Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

id Software Demos Rage On iPhone, Releases Source Code For Two Games

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the iphone-is-all-the-rage dept.

Iphone 266

glenkim writes "Kotaku has posted their liveblog of the QuakeCon 2010 keynote, with some big announcements by game developer and Slashdot regular John Carmack. Highlights include a video of the id Tech 5 engine (aka Rage) running on the iPhone 4G at 60fps, with claims that it also runs on the iPhone 3GS. Carmack noted that performance on the iPhone was able to 'kill anything done on the Xbox or PlayStation 2.' He also announced the source code release of two games, Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Also, Carmack finally admitted that Doom 3 was too dark!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot regular? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235136)

What's his UID?

Re:Slashdot regular? (5, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235252)

101025 [slashdot.org]

Re:Slashdot regular? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235258)

101025 but I wouldn't call him a regular any more. He hasn't even posted anything in at least 2 years and there was a similarly huge gap before that.

Re:Slashdot regular? (0)

anethema (99553) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235268)

http://tinyurl.com/3276efb

Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (2, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235156)

I kept waiting for some killer game but didn't notice it ever. Any ideas?

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (2, Insightful)

Tamran (1424955) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235238)

I was hoping they'd port full doom1 and doom2 to the doom3 engine as an expansion pack. There'd be little programming effort there, mostly art and modelling. If they went for a more modernized game, with a similar feel and speed of the old one people would line up for it for sure. Well ... I'd buy it.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235402)

This gets my vote for "Most Uniformed Post of The Day".

Very little programming effort.... yeah just rewrite it all. If you don't understand why, quit commenting.

Mostly art and modelling.... here's a hint --- modern games.... MOST of the cost goes into the art. Teams have a lot more artists than coders.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

Tamran (1424955) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235470)

This gets my vote for "Most Uniformed Post of The Day".

Very little programming effort.... yeah just rewrite it all. If you don't understand why, quit commenting.

Mostly art and modelling.... here's a hint --- modern games.... MOST of the cost goes into the art. Teams have a lot more artists than coders.

What part of the words "expansion pack" don't you understand? I'm not saying they would reprogram the whole thing. Some other guys already did the first episode of Doom1 as an expansion pack:

http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Classic_Doom_for_Doom_3 [wikia.com]

They didn't have significant programming effort to do that - and that's ALL I said. I said NOTHING about how much effort the art and modelling would be. Quit trying to read what's not there.

Your post, however, must have seemed off even to you given that you had to post it anonymously.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (5, Funny)

aiht (1017790) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235682)

I disagree. I don't think that post is wearing a uniform at all.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235436)

I think there was a mod that did it. And they did copy a few set-pieces over into Doom 3, but they were hard to identify.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235574)

There'd be little programming effort there, mostly art and modelling

Because that's cheap or something?

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235648)

If id was to sell a Doom 3 version of the old Doom(s), they'd make a hell of a lot more money off of it than it would cost to produce.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235246)

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars was pretty good, even though it sold poorly.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (2, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235362)

It was actually pretty poor. I guess you you'd never played Tribes, or any of the Battlefield games you could think it was good... but Battlefield: 2142 basically did everything ET:QW did, with better balance, and was released earlier.

The funny thing is that the original Enemy Territory game on the Wolfenstein engine was actually really innovative. But by the time Quake Wars came out, everything they did was old-hat and they didn't improve on it at all. (And in some ways, they anti-improved on it! The grid system for laying out deployables? Welcome to 1995. Even 1997's Tribes let you plop them down anywhere there was a slightly-flat surface.)

Basically, it sold poorly because the balance wasn't very good, nothing in the experience was new, and since it was a latecomer it didn't have the established playerbase of games with identical features they had been released before it.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

Skillet5151 (972916) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235486)

I only played the Quake Wars demo but the movement and combat on foot seemed vastly smoother and more natural (read: Quake-like) than any of the Battlefield games. It seems to me that a lot of recent id games have had strong technical merits but not so great gameplay. *Shrug*

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235540)

vastly smoother and more natural (read: Quake-like)

Maybe it's because I played Tribes first, but I never particularly thought Quake could be called "more natural". Maybe if you're hopped-up on crack.

But the real point, while there is value to that (although we disagree), it's vastly outweighed by the other problems with the game.

That's because there wasn't (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235270)

The engine was a total flop. It didn't look very good, personally I'd say Unreal Engine 2.5 (UT2004) looked better, and especially for the hardware it required. When Unreal Engine 3 came out, it was done. The complete list of games on the Doom 3 engine is:

Doom 3
Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil
Quake 4
Prey
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Wolfenstein (the new one from 2009)

And Brink is using it, scheduled for 2011. That's it. 5 titles, one expansion for the whole engine. Compare this to the about 100-150 games for Unreal Engine 3. Games devs just did not care for iD Tech 4 (the Doom 3 engine) at all.

Re:That's because there wasn't (3, Interesting)

MaxBooger (1877454) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235404)

The Rage engine, however, should be a different matter entirely. The MegaTexture tech gives developers the capability of porting their present-day Xbox360 and PS3 games to the Xbox4 and PS4 platforms with an immediate boost to graphic quality. If id is smart enough, they will have the game code separate from the engine code. Hell, if they do that, id might do the porting for free. In fact, that might make solid business sense, given the value that id has in the megatex tech. Keep the engine code binary-only.

Story goes that when Rage was demoed at the latest E3, the UT engineers walked out of the demo shaking their heads.

Re:That's because there wasn't (5, Insightful)

Quarters (18322) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235586)

Megatexturing was backported into idtech4 for Quake Wars. While idtech5 looks sexy id made an announcement that will make many developers wary of the engine. Idtech5 can only be licensed if a developer publishes through Bethesda (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/id-tech-5-will-only-be-used-for-bethesda-published-games-20100812/ [geek.com] .

Bethesda doesn't have a partner publishing program like EA and THQ do. That implies it will be a more traditional, "We own the IP" publisher/developer relationship. That's especially worrisome for smaller independent studios. Larger studios can possibly have the clout to maintain their IP. But, most large studios are not independent, they're owned by publishers that compete with Bethesda.. There's no way an EA, Activision, THQ, TakeTwo, or Ubisoft studio will use idtech5. Along with that liability on the engine there are no shipped games to prove the engine is viable, it's not known what the dev support will be like, and there is no one outside of Id that has experience with it.

Unreal rules the roost right now. There's no publisher lock-in, there are hundreds of games to prove it's viability, the dev support is all online, easily referenced, and complete, and the widespread use of it means that it is easy to find programmers, designers, and artists that have experience on the toolset. idtech5 has to not only be as good as unreal in all of those areas, it arguably has to be better. A studio that knows how to make games with Unreal would have to dump all of their institutional knowledge if they went with idtech5. That's a huge loss of competitive advantage.

Idtech5 might do amazingly well. Given the long timespan since choosing an id engine to make a game was commonplace, the explosion of Unreal as the defacto engine middleware, a decent number of other competing engine middleware packages (Gamebryo, Crytek, Unity, etc...), and the Bethesda lockin I am not expecting idtech5 to be a disrupting force in the game development industry.

Re:That's because there wasn't (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235656)

Honestly was I the only one who WASN'T surprised when iD sold to Bethesda (and whoever their corporate overlord is. I forget.) I mean seriously after Tech 4 iD seemed pretty irrelevant. Carmack's been wasting all his time on the rocketry thing (which is cool and all, but he really should've retired from iD and let some fresh blood take over)

iD the independent was cool when they were balls down enough to stay serious about their games, but honestly once everyone started breaking up after Quake (Q2?) to go do their own things, the team that made iD great was gone and they were pretty much riding on their prior shareware fame. Much like shareware, it's time iD faded into obscurity.

Re:That's because there wasn't (2, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235822)

I wonder what effect this may have on a future source code release of id Tech 5.

Re:That's because there wasn't (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235992)

Unreal rules the roost right now. There's no publisher lock-in, there are hundreds of games to prove it's viability, the dev support is all online, easily referenced, and complete, and the widespread use of it means that it is easy to find programmers, designers, and artists that have experience on the toolset. idtech5 has to not only be as good as unreal in all of those areas, it arguably has to be better. A studio that knows how to make games with Unreal would have to dump all of their institutional knowledge if they went with idtech5. That's a huge loss of competitive advantage.

Maybe that's why they went for lock-in? Because id isn't really a strong competitor in the "game engine market" anymore?

Re:That's because there wasn't (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236024)

The engine "flopped" because id didn't push it as a commercial engine in the same way they did with id Tech 3. They had been there, dealt with the tech support for external devs and companies, and found they just didn't want to do that again. Aside from a couple of close-knit companies there was no encouragement to use it. Epic, on the other hand, took the corporate angle, focused on building and marketing a sellable engine, and provided a commercial support network that encouraged lots of reuse.

But yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of a good beat-up.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235448)

Prey was pretty entertaining. I also thought that Wolfenstein was decent, even if the mouselook was sluggish and suffered from console-itis.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235776)

Supposedly, Modern Warfare and its sequel are running on modified versions of id Tech 4.

Re:Poll; what was the best game created on Doom 3? (1)

AnonymouseUser (1701830) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235794)

The Dark Mod is the best TC created on Doom 3. The Dark Mod [thedarkmod.com]

Doom3 to dark? (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235168)

It was too dark to play in a well lit area, but the perfect game for playing with the lights out and surround sound. Too niche of an audience to experience the game that way I suppose.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (3, Funny)

F34nor (321515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235180)

What has a light side and a dark side and holds the universe together?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (4, Funny)

stevenvi (779021) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235272)

Oreo cookies?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (5, Informative)

childprey (1054198) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235274)

duct tape?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235322)

Comedy?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235442)

route 69?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (2, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235660)

Sex.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (0, Redundant)

zaydana (729943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235876)

The Force?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235188)

I found that to be part of it's appeal. Play it at night, in a dark room with sound cranked up!

Re:Doom3 to dark? (2, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235242)

Agreed. Unfortunately, we're in the minority as far as their target market was concerned.

I have to disagree with Carmack here. I thought Doom3 was great game. Perhaps he was more disappointed in the games acceptance and not its content?

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235782)

Perhaps he was more disappointed in the games acceptance and not its content?

Yeah i'd say you're right there, seems he's taken the biggest complaint and run with it. I dunno about anyone else but i actually really enjoyed Doom3.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (2, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235426)

No way, man. I was scared out of my pants playing it under full lighting at noon. Of course, I also refuse to play Resident Evil 4 past sundown, and I even turn up the lights for the Ravenholm chapter of HL2.

I guess I'm just not a horror guy.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235478)

Pussy.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235548)

You gotto try FEAR then. I dare you, play it at night with lights off.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235970)

Man, the original AvP would make you shit your pants, then.

I remember playing that with a 12MB Voodoo2, SBLive! and quadrophonic surround sound using huge home theater 3-way speaker cabinets and two separate amplifiers for each speaker pair, front and rear.

Lights out, invite some friends over, crank up the game and watch them start screaming.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235212)

It was too dark to play in a well lit area, but the perfect game for playing with the lights out and surround sound. Too niche of an audience to experience the game that way I suppose.

Like, in a darkened, maybe unfinished, parents basement with eerie acoustic properties? I'd say they have they're audience nailed.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235216)

Myself and a friend used to have a shitload of fun in this exact scenario. We did our own version of Co-Op mode, I was good with the shotgun, he was good with the MG, we'd swap back and forth as we ran out of bullets for our weapon of choice. Throwing the controller across the room in the middle of trying not to die added an awesomely fun level of excitement to the gameplay.

No it was just too dark (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235228)

The problem was that the shadows were hard. The the real world, light bounces. This is why if you turn on a flashlight, you can see things in the room not in the beam. Light bounces off one surface, then off another and so on. You can simulate this via radiosity on computers. Problem is that is real expensive computationally. You don't do it in realtime. So generally what most games do is a cheap global illumination. There is an all pervasive amount of light applied to everything, and then specific dynamic lighting.

Well in Doom 3, there was no GI, and all light bounced only once. So anything directly illuminated, you saw. However anything else, was completely dark. Shadows were complete, there was no shadowed corner where things were visible, but barely.

Re:No it was just too dark (2, Interesting)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235320)

The problem was that the shadows were hard. The the real world, light bounces. This is why if you turn on a flashlight, you can see things in the room not in the beam. Light bounces off one surface, then off another and so on. You can simulate this via radiosity on computers. Problem is that is real expensive computationally. You don't do it in realtime. So generally what most games do is a cheap global illumination. There is an all pervasive amount of light applied to everything, and then specific dynamic lighting.

Well in Doom 3, there was no GI, and all light bounced only once. So anything directly illuminated, you saw. However anything else, was completely dark. Shadows were complete, there was no shadowed corner where things were visible, but barely.

I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.

Re:No it was just too dark (5, Interesting)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235742)

I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.

On the contrary, it's very visible. Without global illumination, 3D scenes look very 'fake' to observers, even if they don't know why. In contrast, scenes rendered with a high quality GI algorithm look much more realistic, even with flat colouring or simple textures and little detail. For example, Valve often makes "untextured" maps for play testing with only GI lighting applied. They look surprisingly good, despite every surface having nothing but a plain placeholder texture.

Ironically, maps with pre-computed GI for lighting was a feature that I'm fairly sure was either invented by id software's John Carmack, or he was the first person to implement it in a widely used game engine. It surprised me that he dropped the feature in Doom 3, when it was one of the more impressive technical advancements in his previous games!

In general, Doom 3 seemed to me to be a game that tried to be so technically advanced in a few specific areas that it had to compromise in others, resulting in an engine that wasn't very good overall. John Carmack even made a comment in a forum before the game's release that he was "targeting" 30fps, which to me felt like a bit of an admission of failure, because at the time every other game engine was already aiming for a constant 60fps, which is the minimum for smooth game play.

Re:No it was just too dark (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236008)

"a constant 60fps, which is the minimum for smooth game play."

Never play games on any 8-bit or 16-bit consoles, eh?

Plenty playable at 25 or 30FPS. Plenty smooth.

Re:No it was just too dark (1)

TD-Linux (1295697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235778)

I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.

Go in a dark room, aim a bright flashlight at a ceiling, and see what happens.

Re:No it was just too dark (4, Funny)

binarybum (468664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236034)

Go in a dark room, aim a bright flashlight at a ceiling, and see what happens.

Thanks a lot you insensitive clod - I did that and the bat living up there came down and bit me.

Re:No it was just too dark (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235806)

The Source engine, while lacking the technical features of id Tech 4, looked better because the map editor pre-calculates radiosity. Based on my memory of interviews at the time, I think Carmack was interested in the technical elegance of a unified lighting path with no tricks (e.g., Quake 3's character shadows) but unfortunately, it didn't look very good.

Re:No it was just too dark (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235900)

True radiosity is very computationally expensive, as you say (basically raytracing), but one can fake it for game purposes by creating a faint omni light source at the flashlight's head, and another where the light "beam" intersects any objects. This would have helped Doom 3 TREMENDOUSLY.

I don't think anyone questions that John Carmack is a super-genius, but some of his WTF moments make you wonder if he ever steps outside his "bubble".

and why no guns with a flash light on them or duck (2, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235284)

and why no guns with a flash light on them or duck tape on mars?

Re:and why no guns with a flash light on them or d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235306)

Because there are no ducks on mars. Or did you mean duct tape?

Re:and why no guns with a flash light on them or d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235380)

There may be no duck tape, but there is duck rope. I can tie a flashlight to my rifle using the duck's intestines. Or zombie intestines.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

opportunityisnowhere (1877452) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235300)

He admitted to it being too dark a while ago because he was obsessed with having a high framerate.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (4, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235330)

Now he should apologize for the hilariously outdated use of monster closets, terrible storyline, idiotic directorial decisions (no flashlight on guns, only 60 seconds of air!!) and extreme "meh"-ness of the entire Doom 3 experience.

Normally, you're happy when a game experience lasts 20+ hours. With Doom 3 it was more like, "there's more? Fuck me!" Especially after you beat the boss from hell, and have to go *back* to Mars for another few hours of tedium.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235706)

Eat shit and die, fagbag.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235352)

Agree. The dark was part of the appeal, and the surround sound was very impressive. More than once I very nearly shat myself while playing that game late at night in the dark.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

cstec (521534) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235650)

It was too dark to play in a well lit area, but the perfect game for playing with the lights out and surround sound.

Spot on. I'd play in the dark, at night with the speakers cranked and the lights out and damm, it was perfect! One of the greats!

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

timberwolf753 (1064802) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235756)

What was with the not attaching the flashlight to any type of weapon? I mean sicercly does it take a big goverment check to figure out you could could put ducktape on it at a cost of $600 million profit of gold. lol

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235790)

I didn't mind the dark atmosphere for the first thirty minutes, but after it lasted almost the entire game, I was totally burned out. The hell levels were an amazing breath of fresh air after so many generic, dimly lit rooms of silver and brown tech walls.

Most of these "gamer types" are pussies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235792)

the perfect game for playing with the lights out and surround sound. Too niche of an audience to experience the game that way I suppose.

Most of these "gamer types" are pussies that are afraid of the dark to begin with. You cannot expect them to play a game with the lights out at night without wetting their pants even without being scared of events and creatures in the game being played itself.

Re:Doom3 to dark? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236020)

Its spelt "too" but yes, John Carmack said it was too dark. Most people played the game in their well lit living rooms and weren't pleased with not being able to see the game they bought. The rage iphone demo was pretty cool though..

Wow, man. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235220)

Carmack noted that performance on the iPhone was able to 'kill anything done on the Xbox or PlayStation 2.'

So.. it beats console hardware that's ten years old. I suppose that's progress. Of a sort. Go team id!

Re:Wow, man. (2, Insightful)

Tamran (1424955) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235250)

It's progress if the device fits in your pocket and runs on batteries. I wonder if this thing will run on Android when it comes out?

Re:Wow, man. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235280)

If you live in a world without floating points.

Re:Wow, man. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235346)

Haven't you used an Xbox? Games for it are still visually impressive. What's remarkable is that it's done on a cellphone. OFC, games will never be equivalent on both devices. I'll be impressed when I can wirelessly connect my phone to the 100" TV and play full-resolution games on it, using the phone as an extensible controller.

Re:Wow, man. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235982)

Have you ever used a phone for gaming? It sucks. Even when emulators run beautifully for it, you either have to get a GameGripper-like device to use the keyboard or hook up a Wii controller via bluetooth to play it.

Using a phone as a controller would be one of the worst moves ever (even worse than the Wii's basic controller)

Commander Keen (5, Interesting)

phrostie (121428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235222)

I want my Commander Keen!

Re:Commander Keen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235360)

Yeah, Riker wasn't all that smart. Someone who was a bit more on the ball would have helped muchly!

Re:Commander Keen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235464)

Several years ago I asked him the same question by phone. Basic story was that his copy of the Commander Keen projects were lost during a move into their new offices, but someone else (Romero) might still have a copy. He also shared that the source code was very simplistic, almost embarrassing at the time we spoke, and that anyone with a little motivation could make a better game engine. Good point, but I still think it should be made available for historical purposes if anyone still has it. I bet comments in the code are just as humorous as the game itself :-D

Re:Commander Keen (2, Insightful)

oljanx (1318801) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235898)

I want my John Carmack back! Remember the days when there was a clear 3D god to worship? And he wrote engines for the PC. And they rocked. What happened to all of that?

it'll be just a matter of time.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235230)

until someone makes some sort of OpenWolf or something stupid like that.

I can imagine something like OA for it - anime babes shooting anime babes over island with rifles. At least their chests are GPL licensed so you could modify and copy them. X_X

Re:it'll be just a matter of time.... (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235594)

Doubt you'll see that, but I could imagine there will be a few good RTCW SP mods to come out of it. Will people play it? Well, people still play and create SP campaigns for Q1.

Freeware Wolf ET's engine goes GPL (2, Informative)

mikedep333 (1432269) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235266)

One of the two games who's engine went GPL is Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. It was already a freeware game. Sadly its engine was getting old as people struggled to get its OSS audio working on newer distros with ALSA/Pulseaudio. I look forward to that being fixed on other great improvements being made to Wolf ET.

Re:Freeware Wolf ET's engine goes GPL (1)

mikedep333 (1432269) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235410)

Whoops, meant to say "and other great improvement"

Anyway source releases are under the GPL V3 (I see no reference of "or later.")

Re:Freeware Wolf ET's engine goes GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235454)

I really enjoyed playing ET (and I played it a lot). The forums these days are mostly full of bots, but on the weekends there is still quite a bit of live fragging going on. It might be just me, but its the most fun I've had playing an FPS since Doom(1).

Re:Freeware Wolf ET's engine goes GPL (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235472)

Honestly, the fact that the engine is "getting old" is the reason they opened up the source. They aren't going to make any more money out off of it and students/hobbyists will love being able to tinker with it.

Source release. . . (2, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235314)

You know, about 5 years ago, I bet a lot of people would have been very excited about GPL release of ET. I suppose someone will probably do something with it, but this seems ridiculously long after the game's publication.

ET wasn't even a revenue generating game for them - they gave it away for free (well, I do remember seeing some copies for sale at computer stores - I guess you can get some people to pay for something they could just download for free, legally).

I know that iD makes some (maybe a considerable portion) of their revenue licensing out their engines to other commercial game developers (maybe even developers of non-game simulators, not sure), but even so - did anyone license the ET engine? I mean, I know it was basically the Q3A engine with some modifications - did anyone care about those specific modifications? Anyhow, releasing the game engine as GPL source release doesn't stop them from generating revenue from licensing it for commercial (non-GPL) use. Why wait so long?

Re:Source release. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235392)

There's no real engine modifications other than some new model formats and some localization stuff. You couldn't license the modified ET/RTCW engine at all, just only the base Q3 technology which comes with none of the format additions Wolf has. There is no "ET Engine". There is also no "Team Arena engine" as well.

The retail version is for dial-up convenience. 250mb+ is a lot for a modem.

captcha: quagmire. GIGGITY

Re:Source release. . . (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235622)

If I recall there was still a licensee that prevented its release.

Re:Source release. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236070)

Buh, wah? The Q3A engine was GPL'ed years ago. What would be so special about the ET Engine, which would prevent it's release, because of some contract agreement with one of iD's licensee's? Other than Splash Damage (I suppose maybe they didn't want it open sourced before), was there any licensee of the ET engine? The other poster who responded said no one licensed the ET engine?

sigh... (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235384)

... some people are bitching that the controls will suck, etc. its a proof of concept people, not really intended to be a playable game. it simply shows how well the rage engine scales.

iPhone? (2, Interesting)

Necron69 (35644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235430)

Screw the iPhone, John. When will ID have an Android version?
The super AMOLED screen on my Captivate is begging For a good game.

Necron69

Re:iPhone? (3, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235510)

Proof of Concepts are usually built around one hardware model so they don't have to dick around spending tons of manhours making it work on a wide array of hardware/os'. I have an android, so understand that I say this with zero fanboyism, but Apple pretty much has a more or less single piece of hardware with very small variances in parts used. They could write the software to take advantage of the hardware and have a large number of devices be able to run it. Do that on an android phone and you basically have to pick _one_ phone to do it on. Again, I love Android but lets say they picked the XT720 (the one I have). Well, Cincinnati Bell is currently the only US carrier offering it. They would have a game that would run on a handful of phones. The iPhone just works for their PoC purpose.

Re:iPhone? (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235612)

True enough, but I'm sure the decision had mostly to do with iPhone owners spending a hell of a lot more money on apps than Android owners.

Re:iPhone? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236002)

...And a lot of the reason that Android users don't spend a ton of money on apps are threefold.

A) Android has a lot of really good free apps and it has lite apps that don't suck.

B) Most people who use Android aren't the type of people who spend lots and lots of money on needless things.

C) With no restrictions on app development, the person who makes a $.99 fart application loses business to the teenager with an hour of free time and an SDK who makes his own one and releases it for free for his own amusement. With the iPhone that app might cost $50 or more to develop.

Re:iPhone? (4, Informative)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235546)

According to GameSpot:

Next up is Android. Carmack asked people in the crowd how many people had Androids (a vocal minority, he assessed), and how many had spent more than $20 in the phone's app store. He said he's been checking regularly to see how popular the phones are, and it's to the point where Carmack is starting to think about when the company will bring its products to the platform. It's probably not going to be in the next six months, he said.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6273388.html [gamespot.com]

megatexture (1)

poached (1123673) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235432)

If I understand what megatexture is, it is like a paging system for textures so that the amount of vram used can be minimized and unnecessary texture paged out. If this is the case, what took so long for this idea to be developed? It seems obvious to me and actually I thought this was already done in all games already? I'm just curious to learn more about the technology and development behind it, and understanding how it works.

Re:megatexture (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235482)

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a megatexture was the opposite of what you're suggesting: It's where you load a single, complete texture into memory just to avoid 1) chunking it up, and 2) coming up with some sort of demand-load/page-otherwise scheme.

It wasn't really possible until game machines had sufficient memory that taking up a huge chunk of RAM with a megatexture was possible. But once it was a reasonable assumption about the minimal hardware, loading a single giant texture became far preferable for performance reasons. Assuming I understand it correctly, most people saw it coming, but Carmack was the first to do it and make it work as expected.

Re:megatexture (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235538)

I don't think even today's systems have enough memory to load an entire megatexture into memory. Remember that Carmack is using megatextures to provide terrain detail, so the texture can get pretty huge. Then again, I don't think Carmack has ever released any technical details on megatextures, so I could be wrong.

Re:megatexture (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235544)

Hunh... actually, you were closer to it than I was, if Wikipedia is to be believed [wikipedia.org] :

MegaTexture refers to a texture allocation technique facilitating the use of a single extremely large texture rather than repeating multiple smaller textures. It is featured in Splash Damage's game, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and was developed by id Software technical director John Carmack.[1]

MegaTexture employs a single large texture space for static terrain. The texture is stored on removable media or the hard drive and streamed as needed, allowing large amounts of detail and variation over a large area with comparatively little RAM usage.[citation needed]

Then during rendering, required parts of the texture space are streamed inside dynamically (re-)allocated textures in video memory, scaled to the correct mipmap level(s) depending on the polygon size. This allows the engine to reduce the number of texels in VRAM/number of pixels on the screen ratio (the goal being getting closer to 1), saving memory.

It does get swapped in and out of memory, and the benefit isn't performance, it's having a lot more varied texture than a repeating scheme.

Re:megatexture (1)

poached (1123673) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235990)

yup. I'd love to see some siggraph paper on how it is implemented. But yeah, it seems like this was doable years ago. Were there technical limitations, like hardware not mature or flexible enough that got in the way?

Making maps for ET on Linux: HOW??? PLS TELL ME! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235452)

I spent a couple of hours trying to make work Gtkradiant on my Ubuntu Karmic 64. I don't understand why this tool that is fundamental to make maps for many open source games hasn't a simple deb package or why it's not in the repositories of a distro like Ubuntu. The Gtkradiant's official page has so little informations. People that make maps are not programmers, they want to make maps, not get crazy trying to understand how to install a program.

Re:Making maps for ET on Linux: HOW??? PLS TELL ME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235526)

People that make maps are not programmers, they want to make maps, not get crazy trying to understand how to install a program.

Why not just run it in Windows? Occasionally it turns out to be the right tool for the job...

Re:Making maps for ET on Linux: HOW??? PLS TELL ME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235602)

Maybe because I'm just using Ubuntu and I don't have a copy of Windows.
I like Linux it because is very stable for using software like GIMP , Blender , Mypaint , Krita , Alchemy , Inkscape.

I use Linux for the security, the performance of the system. I like to know how my computer treats my personal informations.

I configured compiz in a way that makes my life easier and I don't think I can have the same settings on Windows.

I don't change OS for that, probably I'll find the way to install Gtkradiant.
I just believe that not packaging Gtkradiant is keeping far from Linux a lot of creative people that would bring their art into open source videogames.

Re:Making maps for ET on Linux: HOW??? PLS TELL ME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235704)

Run it under wine :) I imagine there's compatibility info for gtkradiant under winehq's appdb, and it's probably more reliable than trying to compile and run the linux version.

But that's just my 2 cents (A serious gamer who only runs open source and cleanly compiling games on linux.)

Where can I download the keynote? (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 4 years ago | (#33235500)

Any clues or outright answers as to where I can download John Carmack's entire keynote? Even just audio would be acceptable. I managed to watch the rocketry talk today with him and Richard Garriott. It was fascinating.

For others, here is some pretty thorough coverage of the keynote:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6273388.html [gamespot.com]

rulk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33235698)

It is a good phone IP4, but I really can not afford the wages! Ha ha!jiva kamas [fcsgame.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?