Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Quake First Person Shooters (Games)

Interview With id Software's Robert A. Duffy 456

Posted by timothy from the are-guns-phallic-symbols dept.
LEXI writes: "Accompanying our recent first set of Q3Radiant Tutorials I had the chance to interview one of the programmers behind the editor and the new engine, Mr. Robert A. Duffy of id software. 10 questions asked, 10 answers given. Topics range from personal details, education, job description, over to the new engine and the new tools, to violence in games and George W. Bush. The English original can be found here; the German translation resides at this very spot. The interview should be interesting for as well the quake player desperately awaiting the new engine, as the fresh or old-school mapper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview With id Software's Robert A. Duffy More

Interview With id Software's Robert A. Duffy

Comments Filter:

  • What a waste of questions. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:01PM (#3336750) Homepage
    As far as I understand legislation in your country, it is part of the constitution that every american citizen is allowed to wear a gun. In my opinion that is one major reason for teenage high-school killings - while claiming games like "Doom" guilty is completely ridiculous. What is your opinion?

    Are you kidding me? They get a chance to ask this guy 10 questions and this is what they come up with? Anyone do any research on this?

    Slightly offtopic, but I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment? Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.

    • Re:What a waste of questions. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As a non-American, I can quite honestly say, "Yes, we do".
      • Apparently the rest of the world is as ignorant of America as they claim Americans are of the rest of the world.

        • It's not far from the truth (Score:5, Interesting)

          by schmaltz ( 70977 ) on Sunday April 14, 2002 @03:55AM (#3338321)
          Relative to the rest of the western world, Americans have an astronomically high number of gun deaths each year. For 1998, there were 30,708 firearm-related deaths, 11,798 of which were homicides. And this was the lowest point of a 35 year downward trend [nealknox.com].

          To contrast, the United Kingdom, which has a population of around 60 million, had 49 firearm homicides [texansforgunsafety.org] in 1998. If you scale this to the US population of about 270 million in 1998, that would still only be 217 deaths. Given this, the US has roughly 50 times the firearm-related homicides of the UK.

          So it's no wonder why the rest of the world thinks Americans are gun-toting cowboys... relative to them it rings true.

          Just to provide balance, the United States doesn't have the highest homicide rate [paho.org] in the world, just of industrialized western nations. For example, Canada's homicide rate per 100,000 is about 2 in 1997, whereas the US is 7.2, yet Mexico is 14.6.

          South Americans, on the other hand, enjoy an even higher homicide rate, ranging as high as 70 per 100,000 for Columbia in 1997. But Americans don't compare themselves to "third world" nations, only to G7 nations, really.
          • Given this, the US has roughly 50 times the firearm-related homicides of the UK.
            That's pretty low considering that there's probably many more than 50 times the number of guns per capita in the US than there are in the UK.

            For the most part it's not the cowboys in the US that commit the shooting crimes. If you were to call such a crimial a cowboy, they'd probably shoot you...

            • That's pretty low considering that there's probably many more than 50 times the number of guns per capita in the US than there are in the UK.

              What a weird thing you're telling. IMNSHO it's totally irrelevant that the number of weapons per capita is higher, what matters is that it cost the life of 12000 people.

              With death penalty and that 2nd amendment, it's really no wonder the american stereotype is a cowboy. And look at the majority of movies you export to the rest of the world: USA are depicted as a violent country with little moral values filled by cowboys, fat people watching TV and racists. Also, this whole story of the "american dream" depicted in movies translates fpr the common people into "americans are workaholics", "corporations are ran by power-hungry, selfish, discriminating people".

              If I didn't know better, I'd think that too...

              • What a weird thing you're telling. IMNSHO it's totally irrelevant that the number of weapons per capita is higher, what matters is that it cost the life of 12000 people.
                Of course it's relevant. It indicates that it's not just the guns that are responsible for the killings. The bottom line is that people that want to kill other people will find the means to do so whether or not you make it legal to obtain guns. Handguns are illegal in the UK, but those numbers indicate that the law isn't all that effective in stopping gun crime. Sure it reduced it somewhat, but it's still pretty high compared to a country where handguns are legal. The point being that criminals are criminals whatever country you're in, and that the vast majority of (legal) gun owners in the US take the solemn responsibility of owning a gun seriously, take steps not to let them fall into the wrong hands, and don't in fact fire them in anger or even in self-defense.

                The idea that gun owners are crazed lunatics is one widely propagated by the ant-gun lobbyists in the US. But it just isn't true.

                And look at the majority of movies you export to the rest of the world
                They're stories! Come on! They're made-up people in made-up situations. Movies about average people doing average things just don't sell. Why pay to sit in a cinema to watch that when you can just watch life for two hours?
                • It indicates that it's not just the guns that are responsible for the killings

                  Of course, guns don't kill, people do...

                  Handguns are illegal in the UK, but those numbers indicate that the law isn't all that effective in stopping gun crime

                  I think 50 TIMES less gun crimes IS effective, that's 98% less...

                  They're stories! Come on! They're made-up people in made-up situations. Movies about average people doing average things just don't sell. Why pay to sit in a cinema to watch that when you can just watch life for two hours?
                  When you don't know anything about a country but that or CNN, it's obvious that the stereotype is what it is.

                  By the way, in Europe we have quite a bunch of movies about normal people doing normal things, social movies. And they DO sell here. Take, for instance, the movie "Amelie" (whose real name "The wonderful fate of Amelie Poulain" was shortened for the US market, go figure), it's a movie about a normal person doing normal things with normal other people. I think it's "just" in the US that people are interested only in extravanganza...

    • Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.

      Yep! I've met a lot of French people who think we're all a bunch of gun carying death-penalty xenophobes. Of course when they talk to me, they think I'm one of the rare polite Americans. It's kind fun to watch their reaction when I tell them that I'm pro 2nd ammendment, and feel we should hold criminals accountable for their actions. They just can't seem to grasp that there could be someone that holds these views and is still a decent and kind human being.

      I've actually been quite sucuessfull in persuading a large quantitiy of French people that personal responsibility and personal accountability are the true choice of a Liberty seeking people.

      • Yep! I've met a lot of French people who think we're all a bunch of gun carying death-penalty xenophobes.
        I suppose it's only fair, since a lot of Americans think the French are all a bunch of wine-sipping snobby knight-taunters.

        Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

        --
        Damn the Emperor!
      • The irony is overwhelming. Frenchmen considering Americans to be xenophobic. Aren't these the people who wouldn't allow the word "rocket" into their language?

        On the subject of the French language, is it possible to say "Defend the border." in French? They hate American guns except on the occasions when those guns are sparing them from becoming a German province.

        -Peter

      • American Psychos (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I have met quite a few US citizens and they were every bit as nice as the Europeans I know. I'm sure the same could have been said about Germans 1933 to 1945, of course (forget Godwin's Law, I am trying to make a point here).

        As individuals, US Americans are not all that different from Europeans. In fact, from my personal experience, I couldn't tell whether they are more likely to be gun nuts, and they certainly didn't seem to be xenophobe.

        But put a bunch of people together to form a nation, add some context (history, environment), and small differences you didn't notice before add up to something significant. It's not individuals. Nations and societies are different.

        First and foremost, your French friends were blasting the US, not you. The funny thing is that most US citizens don't seem to understand this because they have no idea what their country looks like from the outside. Not a pretty sight. Of course you can argue that the foreign media have it all wrong, but that won't change a bit the way the US is perceived.

        The way you describe how you enlightened those poor French folks about the true meaning of Liberty doesn't help much in changing that picture, either. If you think you can change what boils down to cultural heritage of a society just with reasoning, you're kidding yourself.

        Death penalty, environmentalism, gun control, social standards, etc. have very little to do with reason. For each you can argue either way in good faith and with sensible arguments. Which way you're leaning is very likely the result of the society that raised you, not the product of your own deep thinking. It is hardly by chance that your opinions seem so neatly aligned with US mainstream.

      • Re:What a waste of questions. (Score:5, Funny)

        by dgroskind ( 198819 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @10:47PM (#3337429)

        I've actually been quite sucuessfull in persuading a large quantitiy of French people that personal responsibility and personal accountability are the true choice of a Liberty seeking people

        Perhaps you succeeded where Montesquieu [rjgeib.com], Voltaire, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man [yale.edu] failed.

        Perhaps they were delighted to have an American explain what their true choice should be as a libery-seeking people. After all, the French had only abolished slavery in France a mere 70 years before it was abolished in the U.S.

        Perhaps the French had no paragons of personal responsibility and accountability to match Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton and thus were happy to use your humble self as a working example.

        Now perhaps some of your fellow Americans could stand some similar enlightenment.

        • I assume your points were made in jest and not out of ignorance, so I won't attack the straw-man that you have carefully built for yourself.

          Your average Parisian is still far removed from the thoughts of the great French thinkers - they are still consumed with thoughts of safty and comfort, and will happiliy trade liberty for them.

          So yes, childish giggling aside, your average American is much more liberty minded than your average comfort/security mided city dwelling French person.

          You'll note that I've made a distinction between the Parisian and non-Parisian citizens - the diferance between the two are imense and need to be taken into account when one is making generilisations.

          Ah what the hell, your straw-man is too tempting..

          Need we compair the paranoid Nixon and the randy Clinton to the merderous Vichey? Say whay you want about Americans, but very few of us would trade our liberty for the temporary safty of surrendering to an army of evil. Would the rest of world be so liberty minded.

      • Zulux: Hey you Frenchies! You think you understand liberty? It's time to wake up and smell the coffee! The good ol' US of A can teach you all there is to know about liberty! It's about responsibility and accountability! These are standards at the core of our national psyche! That should be obvious. Now look at our wonderful country!

        Jacques: Wot iz zis mad American on about? 'E comes over 'ere, telling us, ze French, about ze Liberty!

        Claude: Zut! I know wot you mean... but 'e 'as been doing zis wiz everyone 'e 'as met! I say, 'umour 'im.

        Jacques: Ah, oui...Yes Zulux! You are so right... I wish I 'ad understood earlier!
    • "Slightly offtopic" don't worry, The interviewer seemed to have the same problem.
    • I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment?

      As a Canadian, I've always wondered about that myself. Your second amendment was written so that US citizens could defend themselves against an army King George or whoever wanted to send their way (a la American Revolution part deux).

      I've never figured out why the average American thinks this translates into owning handguns, automatic rifles, and the lot. Let's face it: if any foreign power stepped in, and the US military couldn't handle it, I highly doubt a posse of shotgun-toting Texans are going to be any serious threat. And if (as some claim) the US government itself turns against its citizens, just what defense do you think a pistol is going to be against F-14s, tactical nukes, and cruise missles?

      I dunno, the whole 'right to bear arms' thing just seems like really out of date legislation, like the laws forbidding riding a horse down main street during rush hour, or sodomy laws, or the like.

      Of course, I've never quite understood the desire to own a gun anyway - killing things isn't high on my agenda of fun hobbies.

      • As a Canadian, I've always wondered about that myself. Your second amendment was written so that US citizens could defend themselves against an army King George or whoever wanted to send their way (a la American Revolution part deux).

        This is why, when I have a question about the meaning of some part of the Constitution, I don't ask Canadians to explain it to me. No offense.

        I've never figured out why the average American thinks this translates into owning handguns, automatic rifles, and the lot.

        It's not about defending ourselves from foreign armies, or overthrowing the government, or anything like that.

        Hard though it may be to believe, most of us gun nuts subscribe to the High Moral Principle that we're responsible for our own safety. Carrying a firearm is a prudent thing, and no more means that you want to shoot someone than wearing a seat belt means that you intend to wreck your car.

        You may depend on the police to protect you if you wish, but criminals are pretty good at not committing crimes when the police are around. This tends to ensure that there will not, in fact, be any police around when you're robbed or attacked. Now in some circles-- at least here in the U.S.-- self-defense is considered somewhat crude, and the proper response to assault is to meekly comply with the criminal's wishes, and hope that he won't rape/assault/kill you anyway. Judging from statistics, quite a few tens of thousands of people are rudely surprised each year when this approach does not yield the desired results.

        I will close by noting that places with extremely strict gun control laws-- like, say, Washington D.C.-- are not exactly crime-free utopias. The 34 states that allow non-felons to carry weapons tend to have much lower crime rates. In fact, the last time I looked, Canada had a higher violent crime rate (muggings, assaults, etc.) than the U.S. (this is the Internet; look it up yourself!)
        • Actually the original reasoning *was* to allow us to overthrow the government. The constitution allowed citizens to organize a militia in case either the government became oppressive, or other citizens became oppressive and the government did nothing about it. It was to prevent a monarchy from taking control in the US (because at the time this little experiment of a government was being developed, the prevailing idea was that every government eventually becomes an oppressive monarchy). Now whether maintaining the ability to revolt at any time is actually necessary....I'm going to reserve judgment at the moment (I've gone back and forth over gun laws many times and I'm not about to choose a side now).

          Oh and the reason there are so many guns in DC is because people just bring them in from Virginia which has some of the laxest gun laws in the country.
      • I've often felt that the second amendment, quoted in full below, is often misrepresented. It is clear that second amendment is a collective right far before an individual right.
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
        I frankly would never miss the second amendment if it disappeared.
        • The Consitution does not grant rights to the citizens of the United States. Rather, it restricts the actions of the Federal government (and, after the 14th Amendment, the State governments).

          If a citizen wishes to claim his right to self defense, including ownership of firearms and other weaponry, the Second Amendment is not necessary.

          There was quite a bit of opposition to having a Bill of Rights in the early days of the nation, because it was seen as redundant, and as dangerous -- because of the very view your expressed in your post. The fear was that, if the Constitution listed specific protected rights, then its meaning would become inverted, to be that only those rights are granted to the citizenry. In fact, the Constitution grants specific, limited powers to government and leaves all else to the citizens (with the 9th and 10th Amendments, the states and people).

          So, I could also say that I would not miss the Second Amendment -- because if it disappeared, I would still enjoy my right to own a firearm.
      • Let's face it: if any foreign power stepped in, and the US military couldn't handle it, I highly doubt a posse of shotgun-toting Texans are going to be any serious threat.

        They couldn't stop the invasion. What they could do, is make occupation extremely expensive. Occupying forces would learn to travel in large groups, because those that didn't would get ambushed and killed. It could possibly change the situation from being like Hungary, when its revolt against the Soviet Union was crushed to being like Vietnam, which annoyed its occupiers enough that they went away.
      • I've never figured out why the average American thinks this translates into owning handguns, automatic rifles, and the lot. Let's face it: if any foreign power stepped in, and the US military couldn't handle it, I highly doubt a posse of shotgun-toting Texans are going to be any serious threat. And if (as some claim) the US government itself turns against its citizens, just what defense do you think a pistol is going to be against F-14s, tactical nukes, and cruise missles?

        The best part about the 2nd amendment is that it applies to everyone--including most soldiers, retired or not. The duty bound in that law of overthrowing true tyranny extends to everyone, including soldiers. (Considering how often the US has war games & war plans for theoretical scienerios that "never could happen," like Canada invading us with nukes, I don't doubt some have plans for what to do in the case of a violent coup / dictatorial president.)

        You don't need to use a shotgun or a handgun on a tank. You just need to use it on the officer giving orders, or the soldiers watching over the armament.

        At any rate, you'd be surprised what a patriotic, armed, dedicated force in defense of their home and their liberty can do to a superior force. See: The American Revolution. Vietnam. Britian v. Europe in WWII.

        I dunno, the whole 'right to bear arms' thing just seems like really out of date legislation, like the laws forbidding riding a horse down main street during rush hour, or sodomy laws, or the like.

        You picked some real bad cases for that.

        * Riding a horse down main street during rush hour is probably a bad thing, and laws to regulate this (in favor of the car or the horse) are probably a good thing.

        * Sodomy laws are still on the books in NY. IIRC, it's the legal word for "rape" when it doesn't happen between a man and a woman having forced sex.

        * Any realistic gun-control legislation needs to start getting rid of the illegal guns. Until a solution can be found for that--and keep in mind that we can't even keep drugs or terrorists out of this huge country--it would be crazy do disarm the law-abiding citizens.
      • Let's face it: if any foreign power stepped in, and the US military couldn't handle it, I highly doubt a posse of shotgun-toting Texans are going to be any serious threat.
        Clearly, you've never actually encountered a posse of shotgun-toting Texans. Even so, the TIQs (Texans In Question), if sufficiently outnumbered and / or outgunned, would be more likely to snipe enemy officers and soldiers from great distances with 30.06 rifles.
        And if (as some claim) the US government itself turns against its citizens, just what defense do you think a pistol is going to be against F-14s, tactical nukes, and cruise missles?
        F-14s are generally used for air-to-air combat (hence the "F" designation), using tactical nukes on your own soil can only be described as absurd - hell, even the Soviet Communist Party and the Chinese Government - regimes that have shown willingness to murder their own citizens en masse - don't do that, and cruise missiles are generally not used against well-regulated militias. So what you probably meant to mention were things like the A-10 Thunderbolt II [af.mil] which can fire 3,900 rounds per minute (among other things) at ground targets, the neutron bomb [iadfw.net], and field artillery [army.mil].

        Look, if you're an anti-gun person or whatever then that's your own business but it would be nice if, before laying out criticisms and / or pontification, that you could demonstrate having the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. As for myself, should I encounter somebody posing a threat to my life, liberty, or propery, then I'm happy to be able to threaten them with a 9mm Glock as opposed to just telling them "I'll call the police."

        Oh yeah, and mentioning the fact that I grew up in Texas seems to get me into very high standing with just about any European woman I meet - so score one for gun-toting yahoos.
    • Obviously the point of these questions were to further the interviewer's agenda. S/he asked those questions in order to get negative responses towards things s/he didn't like. None of the questions were asked in a manner to require him to support the interviewer's agenda, only to detract against his/her opponents. This backfired however, because Robert Duffy gave simple, calm answers that made it seem like he actually believes in what he says.

      ID and Google represent what capitalism should be, companies that care about their product and most importantly their customers. I'm so glad that even after ~30 years, the games industry still has small talented development houses that can top the charts. The movie industry got too greedy; I hope we never will.
    • and the holocaust too! Maybe if alot more Jews in Germany in the 1930's and 40's had guns the Germans wouldn't have been able to murder 6 million of them.

      Brian Ellenberger
    • Yes, I was amazed too. These questions were all well and fine for you everyday chat, but hardly something you would make any big deal out of.

      And on a lighter note:
      Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.
      BLEEP, sorry we do. :)
      No,seriously though, I think that some does because that's the impression you get. There are 2 kinds of America, the one on TV and the real one. Remember that if you have't visited USA, the only information you get is from tv and movies. While the average guy should be able to know that it indeed is just a movie or TV, you still don't have any reference point. Where should you get it from? Common sense can filter the worst out but still you have to find the truth somewhere between the politically correct TV shows and the shotgun journalism and where you land might be anywhere in between.

    • Re:What a waste of questions. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Screaming Lunatic ( 526975 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @08:47PM (#3337080) Homepage
      Slightly offtopic, but I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment? Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.
      Gun control is a really touchy topic. Here in Canada the right to bear arms is not enshrined in our constitution. About a year or so ago a law was passed requiring all gun owners to register there firearms. Needless to say, a lot of people did not like that idea.

      Main objection: Firearm owners are being treated like criminals.

      Main counterpoint: You need to register your car and need a license to drive one. A gun is much more dangerous than a car.

      In terms of the second ammendment, the argument is that a law created over 200 years ago is maybe not productive in this day and age. There is definitely no clear yes or no answer to this debate, just as their is no clear answer to debates involving abortion, euthenasia (sp?), universal healthcare, etc.

      However, a healthy debate is definitely required that involves both sides putting forth well-thought out arguments.

      The idealist in me hopes that most people would prefer to live in a society were guns where guns only existed in games. Hey, a geek can dream about stuff other than playing Doom3 on a Geforce7 with a 32" monitor running at 3072x2304x64.

      mmmmmmm Doom3 **drool**

      • A gun is much more dangerous than a car.

        Well, from playing Grand Theft Auto 3, I know that the fastest way to kill lots of people is either with the flamethrower or to drive really fast on a crowded sidewalk.

        If you realy want to get your wanted level up, just go up to the top of a parking structure and toss molotov coctails down on a crowded street. Then shoot the helicopters when they show up. Watch out for the tanks though.

      • About a year or so ago a law was passed requiring all gun owners to register there firearms.

        This registration applied primarily to rifles and shotguns. Owning a handgun in Canada is illegal under almost all circumstances.

      • A gun is much more dangerous than a car.

        [BUZZER] BZZZZZZZZZZZT!

        Cars are much more dangerous than a gun. Ever see somebody who'd been shot? While it can get ugly, it's nothing like the pizza-like leftovers from many car accidents!

        A car at 60 MPH has MANY TIMES the kinetic energy of a bullet. A bullet often won't make it through a 2x4, but a 60 MPH car will completely annihilate several sturdy walls.

        Additionally, cars kill many, many, more people than guns in the U.S.

        Think about it - how many people do you know that have died or been injured in a car accident? Now, how many do you know that have died or been injured by a bullet?

    • Slightly offtopic, but I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment? Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.

      Only the idiots, you know, the same kind as those people in the US that think kangaroos hop down george st in Sydney :-)

      Personally I wish we had a 2nd ammendment here, instead of the situation we have where if you wish to own a gun the state assumes it's for murder untill you can convince them otherwise, unlike in the US, where you're perfectly allowed to own guns for your protection or even "because i like guns"...
    • Slightly offtopic, but I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment? Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.


      Sorry to break the news but many of us do :-) With the NRA viciously defending the right to use Rocket launchers and other heavy artillery for personal defense and also campaigning loudly against any form of gun-registration, our view of at least certain parts of the USA is exactly that.


      And having a cowboy as president doesn't really help either.

  • well, 10 questions asked... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:03PM (#3336757) Homepage
    but only about 6 or 7 answered...

  • Another 3D engine (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CySurflex ( 564206 )
    Do you think the average (and below average) gamer can really tell a difference between the new ID engine, to the new Unreal engine to the new Half life engine? It's a virtual 3D world, and usually will look as good as your 3D card allows. Maybe the gaming industry should unite (yeah right) to develop the ultimate engine, and then concentrate the rest of the effort on making kick ass mods for it.

  • WTF? (Score:4, Informative)

    by McCarrum ( 446375 ) <mark.limburg@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:13PM (#3336786)
    This has to be one of the worst interviews I've ever read. There is only a bare hint of research in the questions (it looks like he read an article on DOOM3 once) and do nothing to draw out the subject into an intelligent conversation.

    Even his 'left field' questions are shite. 'Do you like George Bush'? Oh please! Side note, I don't care if he's GWB's love child! He's being interviewed because of this position, insight and skills wihtin id and the gaming community, and this interview does next to nothing in opening that up. What a waste of potential!

    Seriously, don't waste your bandwidth.
    • I'll have to agree here. Why did this make it on a slashdot article? Even you don't read the article and skim through you, you can tell immediately that this isn't the high-quality interview that we'd expect from the likes of Gamespot or Gamespy. And if you do read through it, you'd see that almost half the of 10 whole questions were wasted on stupid stereopolitical questions about America and school shootings. Is this person Sen. Joe Lebermann in disguise? 'cause for a gamer, this interviewer seems to be a bit critical of what he partakes for entertainment.

  • Summary: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Matt2000 ( 29624 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:17PM (#3336806) Homepage

    Will the editor be integrated into the next engine?

    Yes.

    What will it be like?

    Q3Radiant.

    Other than that, not much there.

  • YOU have GOT to be kidding...... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tenchiken ( 22661 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:29PM (#3336850)
    This guy sits down with a massivly cool software designer, and the best he can do is to dig for dirt on Bush, and slam gun laws?

    Ok, let's play hardball. Germany has not had the rights to bear arms since Hitler took it away. Could not let thoose dirty jews have guns after all.

    No doubt this article will just confirm all the sterotypes in europe of americans. They all love guns, bush and live in Texas. Didn't you know that quake is a real model?

    There are some interesting questions about the role of techies in politics.
    • Yes - but how else is he going to get a lot of comments about it when it gets featured on slashdot? ;o)
    • Germany has not had the rights to bear arms since Hitler took it away.

      You make it sound as though the right to bear arms is some kind of fundamental human right that Germany is denying people.

      • It isn't a fundamental human right, it is simply a right of free men.

        How can a person be free if he is literally at the mercy of his government's executive?

        It isn't a fundamental human right unless you consider freedom to be a fundamental human right.

        By the way, there hasn't been a good QTMozilla build since the 27th. (It's me, Peter H.! I didn't realize I was replying to you 'till just now!)

        -Peter
        • hasn't been a good QTMozilla build since the 27th

          Maybe I should set up a tinderbox so people can at least give a few percentages of a damn instead of none at all, if it breaks. I've made a patch and am building now...

  • No firearms? (Score:4, Funny)

    by WhaDaYaKnow ( 563683 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:36PM (#3336870)
    Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two very different things and neither of them have to do with any game in my opinion. The only countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where it was illegal. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a firearm in public here in the US.

    Riiiight. That's not a gun in my pocket, I'm just happy to see you.

  • In Case of Slashdot Effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by long_john_stewart_mi ( 549153 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:37PM (#3336873)
    In case of the Slashdot effect, here's the interview:

    Interviewer: Boxers or briefs?

    Robert Duffy: I'll have to keep my take on this to myself.

    Interviewer: We would like to thank Robert Duffy for taking the time to answer our questions and wish both him and id software all the best for the future.

  • Duffy is Now With id? (Score:3, Funny)

    by idonotexist ( 450877 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @07:41PM (#3336884)
    I always wondered what happened with Sergeant Duffy after his roles in Infocom's Witness and Deadline [google.com]...

  • id Employee Interviews (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Judecca ( 34485 )
    id Employee's have always been good at keeping their mouths shut, and it often prevents them from looking like idiots.

    Too many game companies shout out dates and features that they never meet or implement.

    Gamers are cranky and stubborn, its best we don't hear anything until we can try it.
  • So when they can't hack it at 'Teen Beat' anymore, really awful interviewers work for German game websites?
  • OK i'm drunk..
    No. 1... no
    2. That interview is so fucking lame..
    no 3. i gave credit to the editors for posting good articles.. till now...

    time to puff a bong.. almost makes me sorry i gave 5 bux to slashdot after this article..

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close