I've been wondering about what Riker described and had to wonder how they handle standing in a doorway (or near a door or using a door as cover) and trying to fire. I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I really doubt they would overlook something like this though...

This crouch key issue has me worried. Is John even playing games at all these days? I mean, if he was to remove the crouch key from his game, I probably would never play it. It brings a huge chunk of realism to games, the fact that you can duck down behind things to sheild yourself, or hide. How gay would it be to just stand up all the time. I already find it rediculous that most games don't feature prone position, because it is a 100% natural reflex reaction as well.

Do the words "Get Down!" mean anything to you? And I'm not talking about Disco here.

I'm also not into seeing games become "dumbed down". Keep it simple? To a point, but don't over do it.

Quake was the first game (afaik) that used server/client for it's game tech, and which probably helped it explode on to the online gaming world.

I don't know much about programming but from what I've read the only situation where p2p is better as far as gaming is concerned is with 2 machines. Any more than 2 machines and server/client is the superior method. Think about it, you and 3 other players are in the same room. With server/client you only have to tell the server where you are, what you are doing and only one machine where you need a good ping to. Now with p2p, you would have to send the same information to 3 other machines and hope that you have a good connection to all 3 instead of one?

So why did John Carmack, who pretty much brought server/client gaming to the forefront, do an about face and go back to p2p tech?

From the Gamespy preview: the game realizes when you're near an item to interact with, lowers your gun automatically, and allows you to interact using the primary fire button.

Call me pessimistic, but that doesn't fill me with confidence. What if you're busy trying to shoot a monster and back up close to a keypad, causing your gun to automatically lower and giving the monster a free lunch? Doesn't sound too good. It's hard to tell without actually playing, of course, but I think giving players a certain amount of control over their actions is worth the extra button.

Actually they're implementing a new system called "Bumper Car Physics" (Patent Pending). You just run at full speed into various stone blocks and they automatically move because of ultra high technology proximity detectors. The real genious is where Carmack programmed those proximity detectors, which no other game has. Beat that Epic!

"Not necessarily, simpler is usually better just take a look at the differance between the two System Shock interfaces. They both accomplish the same functions, one just does it much easier. My belief is that you should always meet your design goals in the simplest way possible."

That's true, but do you think the games industry would be where it is now if everyone made games as simple as Doom 3? Carmack admits to being an arcade fan; I think many modern gamers would disagree with him.

"Also, it's funny that some of you are saying that if everyone felt like Carmack then games wouldn't ever advance. Stop eating lead paint. If it wasn't for CARMACK, first person shooters would never be at the advanced state they are today. HIS coding has made the visuals we take for granted today possible."

I'm obviously not referring to graphics. Carmack is free to make game engines if that's what he wants, but it seems to me he doesn't know much about gameplay.

Didn't you read all of the QuakeCon Doom3 MP previews from the past few weeks?? ;-) It was mentioned in those you'd just walk up to a switch/door/whatever, and you'd then be able to interact with it (flip the switch, open the door, whatever) by hitting the normal fire key... Eg: here's a preview that mentions it:

http://www.gamespy.com/quakecon2003/doom3/

From an article I read at GameSpy I think, you will use the Fire button when in front of a useable object. I can see lots of people accidentally blowing themself into little bitty pieces trying to "use" something.

(He lost the debate over "crouch" – which now appears – but convinced the team there was no need for a "use" key.)

Of, if there is no need for a use key, how the hell do you open doors? Are they just going to open automatically, meaning you can not time your opening right to jump on the baddies? Is there not going to be ANY interactivity with the environment? If none at all, I think the game play is going to suffer greatly? As automated activity with everything is very annoying at times.

I do get what he is saying, about simplicity, but I mean come on, the whole point of the new graphics engine is to immerse you in the world, like never before. So why then would you not be allowed to interact with that environment, other wise it will be just like walking through a museum with a shotgun.

Here is to hoping someone at ID reads this forum and will clarify. Maybe he meant something different, and more involved as the “use” key?


"Science is but an organized system of ignorance."

"Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up."
-John Carmack

LOL!!!

As to Carmacks ideas of simplicity, I'm not sure wtf he's thinking about with no crouch key. Especially in a per-poly hit detection game. It really IS a useful tool and necessity.

As for the use key, well, hey, I kinda agree with him on this. Why have it at all? If you walk up to something you can use, and it just works without you having to hit an extra key, why not? No big deal either way.

Also, it's funny that some of you are saying that if everyone felt like Carmack then games wouldn't ever advance. Stop eating lead paint. If it wasn't for CARMACK, first person shooters would never be at the advanced state they are today. HIS coding has made the visuals we take for granted today possible.

You don't get it Fred. Blues is giving CNN online more clicks because of the links he provides. Thus, more business. Alot of us here only end up at CNN because of Blues News. I doubt CNN minds the extra traffic.

-Tony!!!;)

this fucking article is recycled from a month ago im sick of this shit this is the quality reporting u want us to pay for wtf ? dont u know you have to pay royalties to cnn if u want to make money off their articles? maybe i should write them a letter the way u been treating me lately

• fly boy i will save you


• blue did you jerk off when your wife was gone


• these advertisements are outrageous
• where is my case mod link?


Dantastic you are the sweetest thing I ever did see.
Hard work makes money not pasting other peoples news submissions into Microsoft Frontpage.
Fredrickson De Paulo Francisco-Hernandez-Dantastic XXVII

xXOXx
%):)%)
;)%);)
;P:D;P

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):D:D:D:):D:D:D:D:):D:):):D:):D:D:D:):D:D:D:D:)
:):D:):D:):D:):):):):D:D:):D:):):D:):):D:):):):)
:):D:):D:):D:D:D:):):D:):D:D:):):D:):):D:D:D:D:)
:):D:D:D:):D:):):):):D:):):D:):):D:):):):):):D:)
:):D:):):):D:):):):):D:):):D:):):D:):):):):):D:)
:):D:):):):D:D:D:D:):D:):):D:):D:D:D:):D:D:D:D:)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

LIKE A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER I WILL LAY ME DOWN
CLAY AIKEN 4 EVA

Rooms-above-rooms?

Get real, that kind of technology is decades away!!

Rooms-above-rooms?

If everyone followed JC's 'simplicity rules' theory, the games industry would never advance.

Not necessarily, simpler is usually better just take a look at the differance between the two System Shock interfaces. They both accomplish the same functions, one just does it much easier. My belief is that you should always meet your design goals in the simplest way possible.

I'm curious to know what visual enhancements might be coming with the next generation engine after Doom 3. Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?

Maybe for the next game Carmack can convince everyone that the move keys are unnecessary. The player could sit in a moving cart and shoot things in true arcade style!

If everyone followed JC's 'simplicity rules' theory, the games industry would never advance.

er.. what's a "se?l" ?

Update: woops, looks like that was a type-o that was fixed after this.


This comment was edited on Aug 22, 13:01.