News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
John Carmack On DOOM 3 And Game Development Trends

very intresting.

i love that guy, he is a fucking genius, i dont care what anyone says. :)
First | Previous | Next | Last
Once the pros are bogged down in thousand-detail rooms, the world of huge never-ending boxmaps is all ours!! Until they recruit some serious AI to help them out, anyway.

I'm more impressed with the artistic values evident in the screenshots than the tech. 
Hey, I'll Take You All On 
Most people didn't think DM was going to become big...

I can't speak for the technical end of things, but I think content wise co-op play is due to make a break through. There are several map styles and puzzles that can only be done in co-op, or are better exploited in co-op. You can have modes where people cooperate, and modes where people both complete the same sp level in a competitive fashion. I think it's time someone did co-op right, and left single player play to be the second class citizen for a change.

It's not really something I expect from Carmack anyways. He's too wrapped up in the technology to make a real game. 
He's too wrapped up in the technology to make a real game. 
So I Take It 
You won't be getting DooM3, 'cause, surely, you wouldn't waste your money on something that wasn't "a real game" 
I will be getting Doom3. Even if making a real game isn't Carmack's interest, he's not the only man responsible for the game. It won't live up the the hype, but I'm sure there'll be some great stuff in there.

I'm also interested in seeing what the communities will do with Doom3 and HL2. They're both sequels to games that have had great community support, and I'm hoping that kind of support is going to be there right out of the gate and will last a long time. 
New starfox game on gamecube will have coop, also zelda legend of the four swords or whatever it's called for gba and gamecube has some kind of coop but with some elements of competition between players.

Maybe we'll see most coop action on consoles these days. Altho when the pc port of halo finally comes there might be some nice coop on the computer too. 
I think co-op was one of the things that had to be axed from the pc port of Halo. It's unforgivable really. I have two theories on why the port has taken so damn long. Either Microsoft rushed Bungie so much that the code base ended up a friggin mess, or Bungie placed retarded monkies in charge of said port.

If the port takes any damn longer someone will have already written an X-Box emulator and pcs will be fast enough to run it flawlessly. 
I always assumed the PC version of Halo never came because Xbox needed it exclusively to make up for the lack of other good games for the system. 
Halo Pc 
There was some recent interview with somone responsible for the pc port in wich he said that the network aspects was one of thoughest problems. The reason for that was that in the xbox verision you knew you'd always have people playing on the same box or between xboxes with a fixedspeed of 100mbit so the network code was very simple and far from what you see in a modern FPS.

found it:

it says that coop is indeed in danger of not making it into the pc versoin but that they'll try to get it in there. 
... --- ... 
Yeah, I read that article. I understand that the networking would be the most difficult part, but it doesn't justify how long the game is taking. I know that Microsoft wanted an X-Box exclusive, but I can't imagine they intended to have the PC version this far behind. 
To Be Honest 
Ive never been into Halo, I was waiting for it when I read previews ages ago, but im very disappointed with the game on the Xbox, Coop was the only thing that kept my interest.

If coop doesn't make it in the pc port then i certainly won't be buying it.

And the stupid noises the monsters made... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 
Coop On PC 
Coop on PC just isn't reasonable imo. There aren't enough people who network and play coop like you have with console systems. To release Doom3 for console w/out coop would be foolish. Don't get me wrong, I would love to play coop over a lan etc. like in the good ole' days of Doom/2. But from a development standpoint I can understand why they might not be doing it. I don't know how the cutscenes work in Doom3, and how that would effect coop mode, coding etc. I assume they could be turned off for coop, but perhaps there is something in there that makes the cut sequences more difficult to create for the SP experience if you include coop etc.

In the end we all know that id is a technology shop, Doom3 should be fun, but it will not live up to every expectation. They are not looking to break new ground in terms of gameplay, just to do the absolute least to match existing acceptable gameplay minimums, and blow us away with the visual and aesthetic in order to sell more licenses. This is and has been their business strategy, I don't see them changing it. I am afraid if you want groundbreaking gameplay, you will have to wait for DeusEx2 and Halflife2. 
your argument is somwhat weak.

Both Doom and Quake 1 were huge leaps in terms of gameplay when they were released. There had never been anything like them before. In fact part of ID's genius has been to produce brilliant new engines AND excellent gameplay to complement the engine. You could even argue q3 was a leap for DM-gameplay. Half-life was not a leap for Gameplay, IMO.

its obviously true ID have licensed the engine, but thats becuase they make such damn good engines, that they are constantly in demand from other developers.

I am somewhat surprised to hear you making such a strong argument against the gameplay of ID, as you obviously loved quake 1 and understood it very well, as evidenced by all the great maps you made for it. 
You could even argue q3 was a leap for DM-gameplay

how so?

Half-life was not a leap for Gameplay

Again that is as weak an argument as you say elek puts forward. It was probably the first game to not have just the run, shoot and find the exit gameplay integrated reasoanbly well. Whether or not you consider that a good thing is another issue though. 

possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.


well its just seems like perfectly refined DM gameplay to me. Its fast..i just like the feel of it. I love the railgun. it speeds up the DM gameplay mechanism so much, i love insatgib. I dont even like DM gameplay that much (as you have probably guessed by now), but it feels so good to me i play quake 3 with bots just for the hell of it.

I am the first to admit i am not a DM expert though, i know some people swear q1 or even q2 DM is the best, so i am really going on instinct on the DM side of things. :/ 
possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.

Then you are in no position to be judging its gameplay.

What made HL so good was it took the default, plotless/brainless find-the-colored-key gameplay that id 'invented' and used every possible connotation spun together with an actual story. And it wasn't story as in 'excuse us while we yank you out of the game and shove a cliche-ridden cut scene in your face to promote our franchise'. I mean an actual story, with all the plot elements of the genre, dialogue, characterisation and even humour.

I agree with you about Q3A tho. It's immediately gratifying. It's fun. Which is a word that many players' vocabulary lacks. People only say Quakeworld or Q2DM is better because that's all they're used to. There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.
And Q3 weapons are better for DM. Period. 
Oh and; I think you know how much I like Quake and how much I like its SP gameplay. But it wasn't a leap. It was a shuffle. 
Actually, Since They Added The "jump" Key... 
Quake WAS a leap in gameplay. 
No, that's a leap gameplay not a gameplay leap.

Quake Was A Leap In Gameplay 
But to a good extent that leap resulted from the technological advance. 
There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.

A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel. 
All this leaping reminds me of frogger...
Now thats gameplay!

Sorry for the derailment. 
Uhhhhh....gameplay Model? 
Sandy Petersen: That we did not move on to another type of game after DOOM II. I think the plotless FPS shoot-'em-up had been thoroughly explored and it was time for "something new."

Might I remind you that Doom and Doom2 and Quake are all the same gameplay model based upon Wolfenstein 3d. There is nothing new in there, just additions and tweaks. Doom added 2.5D and fab lighting, network play. Doom2 added the double barrel. Then Quake added 3d and look up and down, but in terms of actual "GAMEPLAY" the model is the same. It never changed...get the key, open the door, shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key, open the door shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key to open the door and shoot the shit and get to the exit. Please, how is my argument weak? I would even argue that Q2 is the same exact gameplay model, with Hexen style unit based gameplay.

In fact, Half-Life, which I consider to be based on that exact gameplay model imho is more of an advance in gameplay than any of id's post Wolf games. The addition of a storyline which develops as you progress, granted it is not the most amazing story, but a well developed progression, combo'd with NPC interaction, and intelligent monsters who didn't just gang rush you. Add in the scripted sequences, and the interaction of the main character/player in the events which bring down the black mesa complex, and you have real character integration into the storyline etc. thereby influencing the belief in this game environments offered reality. I realize there are alot of people on this board who dislike Half-Life, but to just toss off the obvious influence/advancements because of a subjective opinion of the game is goofy. It is my opinion that pure sales figures, and numbers of users still playing the game are facts that Half-Life was and still is a success. There is no denying it, despite subjective opinions.

AS for gameplay models, IMO a gameplay model doesn't change that much by the introduction of a new technology feature which does not push the storyline, or engage the players suspension of belief more, it changes it yes, but enough to consider it a Leap? I hardly think so. Don't get me wrong, I love Quake, and it was amazing at the time, but I think what made it so fucking great was not the SP gameplay model. I loved the atmosphere. What made the atmosphere so damned good? The limited color pallete. In terms of lighting and texturing. This is part of the reason Doom3 looks so fucking hot, they are not going apeshit with the color scheme. And in terms of playing the game, I played more CTF online in the early days before I began mapping. The big leap for Quake came with the multiplayer TCPIP capabilities, THAT changed gameplay. No longer did we have to set-up a lan, I could go online and DM all I wanted. Cause everyone knows that Coop play always turned into DM with monsters anyhow. 
A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel.

Quake 3 is anything but unresponsive. its beautifully fast, balanced and sensitive. The physics are very good for exciting Dm gameplay. 
A major part of what makes Q3A such a terribly failed attempt at a DM game is the shoddy and unresponsive feel.

It's not shoddy and unresponsive - you just suck at it. 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2020 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.