't just fun for the 'attitude' and "THE BOOBS ON E1L2" you know, Heretic/Hexen also explored the more tactical FPS elements no one cared about (and no one really did still anyway. fps cockfighting wasn't seen again until 15 years later when ArmA 2 came out).

    Let's not forget that one '1993 vs. 200x level design' picture, the strict lameness of oververbose design documents written by a dedicated 'game designer'. I remember people saw the little GTA design doc here months ago as offensive for not being a "proper design doc" because it left a lot of room for the rest of the team to get creative by themselves to make the game by featuring little detail outside gameplay. It's getting so 'by the book' these days to make/sell linear one-track experience by linear one-track experience, we can't even have clever easter eggs anymore either.

    Let's also not forget the whole "DLC" movement, clamping down on custom content opportunities, destroying potential modding communities in the name for money.

  8. Summarized by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 2

    Current state of affairs

    Indie: We need more creativity!
    Nostalgia: We want doom level newness!
    Carmack: We made some creative stuff, but now we are doing it for the cash. Here, have another COD where you can endlessly fight each other in the same maps.
    Nostalgia: *whimpers*
    Steam: Here, we have hats!
    *It is super effected, Nostlagia feints*

    Indie: Art matters. Art... *stomach growls*
      Steam: We'll package your stuff together and drum up sales.
    Indie: Can't make art if dead from starvation....

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  9. Oh Carmack by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Carmack, I like you. I respect you and appreciate what you've done for 3D gaming. But it's clear your strength is in engine design and not game design. Stay in your niche please, and don't pretend to believe that indie developers are somehow being 'snooty' so much as in offering an alternative gaming experience compared to the big-budget studios who are afraid to risk trying anything different.

    1. Re:Oh Carmack by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      His rant is really petty. Essentially, he's butthurt that people actually are designing games with higher artistic (and conceptual) goals in mind than just pushing the graphical power of another FPS, and he's taking it personally that they find his games boring. The "snootiness" that Carmack detects is a by-product of his commitment to commercial games. Well, John, you can console yourself with the money you get for the "value" that your are bringing, making your product. You chose your road, live with it, and let people who have other ambitions do what they do.

      It is actually another chapter in the are-games-art saga: Carmack is one of those generation of game designers who were artistically unsophisticated, yet craved the credibility of "art." Now that sophisticated game designers are doing stuff, Carmack is perplexed that his stuff isn't getting past the velvet rope. Even though "games are art" now, it doesn't mean the games that old-school gamers liked are going to cut it as good art.

  10. Carmack's creativity by br00tus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously Carmack is not the sole fount of creativity in the world. But his output is amazing. I still know people who talk about Commander Keen. As far as Doom, Quake and the like, the market has spoken. I have spent many hours playing Doom and Quake deathmatch. There was a time the Internet component of Doom's deathmatch was seen as innovative. As far as I'm concerned, Doom and Quake set the bar for FPS, the way Age of Empires set the bar for RTS (I'm biased against Starcraft...)

    Carmack released id Tech 3's code as GPL. Go look at that code. I spend so much time looking over other people's crappy code. That code looks real nice. I couldn't believe how good the code looked. Clear as a bell what everything does. It's also amazing so little code can do so much in games like OpenArena.

    Reading the book Masters of Doom made me admire Carmack all the more as a coder. I don't know who was wrong or right in the office politics with him and Romero at I.D., most people I know who have met Romero say he's a nice guy. But there's no taking away Carmack's technical prowess.

    1. Re:Carmack's creativity by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Dune 2, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation, Starcraft. Every other RTS deserves no better than honorable mention. There is a clone of AOE now though (0AD has much the same smell) so I guess it can get on the list in a few years :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. J. Romero was 1st to die, & ID Software suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just remember what ID Software was before Carmack booted Romero. DON"T YOU FORGET IT! ID Software was once an inovator of both Science and Art, married together by a glue of fanbase, and ever since the Johns wparted ways it just resolved to be nothing more than a stock ticker. Sure Doom3 was nice, but so is Planet Earth without water. A Slideshow of artwork could have been presented by Romero with a multiple-choice question on how to continue, and it would still be cooler than Doom3.

    Doom3 the engine was an attempt to synthesize John Romero back into ID Software, but it had no soul and was void. It was void just like all the other game engines that built their fanbase on multiplayer hoping activity and some AI would make it fun, but nope -- nothing that Romero couldn't do with a stroke of a brush.

    I hear ID Software was sold to another company since about 3 months ago, and Carmack was reduced to a mere production manager while an entire pigeon-coup of naturalized illegal aliens were imported to do the work of him, but none of them could do as Romero because:

    Our Father who Arteth in Purgatory,
    unwritten be thy name!
    Thy commode come!
    Thy pallet never done!
    On lucid canvas between the heavens!
    Give us this Turtle our daily waypoint,
    and chart us a segment,
    and Forgive us our Undo as we redo those that made better to us whom were silenced by the Adversary.
    And lead us not into a Microsoft Compiler but deliver us from
    the Aquisittor for thine is the Independence and Beauty and Strength forever! Humen!

  12. he --was-- an indie developer by decora · · Score: 3, Interesting

    him and that wild man Romero, tore the gates off the entrance to the PC graphics and game industry, and stomped on them. they were years ahead of their time, only a tiny tiny handful could do what they did. what they did was absolutely pioneering.

    Romero's creative angst ridden genius + carmack's technical skill = compelling nightmare world

    you take one of those and separate it from the other? well, maybe you have to at some point,, they couldnt be shareware cowboys forever.... but sometimes 1+1 is much more than 2 and if carmack can't see that i dont know what to say.

  13. Re:J. Romero was 1st to die, & ID Software suf by MadKeithV · · Score: 2

    A Slideshow of artwork could have been presented by Romero with a multiple-choice question on how to continue, and it would still be cooler than Doom3.

    As evidenced by the roaring success of Daikatana.

  14. Re:Doom and Quake? 1993 & 1996... by dintech · · Score: 2

    If anything, Catacomb 3D was more like the beginning. But, ID was just ripping off the still-in-development Ultima Underworld. That game in turn borrowed a lot from the 'stepped' real-time 3D dungeon games like Dungeon Master and Eye of the Beholder.