Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Enlighter

Anyone here think they are as good as the ID programers?

Recommended Posts

it''s not about being an insane programmer, it''s about having good ideas and being inventive. http://www.enselic.cjb.net/ this guy (a gdnet local) is inventive I''m not kidding if you look at his other project he has ideas and doesn''t follow the masses. All demo coders are like that I think. my fav being haujobb You don''t have to know everything, just how to find the info you need.

ps. if you haven''t played the original spactra yet (not the easy version), your missing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Quake 2 and 3 both suck I can do better


I couldn''t agree more!! These "Insane Coders" made crackhead AI and once i was playing teams and 2 teammates started running into each other until I just restarted. Another time, 2 people just started randomly running into the wall. The sound engine that they wrote only plays on sound at a time, and the weapons models are soo cheap!! The rocket launcher is a tube, the Shotgun is just 2 small tubes with a couple holes, and the machine gun is 2 rectangles strategically placed!

If you think they''re insane coders, you haven''t played enough games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and Doom wasn''t even in 3d. Yay.

Guys, look. Games are about trade offs and making something that works at the time it is realized. Talking about the limitations of the Q1-3 tech doesn''t work UNLESS you talk about it in the timeframe it was released.

Anyone who wants to compare themselves to ID programmers; may I suggest refraining from doing so until you have at least one shipped title out the door? I hate to play the card, but just getting something out the door can be a really eye opening experience.

Talent is only a small part of making a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by cannelbrae
Oh, and Doom wasn''t even in 3d. Yay.



It looks like a 3d picture so it''s 3D regardless of how it''s made. Ray casting, voxel whatever,theres a lot of way to make 3d looking images. Ever play Zaxxon 3D?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The coders at ID do have talent, but then again, I think it''s the Team of coders that makes a "hot" game, not the specific coder.

Yes, DOOM was 3D, it had 3Dimensions! Though the 3D engine was very limited.

"I couldn''t agree more!! These "Insane Coders" made crackhead AI and once i was playing teams and 2 teammates started running into each other until I just restarted. Another time, 2 people just started randomly running into the wall. The sound engine that they wrote only plays on sound at a time, and the weapons models are soo cheap!! The rocket launcher is a tube, the Shotgun is just 2 small tubes with a couple holes, and the machine gun is 2 rectangles strategically placed!"

I highly disagree. The AI in Quake 3 was pretty good.
And the coders are not the one who makes the models. the models looked nice, maybe allitle underpolygoned today but very nice at the time.
The sound engine can play EAX/3Dsound, and can easily play more than one sound at a time, also music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*lol* i love that argumentation.. "i can do better than braben, elite is plain ugly and the ships have less than 15 polygons".. i'd be very surprised if they could write a game that has half the complexity even with 10 times the ressources.

why not go and impress id with your own quake to prove you can make a better looking game.. but dont be surprised if they start laughing the moment they see you use opengl or directx.

show me your quake3 clones running as fast on the same old hardware as quake3 itself and i will personally write a dozen letters to id to check you out *fg*

and neurokaotix:
after that comment i expected some screenshots on your site that would blow me away even more than yanns. but now i simply assume you have never seen shots of his engine and therefore cant understand those guys. lets put it this way: if what we see runs with more than 30fps on current cards like gf4 it does not only make doom3 look ugly (even more as doom3 has just indoor and can drastically limit the number of rendered geometry), its even ahead of doom3 as i expect not to need a gf fx super ultra to play with high detail. i'd love to see at least a gameplay video of their current state just walking around and compare it to doom3 when its finally out ,-)

[edited by - Trienco on April 30, 2003 3:08:02 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who sits around comparing their abilities to others'' is a twit... that time could be better spent learning something to make them a better developer... and there is always something to learn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crackhead AI? quake 2 didn''t come out with 2Ghz processors floatin around, and furthermore much more of the graphics related routines were implemented in software, this was the 3dFX era. So seeing as how processor time was spent on graphics more, and that there wasnt much of it to go around, I''d say the AI was suitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well if anyone of u were better he''d be probably writing quake 4 or smth like that.

u arent better coz u make a nice routine for collision detection that runs in 0.5 ms. ur better if u can put a game engine togheter and get a really cool game.

and neither one of the Quake games sucks!! how many of you when lookin at quake2 in 97 or 98 said WOW REALLY COOL ? not that many huh?
now lookin at it u can say: eh the rocket launcher is a tubewith a hole in the middle but then it was the weapon you first got 1000 frags with.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
for the anonymous poster that told, that he can make a better quake2 or quake3... why don''t you make a best-selling-industry-revolucionary game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the Doom wasn''t 3d comment was meant to be sarcastic. Just trying to point out what others have said much better since; don''t compare the tech behind games that are multiple generations apart. I will try harder to point out the sarcasm and tag it as such next time.

One additional point on these bashing threads;

This is a SMALL industry. Someone you bash you will probably meet in the future some time. Possibily in a buisness situation or while looking for a job. If you want to have any sort of a career in games, keep the venom as far away as possible, or you will start burning bridges before you even get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Trienco
but dont be surprised if they start laughing the moment they see you use opengl or directx.

[edited by - Trienco on April 30, 2003 3:08:02 AM]


oh yea ? What's doom3's rendering API ? When did you last check what's going on with hardware revolution ?

As regards the thread ,i think you should say if anyone thinks to be better than Carmack or Duffy .



[edited by - Joe Forhens on April 30, 2003 11:57:35 AM]

[edited by - Joe Forhens on April 30, 2003 11:58:58 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites