New Doom 3 Interview With Carmack
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Somewhat Irritating, but informative</div> <a href='http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php?id=98036' target='_blank'>http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?pa...ry.php?id=98036</a>
So this interview talks with John Carmack about the relative lack of innovation apparent in D3's gameplay design, and his response is:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PCZ: OK... So, do you think Doom 3's gameplay would be as interesting if it wasn't for the new technology?
JC: We decided Doom 3's gameplay is not going to be some wild innovation - it's a first-person shooter. There are a lot of arguments that can be made about game design, and I prefer simplicity and elegance. There are big arguments that happen inside id over 'do we wanna have an additional control for something like this?', and I'm always the one saying we want the minimum number of everything, because I want it to be simple and fun to play. I think the GUI interaction in the game is really powerful as an interactive paradigm. It doesn't require additional controls; you're interacting with something people are familiar with. Allowing you to interact with complex displays is powerful, much more than adding three more keys to do something.In terms of the basic gameplay, the first-person shooter is a genre that will probably be around forever now, like flight sims and driving games. There are plenty of branches you can take within that, like pure realism, tournament play, comic action. And I think the push for people to innovate in gameplay - I'm not sure that I particularly agree with it. You don't go around constantly coming up with new basketball games. What we have the ability to do is improve the playground you're playing on in these fundamental ways, and it's a good thing. We've got some neat things where you can control some big machines and do some cool stuff, but it is still a 'running a person around, shooting at things in the world' game, and I didn't want to make it anything other than that. We have vehicle code in there that I know Splash Damage is playing with and making buggies and stuff fly around, but I'm most mistrustful of adding that sort of thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find his attitude in this to be quite litterally retarded. He is basically saying that attempts to make FPS games less repetitive and boring are wrong and should be avoided. In effect, he seems to regard FPS programming as a rather mindless hardware optimization hobby. While that's fine and dandy, I think it takes an industry that already creates horrendous regurgitations of previous games, and says 'make it Direct X 9 compliant and ship it'. The basketball analogy is silly, and does not apply: human sports are historically very static, computer sports are the opposite. If he had been a processor design engineer, we'd all be using highly cache-optimized 286's right now.
Between the crippling of multiplayer, the lack of gameplay innovation, the extreme hardware requirements, the strength of competitors like Valve, and the frankly poor attitude, I wonder how much longer iD can treat its fans badly and expect them to stay loyal?
So this interview talks with John Carmack about the relative lack of innovation apparent in D3's gameplay design, and his response is:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PCZ: OK... So, do you think Doom 3's gameplay would be as interesting if it wasn't for the new technology?
JC: We decided Doom 3's gameplay is not going to be some wild innovation - it's a first-person shooter. There are a lot of arguments that can be made about game design, and I prefer simplicity and elegance. There are big arguments that happen inside id over 'do we wanna have an additional control for something like this?', and I'm always the one saying we want the minimum number of everything, because I want it to be simple and fun to play. I think the GUI interaction in the game is really powerful as an interactive paradigm. It doesn't require additional controls; you're interacting with something people are familiar with. Allowing you to interact with complex displays is powerful, much more than adding three more keys to do something.In terms of the basic gameplay, the first-person shooter is a genre that will probably be around forever now, like flight sims and driving games. There are plenty of branches you can take within that, like pure realism, tournament play, comic action. And I think the push for people to innovate in gameplay - I'm not sure that I particularly agree with it. You don't go around constantly coming up with new basketball games. What we have the ability to do is improve the playground you're playing on in these fundamental ways, and it's a good thing. We've got some neat things where you can control some big machines and do some cool stuff, but it is still a 'running a person around, shooting at things in the world' game, and I didn't want to make it anything other than that. We have vehicle code in there that I know Splash Damage is playing with and making buggies and stuff fly around, but I'm most mistrustful of adding that sort of thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find his attitude in this to be quite litterally retarded. He is basically saying that attempts to make FPS games less repetitive and boring are wrong and should be avoided. In effect, he seems to regard FPS programming as a rather mindless hardware optimization hobby. While that's fine and dandy, I think it takes an industry that already creates horrendous regurgitations of previous games, and says 'make it Direct X 9 compliant and ship it'. The basketball analogy is silly, and does not apply: human sports are historically very static, computer sports are the opposite. If he had been a processor design engineer, we'd all be using highly cache-optimized 286's right now.
Between the crippling of multiplayer, the lack of gameplay innovation, the extreme hardware requirements, the strength of competitors like Valve, and the frankly poor attitude, I wonder how much longer iD can treat its fans badly and expect them to stay loyal?
Comments
Face it Johnny, Gabe is the new mac daddy in town.
Yes, NS, the most complex mod in half-life history from a gameplay perspective, is somehow simple. I guess that new law to legalize smoking hippy backhair finally passed in the Helsinki congress...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
He seems to be staying loyal to the statement "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as far as the gameplay design, while, as has been stated, this would be exactly what is required if this were a sports game, sounds like a very bad move.
As to the multiplayer being capped at 4 players, i'm interested to see how this does. While big games have always been fast and fun, the smaller, tenser and slower battles of fewer players coupled with the lovely new lighting, could lead to some great games....
Rest assured, however, myself and millions of others will be buying this regardless based on DOOM's reputation or just to see the new technology, they could pretty much just crap in the box and put it on the shelves, people will still buy it.
I agree.. their games really suck and they introduce new badass technology that depends on other companies and other people and users and modders to make kickass
Half-Life was the ultimate expression of that "future", which is now the past and the present as well as the future.
Blizzard is really different tho.. it is a "new" kind of game company me thinks, although it is actually old now and part of the status quo.. it makes immensely popular games that hang around for years, that are not really due to the user made mods but to their strangely appealing quality.. which does not appeal to me haha altho i am currently addicted to D2X 1.10 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, NS, the most complex mod in half-life history from a gameplay perspective, is somehow simple. I guess that new law to legalize smoking hippy backhair finally passed in the Helsinki congress...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, but even though the basic idea of NS is complicated, there's no extra buttons, items, weapons or traits that are not needed. Nothing is added only because of 'cool' factor. Everything must have an accurate purpose. Doom seems to have the same thing going on. Except it doesn't have the complex basic idea, just the engine <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, NS, the most complex mod in half-life history from a gameplay perspective, is somehow simple. I guess that new law to legalize smoking hippy backhair finally passed in the Helsinki congress...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, but even though the basic idea of NS is complicated, there's no extra buttons, items, weapons or traits that are not needed. Nothing is added only because of 'cool' factor. Everything must have an accurate purpose. Doom seems to have the same thing going on. Except it doesn't have the complex basic idea, just the engine <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's only some 27 weapons and 7 unique characters to master (5 aliens, marine and jp marine). And then there's the commander interface which is just a tad different from your standard fps. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
yeah, not when i can buy STALKER and have a hell of a time playin it.
I've always been irritated by the lack of imagination, nay, <b>removal</b> of imagination in id games. Did you know that Castle Wolfenstein was going to have dragging dead bodies out the way, stealing uniforms, and other cool espionage things? Did you know that Doom was going to have all these really cool RPG elements, and a <i>much</i> richer storyline? It all got dropped because they believed that fans just wanted a simple shoot-em-up. And it set back the evolution of gameplay by many years.
A while back I remember reading a press conference about Doom 3, and the discussion was about the dark scary lighting. Then the question was asked (something to the effect of) "so, does the darkness affect the monsters at all?". There was a pause, then the id guy laughed and said "Let's just say they've got perfect night vision". It hadn't even <i>occured</i> to them.
I've always been of the opinion that gameplay is more important than shiny graphics, and id's always been the pack leader of shiny graphics. Fortunately, their reign is drawing to a close. The other observation I've made is that there will come a point where graphics cannot get any better. You can't <i>get</i> more realistic than photorealism. At that point, engines will become more about flexibility and allowing for cool gameplay devices. I can't wait <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Nobody cries about this more than I do. :(
yeah, not when i can buy STALKER and have a hell of a time playin it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen broham...
Everytime I hear something about Doom3 I become a little more disappointed with it...<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> I really WANT to like it too.
Nobody cries about this more than I do. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, unfortunatly Carmack has never been one to innovate in gameplay. Don't get me wrong, the guy writes unbeatable game engines, but he has absolutely no clue about gameplay. Oh well, as I understand it ID makes more money licensing their engine to other games during the period between the game's commercial release and its release under the GPL (or is it LGPL? I don't remember. Its opensource though so who cares!)
ROFLMAO. Almost litterally.
They have fans? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh, and I'll inform you about the status of the hippy backhair law in the Helsinki Congress as soon as I can find such an entity. Meanwhile, we have to settle for good ol' homegrown here. Can you send us some foreign aid so we can purchase better seeds?
OMG, I wish that fit in my sig. =P
as for the subject of the thread: this is why I stopped playing ID games after Quake 1...
wolfen, doom, doom2, heretic, hexen: fun, but nearly identical except graphically...
quake: finally in 1996, ID added jumping and looking up and down to a game... which Looking Glass had in real time first person RPGs before Doom 1...
they just lost their vision, I think <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Serious Sam was probably the best FPS I've ever played. Why? There was no complex inventory manager, no level-ups, no strategic firefight planning. Instead of dwelling on features, I played the game without the end in mind; I played it and appreciated every individual rush of adrenaline. I loved the feeling of being able to say "Holy ****, that was freaking incredible" after an intense battle. That's how I'm going to play DOOM 3: savoring every time I get ridiculously frightened and the incredible feeling of emerging victorious from battle.
I don't care about fancy storylines or philosophical undertones. I'm buying DOOM 3 before HL2 because I long for its gameplay. Simple gameplay is what I want. I don't care about 10 types of ammo for 10 different weapons. I don't care about using a socket wrench to open a panel and then taking a laser pointer to unlock a security code that I have to crack with a virus plugin. Those things can too easily make a game tedious and a chore, which detracts from the storyline or awesome firefights or what-have-you no matter how extravagant. If DOOM 3 sells as spectacularly as I hope it'll sell, it will prove that simplicity is just as effective a tool at making a great game than a load of features.
Serious Sam was probably the best FPS I've ever played. Why? There was no complex inventory manager, no level-ups, no strategic firefight planning. Instead of dwelling on features, I played the game without the end in mind; I played it and appreciated every individual rush of adrenaline. I loved the feeling of being able to say "Holy ****, that was freaking incredible" after an intense battle. That's how I'm going to play DOOM 3: savoring every time I get ridiculously frightened and the incredible feeling of emerging victorious from battle.
I don't care about fancy storylines or philosophical undertones. I'm buying DOOM 3 before HL2 because I long for its gameplay. Simple gameplay is what I want. I don't care about 10 types of ammo for 10 different weapons. I don't care about using a socket wrench to open a panel and then taking a laser pointer to unlock a security code that I have to crack with a virus plugin. Those things can too easily make a game tedious and a chore, which detracts from the storyline or awesome firefights or what-have-you no matter how extravagant. If DOOM 3 sells as spectacularly as I hope it'll sell, it will prove that simplicity is just as effective a tool at making a great game than a load of features. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FPS' have grown up so much over the years, and i'm one of the people that things this is a good thing. I find that it's nigh on impossible for me to play a game without a strong storyline anymore.
I grew up not playing story-less action games so much, but mainly adventures. The story is what makes the game flow from one level to the next. To me, games with no story just don't compell me to continue and i just lack all motivation to proceed. Take Serious Sam, yes it was "fun", but that fun wore off within 20 minutes of playing the game, rest assured i have one Serious Sam cd sitting here that hasn't been touched since then. It was a boring game.
I just don't see how people can play single player games without a story.
*EDIT:
Just a few more thoughts.
Recently i just played through Max Payne 2, a game that is crammed full of story. I defy anyone that says they didn't find themselves compelled to continue on and on. Hell, maybe the game was short, but i'd rather play a short, compelling game like that rather than a 20 hour epic game with minimal story (The original DOOM games, anyone?).
I pray that they are just talking about keeping the controls simple, this game will suck so ultimately if they decide to cut out a good story. We, gamers, expect more from games now than we ever have, sure a crap game will come out and a good deal of morons will buy it, but on the whole we virtually demand games to be an experience not a game. Serious Sam was not only not an experience, but it was also a waste of my hard earned money.
But as i mentioned a page or two back, people, including myself, will buy it regardless, but by the sounds of this interview, there's going to be a lot of disappointed gamers. I guess we'll find out when it's released.
For me, the fun didn't wear out after 20 minutes. The fun <b>never</b> wore out. The only part where it was not fun was when all the bulls rushed you in the end and it was really hard to kill them. No amount of fancy gizmos and RPG elements could parallel the effect that the magnificent artwork, mood, mechanics, and gameplay delivered. There wasn't one part of that game where I was bored because the gameplay was more of the same. SS was one of the greatest games ever CRAFTED, because the designers were able to keep the same general style of firefight and keep it not boring. If you had to mow down an advancing fleet of those flying ladies, it sure as hell was a different experience in the desert than in the oasis. And every firefight was different anyway - sometimes you had to fight the enemies on slippery ground, other times you had to fight them on a teetering precipice, other times you were at one end of an alley and had to expend as many rounds of ammunition before they could get to you (undeniably the coolest part of the whole game).
I'm not knocking the idea of having storylines in games. Just different games have different emphasises, which is now a word. For example, you could never combine the frenetic gun frenzy of Serious Sam with the storyline of Deus Ex, and vice versa. It's my opinion that when too much of an emphasis is put on gameplay features, it detracts from the simplicity of play and consequently the simplicity of enjoyment. Interesting features can be pulled off well, but if even slightly not perfected, the result can be a tainted enjoyment of the game.
Edit: just read your edit. If you didn't feel Serious Sam was an experience, you played it wrong - I'll tell you that. I will never forget the experience I had playing that game -- I'll name a few of the most exceptional.
1) Picking off the headless suicide bombers and feeling the adrenaline rising as the barrel-shoot became a frantic game of keep-away when the numbers of bombers grew and grew
2) Getting the chaingun and feeling the rumble of a hundred skeleton horse things approaching
3) Gunning down the first fifty horse things and ending up firing my rocket launcher at melee range to clear a path through the sea of horse things
4) Killing the magma boss
5) Looking behind me to ascertain the source of the earthquake and finding myself dwarfed by the end boss' little toe
among others.
If Flayra followed Carmack's advice:
There would be no +use command.
Carmack apparently feels that such a command is a gimmick.
Though many people view Carmack as some sort of game design god. The more I hear of him the more I have decided I would never work for him.
My interpretation of Carmack:
1. I am always right.
2. I am always right.
3. You don't agree? #^%@! you. I made Doom. How dare you attempt to be innovative. You're fired.
How people can stand working with him I will never know.
2: I don't really care what Carmack's attitude towards his fans is, or what his rationale about making games is. In the end, that doesn't make a difference - what counts is game sales. Doom 3 will do reasonably well - of that there is no question. It's still an advanced game engine, and it still has faithful legions of fans. The quesion is what happens to subsequent id titles. Almost everyone will buy Doom 3 AND Half-Life 2. Their impressions will decide whether they buy Doom 4 or not (or Commander Keen 3D. Imagine that <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->), and I don't think they will.
3: There's nothing wrong with "fun > serious" gameplay. There is something wrong with taking a step backwards. I've been playing a hell of a lot of Wolfenstein Enemy Territory lately, much more than I have NS. ET's gameplay is much simpler than NS, and it's more fun. NS, on the other hand, is more complex and engaging. There's nothing wrong with ET being just plain ole fun, but ET isn't a regression. It's still got secondary fire, prone, duck, crouch, sprint, use keys, and even a few other innovations. Gameplay-wise, Doom 3 isn't a progression from even the original game. It may have made use of all the developments in graphics technology since Doom, even pioneered some. But to ignore all the advances in gameplay since is unforgivable.
4: For the record, despite all that was axed from the original Doom game, there's quite a bit of background to be had. A while ago, a friend and I amused ourselves by coming up with all kinds of background theories and mythologies about the Doom universe (such as why the Icon of Sin never spawns Cyberdemons or Spider Masterminds). There's a <i>lot</i> of material to work with. The Doom universe could spawn a <i>killer</i> FPS\RPG cross; the potential in there is incredible. Unfortunately, it's likely to go to waste.
5: My first impression of Doom 3 was, well, <a href='http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-05-24&res=l' target='_blank'>this</a>. I could see that, while the game itself might not be all that good, the potential for games using the id engine (as they have done in the past), and for mods is tremendous. There are two problems. One is that Half-Life has a fantastic reputation for supporting mods, which HL2 is planned to continue (in addition, HL2 is an extremely attractive engine to work with). The second thing is, well, the fact that companies like Valve are developing in-house technologies which can seriously compete with the id juggernaught. In the past, id were always the cutting edge and virtually dominated the world of 3d game engines; basically everyone licensed their game engines (even Valve did, in fact). The game has changed, now. Techniques pioneered by id have become widely adopted, even commonplace. There isn't that much more room for improvement in realism, and other companies are beginning to be able to produce fantastic engines all by themselves. So, now, if some company wants to start up a new game but doesn't want the expense of writing their own engine from scratch they have quite a variety of existing engines to chose from. In addition, mod makers are more likely to favour Valve's reputation for mod support than id. So... I don't think third party additions are going to save Doom 3. Then again, it would only take one fantastic one....
Time will tell.
HL gave me that.
Tron2.0 did as well.
NS really gives me that( NS1.xx made me fall out of my chair the first time a skulk leaped out of the shadows at me)
Basically any game that makes me feel as if I am the game.
Now lets contrast that with Quake 3....
Any questions?