Good ol' Romenro.

Never doubt in Romenro.

looks good but I'm just wondering whats it's going to cover that hasn't been covered 100 times already

i dont think you understand dude this guy made DOOM ok... whoa i mean

like "tell us about how you made DOOM again grandpa"

man thats so cool, like, making DOOM oh my god this guy was a guy who made this game and it was called DOOM and.. ii was a big deal ok? i mean just look at it .... wow

ROFLING hard

probably nothing.

most likely... but I'm still gonna watch!

yea. noclip so far has made good vids. even if its basically just a repeat ill be watching.
Would be cool if he could get a carmack interview.

I'll have a rum'n'ro.
Neat.

Romero is a testament of id's never ending goal to remain a profit based company, all the best id people gave up to make yet another game clone to make some quick money. If id was as innovative as Blizzard or Valve we would really see some new games from id like never seen before. Even now i am really hard pressed to buy any of their games before I play a demo. Too many times they screwed me over with their rosy pitches and over the top trailers. HL2 for me is the new standard for quality single player games, never seen anything as good from id or any other company.

HL2 is the most overrated game ever

id basically invented the fps genre, basically they were at their best with wolf3d, doom and quake 1 ... after that not that much happened, but still they were first do decide to make a multiplayer-only title, unreal tournament might have been released earlier, but they were basically copycats and only started developing their product after they heard that id is going to make a multiplayer only title ...still Rage is a quite nice game, that should not be underestimated, I kinda liked that mix of fps and racing and the atmosphere and design of the characters wasnt too bad either .... Doom 4 was again unique in the way they made their single player game ...
Blizzard is still innovative, hearthstone was quite a hit imho, they made trading card games on the computer playable with that title ...
valve to my knowledge is not anymore a gamedeveloping company, they are concentrating on steam now it seems

id was a copycat from the start if you look at the history of fps games, there were countless fps games before wolf 3d, all id did is popularizing the genre by simplifying the game mechanics to a simple corridor shooter with a drawn gun in players hand. masses always fell for it which why it was so popular and still is, i don't like games based on how popular they are, that's just naive to think that most popular stuff is the best, it just means it's played by many people. to me doom 4 is really just a shadow of hl2 without the gravity gun and a much simpler story. i am not talking about graphics but the way the game mechanics work throughout campaign in id games it all never changes whereas in hl2 game mechanics always keep changing as your play the campaign.

u know for me the best single player fps experience was HL1, and gonna play the blackmesa high fidelity version soon, when its completely finished.
HL2 is a good game, but its not so "Pure", it doesnt manage to augment an experience and make it steadily better, for me there is too much story iand cutscenes in it, and too many non-fps things, like racing waterboats, etc. ... the physical puzzles are fine though ... in this way I like Doom 4 better than HL2, its more combat centered, and its not stupid combat where the enemies die after one shot and its very very hard (I play on ultra violence skill setting) and not so much scripted

wtf? id a copycat from the beginning?
rofl.

The History of FPS Games Vol 1 1974-1988

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aipGP5oAuWQ

The History of FPS Games Vol 2 1988-1992

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uXZxDzqHIo

some games in vol 2 even have almost the same engine as id's fps games except there is no player hand drawn in front of the hud.

And by 'those games which have almost the same engine as id's fps games' do you by any chance mean "Hover tank" and "Catacomb Abyss"?

does it even matter since first fps games were actually invented in 1974 and not in 1991 as most people pretend. almost 2 decades of snail like progress just to draw corridors and a pixelated hand holding a gun, today would be called just a natural evolution of the genre. you are confusing popularazing a genre with inventing the genre which means any other company would do just fine making fps games even if id never published any of their games.

Where did I say they invented a genre?
Besides according to your logic FPS might have been popularized in the 14th century when people in Europe first got introduced to handgun like objects, and thus were able to fire at eachother.

I just say that they were never copying stuff from others since the beginning, which should be clear as all of their (early) work set new standards for the rest of the world. (Which, btw, was due to their own technological insights.)

you are trying to say that early id games weren't based on a whole bunch of fps games starting from 1974? in that case id games are basically just copying fps genre paradigm. the way id always presents itself as inventor of the genre and state it in all their public interviews is misleading to say the least and you analogy really makes no sense since there weren't any computers in 14th century. what i am saying is id basically never invented anything and simply just copied existing games on the market and claimed it as their own invention. if they were really inventing anything we wouldn't be where we are today were every id game is basically catching up with all the other modern fps games in terms of gameplay, they basically rip off any game mechanic they can find on the market.

you are trying to equate evolutionary improvements in fps engines as invention of the genre which really makes no sense. if there was no id games trust me someone else would have made something similar a year or two later. id's only invention is the graphics engines which really are evolutionary in nature and don't carry any more weight than games like battlefield today, they just happened to be the most popular games in their times.


what for example ultima underworld (1992) has to do with any of id games?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpuTbxkaZ94

How about abusing your logic of "because there were 3D graphics before, ID didn't add anything" into "because humans have legs they can transport themselves and other objects from point A to point B, inventing a wheel didn't add anything".

It's a ridiculous reasoning.

Next to that you suddenly then do say that ID made 'inventions' in graphic engines.... So how do you copy something which you invent yourself? Because tbh the main component of any game back then was the engine it was build on. (or well some/most games didn't really have a separate engine... everything was just game code back then.)

it's ridiculous to assume that id invented 3d or fps genre since natural hardware evolution actually allowed the possibility of 3d and fps games, i am simply extrapolating what would happen if doom or quake never released and i really see no reason whatsoever how id games can have any ownership of 3d games being invented. claiming id has any ownership of 3d or fps genre in general is misleading. what you fail to realize is that id games really simply are following hardware progress, doom or even wolf 3d wasn't possible in 1974 not because id was not there but because hardware wasn't advanced enough at that point. i am simply analyzing game mechanics and id games really are not revolutionary if you look at similar games, they still follow same conventions of fps games and basically have nothing new.

you don't really manage to read well, do you?

I didn't attack you on "inventing 3d and fps games" at all, you just focussed on that part after my comment about id being a copycat.

To simplify my post to something you might even understand, try to answer the next question:
is Tesla (/Elon Musk) just a copycat of François Isaac de Rivaz?

i really don't care. copycat generally means someone who copies stuff from others so id fits that word perfectly. games in general are copied from each other if you haven't noticed. i really don't care. the bottom line is from all the id games i played i haven't really found anything unique other than a fun ride on top of well optimized engine and really does it even matter at the end what you are trying to prove here? id is basically a middle end engine company defined by its id tech engines for the most part as all game aspects of their games never actually evolved past most common conventions of the genre. if by your logic id never copied anything than we really should call every company in the gaming industry an innovator since all games have different texture sets and different models and rendering techniques, even if a game is a sequel to a previous game with swapped models/textures etc. really shouldn't go that far.

You could've told me that you were 20'ish at the start and I would've understood your ignorance. But to actually think you know what you're talking about... kinda makes you sound like Trump.

i think i am just really tired of all the bull that id is feeding to its fan base. they always claim the crown for inventing fps games and yet fail to deliver even the most basic gameplay innovations to the genre the way valve introduced games like hl2 and portal that basically change how we play the fps games. i really don't see how id is being the innovator besides churning out new engines (which also mind you are not the end all be all in the industry) that other studios may put to better use.

What does claiming to have shaped the FPS genre (which anyone would be wrong for denying) have to do with the obligation to constantly reinvent everything ? They have always said that they liked to make FPS games and that's what they did.

Sounds like you get really tired from nothing all by yourself.

This might come as a shock to you, but the fans of id software games like the company for making brutal FPS games, not for making innovative puzzle games. At least now you will know.

I think that even assuming to invent anything bares the company to actually deliver on their claim and not just claim what they haven't even invented. It's kinda like claiming to invent an airplane and then never actually make an airplane but copy design of other airplanes and present it as their own. Advances in graphics technology aren't really invention but really are a result of growing computer performance so what i am saying is that most of what id does is basically copycatting which you are arguing with. I really don't care defending id on points that they clearly loose, even though i played their games for pretty long time until i grew out of their simplistic game design. I also thought their games were good but then hl2 came out and doom 3 really was a disappointment to me so I continued to play source engine games, it's really a matter of choosing the stuff that i like to play and not following a false hype of a company i once looked up to. You always think that i somehow not experience id games which is false, i did play q3 for thousands of hours and i am now simply at a point where i realised that each game is basically a tech demo meant to make some quick buck and really not falling for it anymore.

all companies try to create a huge hype around their newest product.
That part of how the world works is sad, but it's not an ID exclusive.

Dunno what you're talking about, I played Doom 3 way, way after I played Half-Life 2 and still had a ton of fun, it's still a very immersive experience with intense action. The two games are just so different I don't even understand why they need to be compared.

If you don't like this type of games just don't play them, what's the point of losing your time complaining about them existing ?

It's your opinion that id isn't very innovative for a long time and that's fine, but just because they don't make games that you enjoy doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy them.

Valve's latest innovations are just adding cash shops to their games... not anything impressive. 10 years ago I would have those kinds of expectations from them, but not today. LAME seeing them make the source engine and then just patch it for over 10 years to make it slightly modern... Also their games are too casual, I mean its not as bad as the stupid console games Id makes but HL1 is so much better than any thing else they've done, especially the multiplayer, its all downhill from the top in the gameplay department ='[

i regularly play all their source engine games, valve has that sweet spot where i find challenge but its not as simple as halo or cod that i find it lacking substance. valve games are really more community oriented and serve as platforms for sharing user created content. i am pleased the way they make games and if you look at them they really do support their games for free years from release and i really see nothing to complain about. the way id develops their titles is kinda like gfx card manufacturers release tech demos to sell their cards and then move on to the next tech demo etc. its just too obvious to miss especially with all the doom dlcs and giving no mod tools to make same kind of dlc for free. i think what most devs really miss today is that people really stick to just a few games that they keep playing instead of playing games like watching movies. if we look at the whole landscape there is very few developers that keep working on a single product for more than 5 years and thats a real shame as i really see no point in buying the next titan just to play some fancy interactive tech demo, i have played those enough since 90s and it really is getting old. if games like minecraft had all the features i need and at a reasonable regional pricing i would simply just stick to that, i really see no point in upping the graphics barrier just for the heck of it, even hl1 is still holding up pretty well graphics wise, it's other features like gun upgrades and random bot encounters that make a bigger difference to me as a player than looking at some detailed texture that isn't even well lit most of the time.

Why does it have to be one or the other ?

Let's just have both. Games where some people can play for 500 hours if that's what they want. And more condensed experiences that bring more variety to those that desire it.

And right now I think we have both. I see no point in trying to criticize either side of the picture for not being like the other.

That's true about the tech demos, I just find them very interesting sometimes though. I feel like if valve worked as hard as they did when they made the jump from goldsrc to source it would have been really interesting to see what that jump would be like, from source to source 2 in say 2010.

I probably appreciate the tech demos a lot more because I do lots of programming and so its a different kind of interest for me. I only really play older games like quake 3 since I like them better, so I do agree with you about the things, I just feel like valve could be doing more, because you have things like source and goldsource that prove that they are a really capable company.

I think its kind of disappointing that new engines do things like licence umbra3d, licence havok, and you dont see the kind of really divergent ways of doing things that older games have, instead its mostly the same kinds of things. Like look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkSS_veoSg0

Imagine if something like battlefield used this, but instead they make the same game over and over again.

I still play valve games but HLDM is something that they wont beat, I just wish that they made something as good as that again.

I sort of understand but if we look at it from valve's perspective they still have done a whole lot more than most other large companies, even id or blizzard are largely in it for profit and really i rarely if ever see them give free stuff to players, source engine i think is very good actually because it's basically playable on most computers, i still appreciate it a lot that i can run source games on a very weak pc by todays standard. I sort of could complain if i really become picky but to me if a game is even remotely entertaining and doesn't hunt for money all the time i think it's great, valves games have great replay value and i never actually regretted buying their games the way i regret now buying most games. Valve just really gets what players want most of the time except a few small details their games still largely are much better than competition from overall replay value perspective even though tf2 or csgo gameplay can be looked at as simple but it's a good tradeoff for having a larger community of players and it's much more deep than cod or battlefield in terms of gameplay. I think valve always knows how to balance popular things with retaining basic gameplay value and really is the only large gaming company that is still worth looking up to when it comes to just new fun experiences. Even if valve will just keep updating existing games i still feel like there is many things that can be new and different and I don't really feel like there is immediate need to release anything new until technology really leaps forward. I sort of can imagine a new engine but to me what i really would want is to have larger maps like gta5 even at the same detail level as hl2, which can be done by simply updating source engine. I think valve is very smart at updating their engine, i think id really made mistake with doom 3 engine by scrapping quake 3 engine and valve really knows to stick to what works and just update it gradually as technology improves. I think many things can be gradually improved, and since we got consoles now as a major factor really even source engine is probably what most game graphics would look like years from now if we don't get some really huge advances. PS4 probably can't even handle source engine graphics at 4k so we are still far away from the time when replacing source engine would make sense.

updating the source engine to be like GTA5 is not really viable, source uses the quake-style type of BSP-PVS combo, while GTA5 is built around rendering huge distances, its rendering engine is extremely specialized around this kind of thing, and the same goes for the source engine, which is very specialized towards the quake-style of rendering, although it is capable of processing big amounts of terrain, its fundamental limits with its rendering method are something that make it inefficient to use this kind of renderer. Thats why the outdoor segments in HL2 have relatively small areas.

On the surface it seems like you can just patch the engine, until it can handle these things, but if you understand how rendering algorithms work, and how some of them will work better for different things, and all that, it means rewriting the most fundamental part of the game engine, maybe ditching BSP, etc, which changes everything.

I though doom3 engine had good ideas but it was just too ambitious with what it wanted to do so you just ran though a ton of pretty looking corridors with fancy lights while in hl2 you could go through a giant terrain, so obviously source made the correct tradeoffs...

I just like seeing new engines if they can bring something new to the table, which valve definitely did with source and goldsource, I would want to see it again, is all, I dont even care if its from valve.

New engines is always good but i really am against new engines that are not organically created to serve new game mechanics or new gameplay opportunities, hl2 is basically a corridor game with occasional outdoor scenes and requiring a whole rewrite of the engine might just be a waste the time and then we get into a horrible dnf style loop for a decade. Source as far as i can tell still can be modernized the same way cod engine was modernized and now we see high detailed character models inside basically a modified quake engine.

I think even if they could simply implement resource streaming to eliminate load times in linear maps like hl2 or l4d campaign maps that would be great.

I agree source engine might be somewhat outdated but just looking at new games that are about to come out i don't really see that great leap in graphics the same way it was when hl2 came out which is why i am very skeptical about new engines in general.

To me doom 3 engine is just general failure of the dev team to see what is essentially important for players (general purpose engine with good performance) and treating their games as some kind of home project to impress some friends in the industry.

There is definitely some optimizations for consoles etc but all the mapping tools etc is going to loose backwards compatibility and thousands of user maps will stop working so i would rather go for just keep patching source engine until hl2 would look like mobile graphics compared to console games and then go for the switch to a completely different engine with all the possible optimizations. I predict that might happen when something like hl3 will come out. I would rather valve take time as i understand that no matter how good new technology is it really isn't worth it if you are going to make another closed engine that won't be mod friendly and then we loose all the community content that fuels the development of many games like tf2 or l4d or csgo etc, we really need an engine that would be a mod maker friendly or it won't get much traction in general.

The only next big leap i see is is realtime raytraced lighting but that might as well be the next doom 3 engine and might not be the best use of machine resources, all in all graphics is at the point of diminishing returns today, even when i see a more detailed picture on screen it feels more like a game than a movie as animation (when character animation states are switching when they step on something or change direction of movement) and physics is still lagging way behind in detail compared to good cgi, there just something in game graphics that looks odd.

Good call for change in games would be finding new way to control instead of mouse or keyboard something like a neural interface, i am playing with gamepad and it really affects immersion as i stop hearing mouse clicks and button presses through my headphones and the motion is much smoother and easier on hands.

VR is also interesting when they could come up with cordless headset that wouldn't be heavier than headphones or glasses etc, i think there really should be new way to interact with games rather than finding better rendering techniques as it really affects how you stop feeling the boundary of the game world and reality.

The problem here is BSP, you cant stream resources into a BSP, its a very static data structure, its very good for corridor shooters like COD and HL, but doesn't work with something like GTA5... COD maps are still very small and work really well with BSP for a reason

I am not sure how bsp works but there really just gotta be a way to instance a portion of a map while the rest is loading behind a wall. I am pretty sure that valve has announced streaming in source 2 update.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HalfLife/comments/3t..._source_2/

idea is that every polygon is in a hirearchy, which makes it hard... though im sure there are ways of doing this that we cant think of, i don't doubt that they can do it

I would always find easier ways to update technology rather than just throwing it all away hoping it would be better. Modern games really lack way more things than just graphics which is why games like minecraft have a very large audience. I would also think that random level geometry would be much more interesting than just increasing the detail. Also backwards compatibility is a huge factor to consider, id has lost a huge modding community that basically added value to their games.

Sure, updates are easier... im just trying to explain why source doesnt have enormous maps that can load dynamically- source engine basically does a TON of work pre-sorting all the polygons for the BSP tree, which involves splitting polygons, which means its very easy to do collisions on the maps but if you want to make a change you have to recompile, which cant happen in real time, and the entire hierarchy has to be loaded in all at once or doesn't work. This works great on older computers but cant be scaled up to the point where you are dynamically loading in new parts of the map all the time just because of how it is built.

From that screenshot valve engineers have obviously figured out a better way of doing it, or at least one that is more suited towards modern hardware where collisions don't need to be as fast as they used to be.

Yeah i get that source is outdated, but i am not really looking for a replacement. If it works i feel like there is no need to replace it. Take a look at all games since quake 3, there is literally no modding community that makes as much content for doom 3 compared to source engine user content. It's no just a matter of technical progress but also keeping in mind user ecosystem that depends on existing software to work, same way windows is keeping its app compatibility instead of rewriting whole os every release. Mac os might look nice, but i really feel it has very closed in feel to it that actually makes it harder to use as a general purpose os.

I just want to see new TECH ideas, i think its awalys nice when you see something like that, it shows you how something can be done diffrently

I get source has the best ecosystem, and that we will probably be playing patched source games for the next 10yrs - who knows how long because of how much content there is there... if valve is more open in the future it may be like the doom ecosystem where we all play improved versions of the doom engine, and everything can go around, would definitely extend the life of source further since as far as i know its hard to get your hands on the core engine without paying royalties to valve

Doom engine doesn't even have mod tools planned for release so for me source engine really has no alternative as far as user generated content goes. What i really don't like is when i can see an obvious money grab the way it was done in cod paid dlc released without cod mod tools. It's cool to talk about tech demos but tech demos don't last very much beyond a single playthrough. I think it's just a shame how some companies just use their fan base to make money and have no regard for real community building the way valve does it. A typical player doesn't really have thousands of games on their account so for them even a single bad purchase detracts from buying again.

i mean the doom engine for doom , not doom 4... you can see all the nice things that were done with the source code when it was released.

for sure, but doom classic is too old at this point and many people can create a doom engine clone by themselves. id policy since doom 3 really has been to cut compatibility with quake engine and its tools and i think that resulted in a disaster for them as a modding community building company which resulted in them being bought by zenimax. i think any gamedev today really needs to take their user base seriously as a platform for collaboration otherwise people feel left out because they can't add and share content for their favorite games and that results in products that lack essential feedback, many mods actually give devs ideas how to improve their games.

I agree, I dont think id does much anymore

really the ease of modding usually falls back to engine developers making an open platform and game developers being more open and providing SDK's, i can download a good chunk of the half-life source code right now

most gamedevs just use some prebuilt engine which means it mostly depends on how well valve and epic and crytek and frostbite want to support a community, you can see valve does this the most, and epic tries to do it a lot, tries to create an ecosystem similar to valves but with their modern engine, and then crytek and frostbite, i dont think anyone uses them for fun, its just big companies

I know romero only by his fame and name, but never really seen a video of him, will be interesting, I think he was the only id guy where there was a demo of back in the old quakeworld days ... And I also didnt like the direction id took in the single player department after he left, but I dont know really how much that had to do with him or not, because this information is not really available ... I read masters of doom where he was somehow described as a non-productive member playing doom deathmatch all day and then carmack even decided to set up his desk in a better position where he can oversee what the others are doing :-) ... but I dont know really if this information is trustworty ... :-)

it's pretty good. lots of stuff.

THAT ID SOFTWARE STORY NEVER GETS OLD =]

GOT A LIL BLUNT RITE HERE AND IM PRESSING PLAY

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW =]

Ireland Bouncer Fight Good.

lol nice

they got what they deserved, that guy was out cold lmao

good god we are classy bunch of people

lol, I hope he later died 8D

While I did like the interview, I'd like Romero to talk about something else than Doom and Quake 1.

I think people mostly like to hear about successful projects.

ouch gg