Carmack On Doom III And The Evolution Of Graphics 586
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."
Great, let's extend Microsoft's monopoly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Fall? (Score:2, Interesting)
The engine may be great, but so far as the game itself, I predict the letdown of the year. This game is already wayyyy overhyped. In the end it'll be just another pretty shoot'em-up.
Oh well. Have fun in outer space, Mr Carmack.
Doom III demo (Score:2, Interesting)
ps this is on Windows 2000 with dx9.
Graphics Engines (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not just reprint Wired? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't people just go to Wired and read the articles that interest them?
Re:Fall? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is how the hell is there supposed to be an XBox port of DOOMII. I mean, if you need a radeon9700 pro just to get the nice graphical goodies, how is an XBox supposed to churn out anything resembling the PC release?
Re:Doom III demo (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:bored with first person shoot em ups (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm betting on a next-gen Doom 3 which isn't just fancy graphics - I think id are a company which is clever enough to sense the shifts in the industry. As Q3 showed the way for deathmatch, D3 will show the way for the new direction in FPS.
I hope
Gaming after Photorealism (Score:4, Interesting)
Powerful enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
BC
Re:How long could an Xboxen version take? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:"We've already demonstrated" - er NO! (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I am an avid PC gamer and an avid console gamer. I found it a bit difficult to switch at first, but once I practiced a bit I found I could have just as much (in some cases more, in some cases less) precision using two analogue joysticks as a keyboard and mouse.
The whole argument of less control via console is old, don't get me wrong, I used to say the same thing. However, I remember a similar sentiment switching from DOOM to Quake... i.e. mouse control sucks. Keyboard only is where it's at.
Like anything else, takes some time to get used to, but once you do, it's not as bad as you think.
Forgive me if I disagree with Carmack (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [topcodersoftware.com] (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.
Re:Why not just reprint Wired? (Score:0, Interesting)
Can't people just go to Reuters and read the articles that interest them?
---------
Seriously...if you're coming here for "quality news reporting" (not meant as a slant against the editors), then you're wasting your time. Slashdot hasn't changed...The *readership* has changed, and they want things from Slashdot that aren't core to Slashdot's essence. Slashdot is the Bubble Sort of news sites, picking and choosing from articles that it believes its readership to be interested in.
Obviously, this was one you're interested in. Good for you. Perhaps the rest of the Slashdot audience doesn't get Wired, or check the website frequently (thanks to horrible full-screen Intel flash ads), so the rest of us might actually appreciate Slashdot effectively sifting through the irrelevant stuff and giving us what we want.
If you think that all Slashdot is lately is Wired articles, then I don't suppose you'll shed a tear if you stop reading Slashdot and stick to Wired, right?
Perhaps Slashdot should consider changing its slogan to: "By Geeks (and not English/Journalism majors), For Geeks (and not English/Journalism majors)"
Re:I'll Pass On Doom III (Score:1, Interesting)
When I was young (11 or so), a friend of our family saw me reading the manual to a game for my TRS-80 Coco 2 called "Dungeons of Daggorath." Without even assessing the situation, she told me the same thing you said, basically "That is evil", because the game contained demons and monsters..
My reponse to the accusation was "It is not evil, because I have to defeat the demons." What she told me made no sense, because I enjoyed this game and my role, which was to defeat the bad guys. My response to you is the same.
Re:How do you bribe John C.? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"We've already demonstrated" - er NO! (Score:3, Interesting)
Precision vs Speed and the mouse (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the same story on the keyboard. The keyboard is easier to aim (you can move in one direction at a time), but turning around is limited to a particular speed.
Granted, its limited on a mouse as well, but because you can make more dramatic motions, as well as just plain *faster* motions, you make up for it.
I assume you can go faster with analog as well by adjusting the sensitivity, but its a far more direct tradeoff between turning speed and accuracy..
-Zipwow
Re:Evolution is a lie. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Fall? (Score:1, Interesting)
Television has an absolutely terrible resolution. Making things look good at that resolution isn't as hard.
Now, how it's supposed to look good when the xbox supposedly works on an HDTV, i don't know..
Re:bored with first person shoot em ups (Score:4, 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>Re:Original First Person Shooter? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think id Software should take MS's cash......... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Atari 2600 Tunnel Runner (Score:4, Interesting)
TunnelRunner Screenshots [atariage.com]
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.
Re:Evolution is a lie. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Carmack: do a physics or AI engine! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Original First Person Shooter? (Score:5, Interesting)
First, Battlezone is from 1980. There were 1st person games in the 1970s, specifically a few games for the PLATO system.
Re:Ultraviolence in GTA3? (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it - GTA3 is disturbingly violent. What's scary here is that you claim you really don't see the difference.
An anvil falling on a talking rooster and then said rooster getting up and dusting himself off is funny. An old woman being beaten to death with a baseball bat and then falling to the ground surrounded by a growing pool of blood is not funny.
If you say, "Yes - GTA3 is a dark, violent game; but that has no effect on my actions in reality", thats one thing. And certainly a debatable point. However, for you to say that GTA3 is not really violent and just misunderstood? Pardon my drama, but that sounds like something the Columbine boys would have said.
[Incredible prediction here: I'll bet this gets modded as a "Troll".]
Re:Ultraviolence in GTA3? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is much to do (Score:2, Interesting)
People should fall if they try to turn 90 degrees without slowing. But in real life you can do so much more than just turn your body. Maybe there's something to grab and help swing yourself around, maybe you can lean your pack in the direction you're turning. Unfortunately, all we have right now are our fingers pressing a few keys and maybe a hand moving the mouse around. There's no way to "act real" with that limited amount of input. And if you can't act real, why should you be subjugated to realistic constraints?
The way games solve the problem now is to limit what you can do; to provide only a few realistic choices. They let you jump realistically... but there are only 3 or 4 types of jumping you can choose from. That gets boring really quickly. When I play a game like that, I always get frustrated at some part where the character is just too stupid to do what you could do in real life. "Just grab onto the stupid thing, you're right there! Move your arm!"
Anyway, unless there's a major revolution in controllers, I think there will be a serious limit to how much real-world physics can be in a game -- and still allow the game to be fun.
Is it time for an id GameOS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? Because it is the ONLY viable PC gaming OS.
Nearly every other task involving computers on a day to day basis can be successfully done in Linux.
Sadly, Windows in all its flavours is still a huge resource hog compared to its cut down XBox OS, which is designed purely for gaming.
What I would love to see is an open source gaming OS devoid of anything not strictly associated with pumping out pixels and noise at the best framerates possible. The problem is proprietary standards. Right now Microsoft has sewn up the gaming community with its DirectX de-facto standard. This gaming standard is the reason I run Windows and not Linux. I'm a gamer and play most days, and for that I need Windows on my box.
I don't think that there are many games that could force a change to a new OS to play it. The only company I can think of is id Software.
What I (and no doubt others) would like to see is an open source, but most of all OPEN STANDARD, GameOS designed from the ground up for PC gaming. id Software could create such an OS I believe. Make it platform agnostic so it will run on x86s, Macs and others, and make it easily bootable from any other OS on those machines, and you could finally precipitate the shift away from Windows lock-in.
I'd buy such an OS, run it alongside Linux, and finally be free of Microsoft! (I already use OpenOffice.org so the only MS product I use is the OS itself)
How about it, id?