News John Carmack talks ray-tracing, PC gaming

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/03/14/john_carmack_talks_ray-tracing_pc_gaming/1

John Carmack has spoken about a number of topics surrounding games development, and given some insight on the future.

 

and we all know John has way more influence then anyone at Epic in the industry.

 

He may value technology over gameplay, but he's rarely been wrong when it comes to graphics. I'm really holding out for id's newest engine, especially given UE4 is dead in the water.

But then again, I am a Doom fanboy.

Edit: I just read the original article. Is it just me or does Carmack's brain seem to be permenantly about 3 years ahead of everyone elses?

 

I remember reading about ray tracing back in 04. Seemed like we would never have the horsepower to use it in a real game. But here we are, just 4 years later and we are very very close to it. I think I still have that Quake 3 video demonstration of ray tracing. I think what Sweeney was talking about is possible, but I don't think the industry is going to go in that direction.

 

Who isn't?!

 

Carmack never goes wrong. He is like a Seer!

 

Very interesting interview, it's great to hear people who have a practical understanding of the approaches talk honestly rather than trying to hype the next generation.

And now we wait for his next tech demo with bated breath.

 

Heh, he's one of the pioneers of the industry as far as games development goes - he's designing the technology of tomorrow, today. If you ever had chance to speak to any of the hardware designers, you'd get the same - it doesn't matter who because they all have their vision of the future. Some visions are interesting, some are completely whacko and others are closer to reality.

 

Its a shame his recent games havent been 3 years ahead of everyone else. In many people's eyes, ID's last few games have been major let downs (Doom3 and Quake4 in particular) Both were not lacking in graphics, but instead gameplay.

So whilst ID and John C have the best technological minds of their field.. it doesnt appear to be translating to games with innovative and new gameplay.

To cite back to the days of Doom 1 is a mistake. They may have been original then.. but not now.

Saying all that, I find his comments very interesting and can see a time when 8 and 16 core CPU's will actually be used for graphics, physics, and game play. Whether thats Ray Tracing or otherwise.

 

Flashback, that's all I've got to say . I hear it's coming out on Steam, way cool, I loved this game when it hit the Amiga in what seems now, like the Dark-Ages but still a very cool game that used ray tracing.

 

Well, of the new Doom3 engine -- I'm not.

I really didn't find it fun, running around in the dark with a torch on my machine gun. Got pretty boring. Walk in the dark, boo! Zombie jumps out. Walk in the dark, nothing there, walk 4 feet, boo! Imp suddenly behind you, repeat.

I did love the original Doom, if that helps

 

That could be one of the reasons why you didn't enjoy the game, there's no torch on the machine gun, so you must have cheated by using one of the duct tape mods. That would do a good job of ruining the atmosphere of the game.
I still think Doom 3 is one of the best games out there and I go back to it time and time again.

 

Quake 4 was actually awesome, just very very hyped and didnt have any hope of living up to it
it didnt have any spectacularly ground breaking gameplay elements but it was a bloody good FPS
Q4 machine gun is one of my favourite FPS weapons i think, so very satisfying

 

Did I ? I thought there was a torch you hooked on the gun? Oh well, if it took cheating to actually "see" any of the baddies in the game then to me that's a bit poor in the design department. You'd've thought that with such a new, space-aged engine they'd want to show it off, not pull the curtains and turn off the lights :/

Anyhow, if the atmos was "run around in the dark" then great... that was achieved.. Thing is, I could do that in my flat and have the same experience..

Wolfenstein was far more fun. At least I could see things...

 

The darkness was the main reasons it was so scary. Ace game design in my view.

Lol

Only a very small proportion of Doom 3 was in total darkness. Maybe it's those bits we remember the most coz they were the scariest.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it was "bad" -- I just didnt enjoy it as much as other id efforts is all. The graphics, of what I saw <grin>, were great.

It only scared me in that it had loads of "jumpy" bits, as in, turn the corner and briiiiiing! <sound of scarey effect when something jumps out>, something jumps out at me which to me isn't exactly the same.

Now F.E.A.R., with creepygirl crawling around under desks and in wierd Exorcist gymnastic positions and strobe effects, that **** freaks me out and I did get proper spooked in that. Few skidded undies in that one, I don't mind admitting!

 

Maybe you monitor has a horrible contrast ratio. I could see just fine.

 

I got bored pretty quickly of the supernatural Alma girl stuff in FEAR, for me it got in the way of what was a good shooter. I know it was all part of the story, but just found it a bit weak. It didn't scare me half as much as Doom 3. The combat action in FEAR was spot on though.

 

fear was great fun but fa too easy for my liking, doom 3 is a masterfull game but i try not to go overkill on it, i replay through it every few months, just so i can still scare myself shitless (btw look for the survival mod, it turns doom 3 into a game of res evil and its a great challenge)

 

Fear was cool, except they compressed all the good points from the first few hours of gameplay into the 20min demo, so when I started playing the full game it wasn't that impressive.
Once I got to the stealth ninja's though I was happy