Carmack On the Wii U and PS Vita

Gamespot spoke at length with id Software's John Carmack at E3 about upcoming FPS RAGE (which is now only a few months away from release), as well as his thoughts on the new console offerings revealed by Nintendo and Sony. He seems optimistic about the Wii U, and rather less so about the Vita. "But you know the technology level on [the Wii U] brings it up to parity with the other consoles, which is nice for us. Previously, the Wii was not a target. Id Tech 5 was just not suitable for the Wii at all. ... now that we're looking at another platform that is eminently suitable for the technology, I'm sure we're going to try and bring it up on there." On the other hand, Carmack and Tim Willits both expressed concerns about whether Nintendo users were the right demographic for id games. Of the Vita, he said, "I wouldn't want to be the executive making the decision to launch a new portable gaming machine in the post-smartphone world. I think that they've picked as eminently a suitable hardware spec as they could for that. ... But of course, by the time they actually ship, there may be smartphones or these tablets with twice as much power as what they're shipping with on there. And a year or two after that, it's going to look pretty pokey."

Hmm

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You know the thing about the Vita... I think I would have been really really excited about it, but man I sure am soured on Sony right now.

This may sound a little counter-intuitive, but I wish Sony would license a bunch of MAME ROMs and create a competitor to the Wii store. I've played MAME on an OLED device before and... you know, there's something about each pixel emitting light... it's like you're actually using a CRT again.

I'm just babbling, but man, I can't believe this machine was unveiled and all I did was make a fart noise.

How can you game without physical controls?

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a DS (and don't have plans to buy a 3DS) but I hardly use it anymore because I rarely find myself away from a PC or TV when I feel like gaming. However, there are the infrequent and brief moments not long enough to justify carrying a separate device where I do try to play a game on my phone. Except, every game I've tried besides the simple puzzle/strategy game had absolutely atrocious controls. I truly don't understand the hype behind the future of gaming on touchscreen phones. How can you play a game where the controls are on the same surface you're trying to view? Regarding accelerometers, they sound great to me in theory, but in practice work rather poorly in the games I've tried too.

Smartphones do not make good gaming systems

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartphones aren't good for gaming for one simple reason: the controls suck. Aside from the Xperia Play, I've only seen one other smartphone that might *sort of* work for gaming and that's the LG Optimus Q with its qwerty keyboard and built in trackball.

Re:How can you game without physical controls?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I've done quite a bit of playing on just about any portable system you can think of and, in my opinion, the difference is mainly about what types of games you really want to play. I'd rather play Ridge Racer on my 3DS and I'd rather play Back to the Future on my iPad. I actually even prefer BTTF on the iPad vs. the way superior PC version simply because I like to lay down on the couch while I'm playing.

There's a lot of blah blah blah about iPhones etc killing Nintndo's market, but I'm really not sold on that idea for exactly the reasons you've mentioned. I do feel, though, that Nintendo should better embrace the on-line store idea. Changing cartridges is really becoming a nuisance.

The innovation on display in Rage is staggering

[Leo Sasquatch]

An on-rails shooter in a vaguely Mad-Max style world, with a colour palette of grey and brown, and a small selection of identikit, cookie-cutter mooks as enemies. They all have the same faces, the same hairstyles, the same body-armour, like they were stamped out of cardboard, and they all act in the exact same fashion. They're all combat robots, who give up only on death and are 100% combat-effective until that point. None of them will run away after being wounded, none of them will try to crawl away after being legshot, none of them will beg for mercy. Doors you're not supposed to go through will be made of impervium, and react not at all to your strongest explosives. Two oil drums piled up will provide an immovable barrier that you'll have to find an alternate route around.

So it's Doom with pretty graphics. Whoopee-fricking-skip.

Just like every other FPS that's come along in the last 20 years. I know this guy had a hand in creating the genre, but it's like he had one really excellent idea 20 years ago, and he's been milking it dry ever since. I can't fault him for that; if there's people willing to keep paying his wages to do the same thing he's always done, but with 5% more shiniez than last time, good luck to him.

It's just after all the hype about this damn game, and a development cycle only slightly shorter than DNF, I was expecting something a bit different. But why bother actually doing something different and clever, when Big Guns, Shiny Metal 17 will sell just as well for a tenth the actual effort, especially if it has Carmack's name on the box.