Carmack on DOOM 3

John Carmack Speaks on Doom 3 on GameSpot has a couple of tidbits gleaned from a talk given by id's lead programmer, saying the ability to save the game anywhere on a level is being reexamined, that human characters in the game will be animated with the assistance of motion capture (while most of the monsters will still be hand-animated), and he is struggling with the decision over whether to allow shadows to be turned off in the game, since they are so important to the drama, but they also represent half the engine's rendering efforts. There is also another article on Carmack's talk on GameSpy.
View : : :
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 6.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older
21.
 
Fister
May 15, 2003, 11:49
21.
Fister May 15, 2003, 11:49
May 15, 2003, 11:49
 
Its a tough decision. On the one hand, id will want people to immerse themselves in the game, in which case limited saves is fine. But, for those peeps who jump in, murder a load of people, and then jump out again its not great.

Also, in the original Doom I was a big fan of keeping saves where 'inside this next door is this wicked bit where these big muthas come at me and I mow them down with the chainy' or whatever. I might even like to try and clear out the room with just the fists. You would lose this ability with limited saves.

Maybe giving the player the choice at the start of the game would be a solution. The nightmare difficulty could be the same as 'hard' but with limited saves. That way you could call your mate a woofter if he didn't finish Doom3 on the nightmare setting (how its supposed to be played) etc etc.

20.
 
Re: System Shock 2
May 15, 2003, 11:43
20.
Re: System Shock 2 May 15, 2003, 11:43
May 15, 2003, 11:43
 
Amen to that.

Even with save-anywhere, I still would stop playing sometimes because I was afraid to go in the next door.

19.
 
System Shock 2
May 15, 2003, 11:33
19.
System Shock 2 May 15, 2003, 11:33
May 15, 2003, 11:33
 
Anyone who thinks that tension in a game is impossible with a save-anywhere feature, play System Shock 2. That is all.

18.
 
SAVING
May 15, 2003, 11:33
18.
SAVING May 15, 2003, 11:33
May 15, 2003, 11:33
 
As a side note.. I could care *less* about saving. It's nice, but that should be the least of id's worries.

Some people hit the save key every inch of the way. Some don't, like me. I just He-man through what ever comes my way, Ass-kicking and all and some how I survive...

NOooooooooooooooo P-R-O-B-L-E-M


This comment was edited on May 15, 11:40.
-The Dude-

Vic B.
17.
 
"John!" "John!" "John!"
May 15, 2003, 11:27
17.
"John!" "John!" "John!" May 15, 2003, 11:27
May 15, 2003, 11:27
 
"OH Well :(!" this is a saddening development

I guess it's obvious.. id is short on story but great on innovation... ...and that's coming into question on my part.

Valve has truely designed a game to fully meet the PC gamers expectation and experience that involves high levels of thinking and engrossing scenery. Completely entertaining the senses and based on the advent of the numerous subsystem capabilities:
- a collision system that truely takes advantage of physics system
- a particle system that gives objects the behavior of material that takes advantage of the physic system
- a dynamic lighting system that displays colors and objects as if with the sublties of a real reflected and refracted physics.. I really can't comment on shadowing, I didn't see much . But, I'm sure they'll incorporate that in Valve has til September.


*I have to pause for a moment fellas. I'm shedding a tear*


- it appears they have a skeletal systems that gives lifelike attributes to motion
- a facial animation system that offers subtles as if it were a cinematic sequence being played out... Valve has achieved a real-time animation system that appears to be movie quality ready

HalfLife 2 is going to be utter Machination on the senses..as for the dynamics in paths one can take.. that's the big question mark????????

Only a few develpers are creating a scale world whereby you can interact and explore anywhere. That would be "Illusion softworks" and another.. it slips my mind for now?


id on the other hand, has not developed their minds to truely expand on a story.. as I predicted. They have limited themselves to such a static path they only have one experience to serve out.

A dark, creepy, scarey realistic linear rendering engine with predetermined locations to play out sequences much like "Resident Evil"

They did the "okie-doke".. In private, listened to fixxed hardware architecture of a half-baked console system developer ... "Microsoft".. and short sited themselves on everything.

I can't believe Carmack is even stuttering like this. It's obvious he grew chills when he saw the Valve demonstration.

I must admit I'm even floored.

"WOW!"

This comment was edited on May 15, 11:47.
-The Dude-

Vic B.
16.
 
Re: Choice
May 15, 2003, 11:24
16.
Re: Choice May 15, 2003, 11:24
May 15, 2003, 11:24
 
limited saving can be a pain in the butt, but it can also be good, or neuteral.

The worst example I can think of is the outright traditional console save in oni. Not only could you not choose to resave without replaying the whole last section, they put them in the WORST places. (hmm save point before or after the long tedious cutscene with a rambling speech... before!!! of course the obvious choice)

The best example I can think of was SOF2's save mechanism. You saved between levels, and depending on difficulty, you got a limited number of in game saves. It turned saving into a strategic choice while still keeping the game manageable for someone who can't sit down to play for more than an hour or so at a stretch.

A neuteral example I could think of was the thing. You could only save at recorders which were scattered about more or less at reasonable intervals. If you had to cut your gaming short, you could almost always walk back to a recorder without to much hassle and save.


15.
 
Saving anywhere
May 15, 2003, 11:22
15.
Saving anywhere May 15, 2003, 11:22
May 15, 2003, 11:22
 
I think the need to save anywhere is created by poor game design. One thing that I can't stand in games is instant death, that you either didn't know to avoid the first time through or as a result of stupid jumping puzzles. If you are going to incorporate stupid, random, instant death into your games, then sure, let us save anywhere.

The reason Angband is fun with permanent death is that it's almost always avoidable, especially if you know a little about the monsters. You learn after you play through a couple of characters things that you need to avoid death.

14.
 
Choice
May 15, 2003, 11:01
14.
Choice May 15, 2003, 11:01
May 15, 2003, 11:01
 
Never, EVER take choice away from the player. Are they PAYING for a CG movie?

The only way a completely auto-save feature would work is if it saved after absolutely EVERY difficult encounter. Not just scenes, but places where something requires either a lot of timing or a lot of skill, and you'd have to be lenient in terms of "lot".

I don't think an itemized based save would work either because then you're forcing the player to play till he gets another save item.
I'm a soooooooong from the sixties.
13.
 
Re: Save games
May 15, 2003, 10:52
13.
Re: Save games May 15, 2003, 10:52
May 15, 2003, 10:52
 
Pyro - I think the problem is when the "tension" gives way to extreme frustration. Personally, allowing save games anywhere allows me to enjoy the game more, to take my time and explore, knowing that I won't have to spend time rushing through stuff I've already seen and done to get back to where I was. I think saving anywhere you want gives the user control of how they want to play the game (like watching a DVD). The argument of limiting or removing saves for the sake of "tension" assumes that the game itself NEEDS more tension. Its a cop-out by the developer. Games like HalfLife had PLENTY of tension and yet you could save anywhere. AS a rule, I never buy games that don't allow you to save anywhere (or else I would trade in my computer for a console), yet I may still pick up D3 simply because I have to check it out, but I still think it is a really big mistake on the part of id.
ZigZang
12.
 
The hits just keep on coming...
May 15, 2003, 10:52
12.
The hits just keep on coming... May 15, 2003, 10:52
May 15, 2003, 10:52
 
Yes, occasionally savegames can take away tension.
Which is why you don't need to do it. In fact, many games have auto-save features, which allow the player to *never* have to go to the save screen, unless they die.
I'm against the horrible design mistake of limiting where and when a player can save. I hated it in GTA3 and GTAVC, too.
The fact is, if the player feels that multiple saves takes away from the tension, they can simply choose not to save. However there are those of us who do not have long stretches of time to play games in, and implementing limited saves simply serves to frustrate or alienate this group.

"Replaying an entire level because you made a mistake right near the end is frustrating and boring. As a designer, is that really your goal?"
-Ernest Adams, "Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie II", Gamasutra
Xombie x0mbie x0mb|e Xombie
11.
 
Re: Save games
May 15, 2003, 10:43
nin
11.
Re: Save games May 15, 2003, 10:43
May 15, 2003, 10:43
nin
 
Some people argue that limited saving makes a game frustrating...I COMPLETELY disagree.

I gotta disagree with you, but it's totally based on opinion, and how you like to play a game.

I look at it like this: I go through an area. Something jumps out and kills me. I go through the area again, but still get killed. How many times do I have to replay the same area before I can move on? Eventually, it becomes a case of "playing the game like the devs want me to" instead of playing the game like I'd like to.

If people don't want to use saves, more power to them. But I don't think the right should be taken away from the rest of us. If I pay $50, I want to have FUN, not repeat the same area over and over...


edit: l

Supporter of the "A happy fredster is a muted fredster" fanclub.

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
This comment was edited on May 15, 10:44.
10.
 
No subject
May 15, 2003, 10:36
10.
No subject May 15, 2003, 10:36
May 15, 2003, 10:36
 
Especially if the game is going to be so single-player oriented. I don't care if its incredibly cool for those 8-10 hours, I'll still feel ripped off and angry if I pay $50 for 10 hours of amusement.

-Especially- with a game like Doom3, because half the thrill is apparently not knowing what is around that dark, shadowy corner next. Take that away in a replay, and you're paying $5 bucks an hour to enjoy Doom3 if the final product is 10 hours long.

9.
 
Save games
May 15, 2003, 10:34
9.
Save games May 15, 2003, 10:34
May 15, 2003, 10:34
 
I was just wondering about how saves would work yesterday. Seems to me that being able to save anywhere, anytime takes away from the mood of the game. Why be afraid of dying if you can always just reload from 20 seconds ago?

Some people argue that limited saving makes a game frustrating... I COMPLETELY disagree. One of my favorite games is Angband and its variants ( http://www.thangorodrim.net/ ). The game takes dozens and dozens of hours to complete, and death is permanent. One mistake and you could lose 20 hours of work.

Of course many players choose to bypass the system and "cheat death" by backing up their save files... but if you ask me, that takes away all of the tension.

Perhaps some sort of hybrid save file scheme is needed? By default, only let players save at the ends of levels. But allow players to turn on a "Cheat death" option or something that lets them save anywhere.


Avatar 6134
8.
 
Re: Limited saves
May 15, 2003, 10:34
8.
Re: Limited saves May 15, 2003, 10:34
May 15, 2003, 10:34
 
If it comes out with limited saves I'll pass on the game and stick with HL2.I don't care how good it is.A lot of the time I have for games is short,without being able to save anywhere the game fast becomes a pain in the ass.I passed on Delta Force because of that.

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern weather or not they are genuine"-Abraham Lincoln
Avatar 13436
7.
 
Shorter Games?
May 15, 2003, 10:18
7.
Shorter Games? May 15, 2003, 10:18
May 15, 2003, 10:18
 
And then everyone beats them in 8 hours, puts it on the shelf, and says it sucks.
The game needs to be 40 hours with multiple paths or different characters.
That way, people will go back and try it again to see what they missed.

6.
 
Limited saves
May 15, 2003, 10:16
6.
Limited saves May 15, 2003, 10:16
May 15, 2003, 10:16
 
What a great idea. Make the player play a particularly difficult part over and over and then he won't notice the game is short. What'll they think of next?

5.
 
close to being finished?
May 15, 2003, 10:15
5.
close to being finished? May 15, 2003, 10:15
May 15, 2003, 10:15
 
Is it just me or should these questions not have been realized earlier in the development cycle? Isn't this game supposed to be out this fall?

McSterls

4.
 
limited saves
May 15, 2003, 10:07
4.
limited saves May 15, 2003, 10:07
May 15, 2003, 10:07
 
Yes - thats great. Daikatana had that - it enhanced the gameplay immensly. I think it is just greak when the developers aims to frustrate the player because they know better than him what he likes.

This comment was edited on May 15, 10:08.
3.
 
Shorter Game
May 15, 2003, 09:48
3.
Shorter Game May 15, 2003, 09:48
May 15, 2003, 09:48
 
Carmack wouldn't commit to a specific length but said that he favors the recent trend in the game industry toward shorter games with richer, deeper content packed into the duration.

I guess he hasn't heard about Half-Life yet.

snafu

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)
Eye 4N Eye

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)
2.
 
Console style saves...
May 15, 2003, 09:45
2.
Console style saves... May 15, 2003, 09:45
May 15, 2003, 09:45
 
Uh oh, I hope that isn't a concession due to the Xbox port. I understand that it builds tension to not be able to save at anytime, but this is starting to sound more like Resident Evil to me.

/not necessarily a bad thing for all, I know.

121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 6.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older