Review Index:
Feedback

John Carmack Interview: GPU Race, Intel Graphics, Ray Tracing, Voxels and more!

Transcript Continued

Ryan Shrout: One of the interesting topics going around the graphics world now is that of the “infinite detail” engines, Voxels, and these types of things. I know that you have played around with Voxels, written little Voxel engines, and that kind of stuff. What do you think about this debate on the possibility of the “Infinite Detail” engine?

John Carmack: Okay, for one thing, I think it’s important to separate the notion of infinite detail and Voxels. You can have Voxels [that are not infinitely detailed] because many of the Voxel engines that I’ve written have been at finite coarse levels of detail. The fact that you can instance detail in [Voxels]... in may ways it sounds awesomely cool: “infinite detail,” but if we look at all of the trends that we’ve been doing and Rage epitomizes in many ways, procedurally generated detail is usually not what you want. This has been an argument going back decades: “now is the year of procedurally generated textures and geometry.” We’ve heard that for a decade and it never has come true. What has won is being able to manage the real data that we want. Procedural-ism is really just a truly crappy form of data compression. You know, you have the data that you really want, and procedural-ism makes you something that might resemble what you really want, but it’s a form of extraordinarily lossy data compression that lets you produce something there.

And that really is the problem with the voxels. Infinitive detail is basically procedural-ism and you can do that with polygons, voxels, atoms, splats, whatever. They are tied together now with people talking about the recent demo that came out, but they are really orthogonal topics. I don’t think the notion of infinite detail is actually all that important. It is more important to be able to get the broad strokes of the artistic vision in there, and if you take uninspired content and look at it at the molecular level, it is still uninspired content. It’s not really going to make a big difference. What is potentially useful about voxels is that it allow you to access them in a certain way that may be more efficient than say a rise pipeline of dicing polygons, doing displacement mapping, and things like that. They are both ways to give huge amounts of geometric detail, which is obviously the next frontier after we uniquely texture everything. We want to uniquely “geometrify” everything. We all want to go there, but it’s also important to realize that I was showing MegaTexture demos five years ago. It took five years for it to turn into a production quality game, and you could make a cool, flashy demo of like “look, isn’t this amazing, we can stamp down stuff and everything looks totally different? There’s no tiling, and we can use procedural information to generate all of this,” but there is a huge amount of work that goes into building a robust production quality system that you can build real game worlds with.

I’ve revisited voxels at least a half dozen times in my career, and they’ve never quite won. I am confident in saying now that ray tracing of some form will eventually win because there are too many things that we’ve suffered with rasterization for, especially for shadows and environment mapping. We live with hacks that ray tracing can let us do much better. For years I was thinking that traditional analytical ray tracing intersecting with an analytic primitive couldn’t possibly be the right solution, and it would have to be something like voxels or metaballs or something. I’m less certain of that now because the analytic tracing is closer than I thought it would be. I think it’s an interesting battle between potentially ray tracing into dense polygonal geometry versus ray tracing into voxels and things like that. The appeal of voxels, like bitmaps, [is that] a lot of things can be done with filtering operations. You can stream more things in and there is still very definitely appeals about that. You start to look at them as little light field transformers rather than hard surfaces that you bounce things off of. I still wouldn’t say that the smart money is on voxels because lots of smart people have been trying it for a long time. It’s possible now with our current, modern generation graphics cards to do incredible full screen voxel rendering into hyper-detailed environments, and especially as we look towards the next generation I’m sure some people would take a stab at it. I think it’s less likely to be something that is a corner stone of a top-of-the-line triple A title. It’s in the mix but not a forgone conclusion right now.

Ryan Shrout: In the near-term, what are your thoughts on tessellation? Does id Tech 5 implement any tessellation?

John Carmack: No, we don’t have any tessellation. Tessellation is one of those things that bolting it on after the fact is not going to do anything for anybody, really. It’s a feature that you go up and look at, specifically to look at the feature you saw on the bullet point rather than something that impacts the game experience. But if you take it into account from your very early design, and this means how you create the models, how you process the data, how you decimate to your final distribution form, and where you filter things, all of these very early decisions (which we definitely did not on this generation) I think tessellation has some value now. I think it’s interesting that there is a no-man’s land, and we are right now in polygon density levels at a no-man’s land for tessellation because tessellation is at it’s best when doing a RenderMan like thing going down to micro-polygon levels. Current generation graphics hardware really kind of falls apart at the tiny levels because everything is built around dealing with quads of texels so you can get derivatives for you texture mapping on there. You always deal with four pixels, and it gets worse when you turn on multi-sample anti-aliasing (AA) where in many cases if you do tessellate down to micro-polygon sizes, the fragment processor may be operating at less than 10% of its peak efficiency. When people do tessellation right now, what it gets you is smoother things that approach curves. You can go ahead and have the curve of a skull, or the curve of a sphere. Tessellation will do a great job of that right now. It does not do a good job at the level of detail that we currently capture with normal maps. You know, the tiny little bumps in pores and dimples in pebbles. Tessellation is not very good at doing that right now because that is a pixel level, fragment level, amount of detail, and while you can crank them up (although current tessellation is kind of a pain to use because of the fixed buffer sizes on the input and output [hardware]) it is a significant amount of effort to set an engine up to do that down to an arbitrary level of detail. Current hardware is not really quite fast enough to do that down to the micro-polygon level.

It’s almost like procedural data where we’ve heard tessellation is going to be the “big thing” since the NP patches from the ATI stuff, and there are reasons why it never caught on. Because... in the early days of shells on things, when you say “well we’ve got a Bézier spline, or a NURB, or something like that,” what we would find is that, well, if we are going to have this net of 16 vertexes around here, you can do cooler game art by making that 16 vertexes for triangles. You’ll have cooler protrudes rather than your smooth Gumby shape. Now that we have the ability to go ahead and do texture sampling, and do real bump mapping, it becomes interesting from a content point, but we don’t quite have the power to do the entire world. You can run a character down like that with current generation stuff, and that’s probably useful directions but you can’t yet go ahead and render your 2 million pixel world at sub-pixel micro-polygon triangles (and certainly not at 60fps). That’s the type of performance that we are going to get no matter what, and I think the smart money bet for next generation consoles is that early on they are just going to be hyped up versions of our current technologies, but when people build technologies from scratch for that, the smart money would be on a tessellation based, you know, all the way down to micro-polygon levels with outside bets on voxel, ray tracing, and hybrid engines.

Ryan Shrout: I think you mentioned in your key note yesterday that Rage was not going to have support for Eyefinity? What is your long term view on those technologies (multi-displays, 3D technologies, how they can differential from consoles)? Is that something that you think is going to, or should, catch on?

John Carmack: Historically id is known for having a lot of patches for weird, quirky things, and I hope we can follow that up with this [after getting] the game out of the door, and the great thing is we still have another month on the PC as the console certification process takes longer than the PC, so the PC is at parity with the consoles now. You crank up the AA and all this, but we hope that we can do some extra things for the PC. Not much is going to go in initially, but I have research engines that I hope that we can release, at least as novelty patches which is what I used to do in the Geo-Quake, Quake World days. It’s not clear exactly what we are going to have with that, but I’ve promised myself that after Rage is done I get to buy a bunch of toys on the PC. I’ve got my Kinect SDK, ordered a new head mounted display, and probably will set up the multi-monitor stuff and run through all of that. A lot of that is legitimate research where i need to gauge “how important are these things that we can do, and what benefits you get by adding these additional layers?” I’ve been saying this for years, but my money is still eventually on direct ocular scanning. I think mobile devices will probably be the thing that drives it home, where we are carrying supercomputers around in our pockets that are crippled by lack of IO devices on there. I think that once we get the thing that clips on your glasses, and laser scans into your eye that gives you very high resolution.

I really strongly believe at this point that the big impact changes where people are going to say “wow, this game is so much different than what we’ve had before,” is going to be from IO devices. It is going to be... we’ve got rendering ability to do this for sure... we can do incredible virtual reality world rendering, but if you are just looking at it on a TV set there is a limit to what the extra quality will do. But if we can get down to below the perceptible response level of looking around and experiencing the world, even if we took the worlds that we just had today and were able to get that extra level of immersion... I think that’s going to make the games really go to the next level. It’s not really clear what that is... is it a consumer head mounted display, is it a free-form display, looking around at things? I think [the reason why] we haven’t gotten enough vibe from 3D displays and head tracking 3D displays is that you are still looking at a window into the world. The next big step has to be from something that attaches and moves with you.

Ryan Shrout: Something that came up, Rage is going to be... your targeting 60fps. Is there going to be any sort of benchmarking or testing modes?

John Carmack: That’s something we don’t have in yet, where it’s... in fact we need to implement at least in the next month some sort of micro-benchmark just to tell if you crank the settings to a specific level what quality it is. We don’t have time demo runs through all of this, but we probably will have some sort of artificial scenes set up just to benchmark in the video settings. We’ll then spit out a number so that you can see “can I crank up AA or down on this?” It’s frustrating on the PC that while you might have the hardware capability to run at these extremely high resolutions and all of this, we get tripped up a lot on the drivers, texture management, some of the fencing, and other resource management.

Ryan Shrout: Okay. id Tech 5, in terms of the licensing, what sort of tools do you have available for the developers?

John Carmack: It’s a high level corporate decision that there is no external licensing. Only companies in the ZeniMax family have access to the id Tech 5 technology, and there are a couple of other teams working with it right now. For the user community, all of our tools are only available in the 64 bit version. We ship the 32 bit version that we treat as a sort of console platform. We will be releasing the 64 bit version after the fact, but honestly there is going to be a limit to what people can do with it because there is so much infrastructure that goes into building a MegaTextured world. I suspect that there will be one or two people who go through the trouble to figure out how to really build a MegaTextured world, or do some of the stamping effects on there. Mostly it will be for changing game play stuff. You can set up new layers, build a new multi-player layout, and build a nightmare difficulty level going through it. Unfortunately, there is a terabyte of source art that goes into building the game and we are certainly not going to be pushing all that out for download.

Ryan Shrout: Now that you are part of the Zenimax family, you have been seeing what other developers such as Bethesda have done with Skyrim. How has that effected what you have done with Rage and what you think you’ll be doing in the future?

John Carmack: The great thing about ZeniMax is we have these Christmas “get-togethers” where all the teams get up and show their product to just the family, not worrying about how it’s going to be taken by the press or public. It’s really neat to be part of a family like this where it’s not id against the world. It’s our team here, and we can cheer for Skyrim. There have been some specific things that I’ve looked at [after] hearing Todd Howard talk about design decisions in Skyrim [concerning] what an adventure game is, and what people get out of it. There are some very specific things like how people feel about your loot and items, how you want to fondle your items, and scroll through and look at the different things. A lot of things I have as specific bullet points for Rage too, things that I want to go into and do a better job... I want to play this up. There are different genres and there are things that you choose to do one way that detracts from certain other aspects, but there is low hanging fruit that is just better: making items cooler, making more things that you can look at, things that you can completely ignore, or if that’s your thing you can go in there and drool over all of your stuff and plot your acquisition strategy for all of this. We can add this level of things to our game, and we started to with Rage but there is a lot more we can get out of it. We can add this and it can make the game much better for lots of people. Some people might not ever notice that extra stuff is there, but for some people it’s going to double the fun that they have with the game. It is great to be here with masters of the craft. There is a lot that we can learn from them, and it’s a good relationship.

Ryan Shrout: Thanks for talking with us.

John Carmack: Thank you.


August 12, 2011 | 12:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I like the summary but, Will there be a written transcript of the interview?

I can read faster than watch and I can read the articles during sanity breaks at work.

Its rare that I make time for an internet video, but I will try to for this one.

August 12, 2011 | 02:59 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We might try to do that but we hadn't planned on it. The whole idea of video (and then the written summary) was to NOT do a complete and direct transcription.

August 12, 2011 | 03:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think the subject matter is technical enough that you can assume the interested readers are not illiterate :) And yeah, i don't have time to watch a talking head for 32 minutes when i could read the transcript in 10.

August 13, 2011 | 04:17 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

And yet you have time to come on here and post 2x about it, when instead you could have watched the interview with the great illustrative video samples of games and graphic techniques.

August 12, 2011 | 03:44 PM - Posted by Wilhelm (not verified)

On a (crappy) mobile here, please make a transcript!

Also, making a transcript of anything Carmack says just makes sense :)

August 12, 2011 | 03:52 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We get enough requests and we'll probably do it. :)

August 12, 2011 | 06:56 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

+1 for a transcript.

August 12, 2011 | 07:39 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We are currently working on it!

August 13, 2011 | 12:01 AM - Posted by brickviking (not verified)

Another +1 for a transcript. Pleeeease?

Thanks, Dr Smokey.

August 13, 2011 | 12:09 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We'll have sometime tomorrow early afternoon, promise.

August 12, 2011 | 04:30 PM - Posted by Darren (not verified)

It's rare that I leap to Sony's defence, but I feel I should so here. The reason the PS3 doesn't use full 64 bit addresses is simply because it doesn't need to. John seems to find the decision strange that they don't have a >4GiB address space, but given that there's only 512MiB of memory (plus some extra devices etc), having 8byte pointers would just be a waste of space that could be better used for other stuff.

The first few versions of the PS3 SDK were truly 64bit, but enough developers complained about the waste of space using long pointers that didn't need to be long that Sony saw sense and fixed it. The 360 similarly has a 64bit processor, but only bothers with a 32bit address space, simply because it's enough.

August 12, 2011 | 04:50 PM - Posted by DJ Fitz (not verified)

Another vote for the transcript. Besides being faster to read than view, a transcript would allow so much more. A transcript leads to indexing, which leads to searching, which leads to traffic from search engines, and ultimately more traffic on your site as a whole. This provides a much higher value for everyone far beyond the enjoyment and edification of just watching a John Carmack interview.

But anyways, thanks again for the interview. Always great to hear what John has been up to and the state of game development.

August 12, 2011 | 05:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Transcript please!

August 12, 2011 | 05:42 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We do have an editor working on it now. We'll add it as third page on this review today or tomorrow.

Thanks for reading!

August 12, 2011 | 10:28 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

Did someone say my name?!

August 13, 2011 | 12:37 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Indeed, Tim is that lucky man.

August 13, 2011 | 09:19 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Ask and you shall receive (sometimes), the interview transcript:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/John-Carmack-Interview-GPU-Race-I...

August 13, 2011 | 10:28 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Thanks for the transcript, Tim!

August 13, 2011 | 07:07 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

You're welcome!

August 12, 2011 | 05:13 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

(Great summary though, thanks for that!)

August 12, 2011 | 07:16 PM - Posted by Paul Fjeld (not verified)

I for one am blown away by the clarity of the questions and Carmack's clear replies. You don't get a proper appreciation for how great an extemporaneous speaker Carmack is in a transcript, although the data density is certainly high enough to make a transcript useful. But I think it is worth the time to just listen to two smart people going at a complex subject.

Well done!

August 12, 2011 | 07:30 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thanks Paul!

August 12, 2011 | 10:21 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

1 TB is not that much anymore.

My PC is busy so I will cut this short ;) :)

August 13, 2011 | 12:38 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

It sure would be a lot to DOWNLOAD though, right?

August 13, 2011 | 07:08 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

Yeah, their bandwidth costs would be astronomical! I suppose they could go the bittorent route and just let their users host it for them, but I doubt they do that :( lol

August 13, 2011 | 04:04 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I love how this interview guy pretends like he knows what Carmack is saying. Dude, I'm about to get a PhD in Neuroscience and I've been watching Carmack talk for 10 years, and I barely can follow what he says even with my failed CS degree. I would never be like "OK..sure..cool..right...OK..yeah..Cool..OK...yeah" when talking with the pioneers of my field. And then read some pre-made questions to ask him. OMG dude! Have you even played DOOM? Romero would make you his bitch.

August 13, 2011 | 04:49 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

PhD in Neuroscience? That's cool and all but you know, he isn't talking about neuroscience. If you managed to fail CS degree, it's not surprising that you can't follow Carmack. I could follow most of the stuff he was talking about and who knows what kind of background the interviewer has. He at least had good questions on the subject.

August 13, 2011 | 08:55 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Exactly. There was very little stuff I didn't understand. After working in the graphics field for 11 years now, I have a pretty good grasp. Could I compete with Carmack in SAYING all of that? Nope. Could I understand most of it? Yup.

August 13, 2011 | 05:10 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Great interview - though I dont think Ryan knows what he's talking about most of the time- check out the nervous nods in slightly the wrong places to simulate understanding.

Remember though, John is supposed to be doing the talking, not Ryan, and it succeeds in that aim.

Oh - previous poster, said same thing. Dont be hard on ryan: its all geeky techy stuff; not understanding is more a function of John's extreme geekiness than Ryans lack of intelligence. Low level programming knowledge does not equate to god-like wisdom. It's the guys job & passion, after all.

From what I've seen of Rage so far, it looks just like another boring shooter. Totally unexciting. Pioneer or no pioneer back in the day, I'm not that interested in their games.

August 13, 2011 | 09:27 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I thought the interviewer saying "OK" "OK" "Right" "Right" constantly was really annoying.

August 13, 2011 | 09:48 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

OK Right

August 13, 2011 | 10:16 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Mm hmm...

August 13, 2011 | 09:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Thanks heaps for the transcript! I really appreciate your effort.

August 13, 2011 | 07:10 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

You're welcome, I hope it helped!

August 13, 2011 | 11:56 AM - Posted by pdjblum

Ryan, not intending to mean or insulting, but so I might not feel any more of an idiot that I already am, did you really instantaneously get what he was saying? If you did, you are incredibly knowledgeable in this area of expertise. Wish I got half of it. I will listen again, but doubt that will improve my comprehension. Certainly doesn't take much to get John talking, and I guess in consideration of time constraints, you were regularly saying "OK" and "right" to move him along and get to the next question. Personally, though I really liked the range of questions, I would have been fine listening to him answer one question in the time allowed. Anyway, good job.

August 13, 2011 | 07:53 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

You are correct - part of the reason I was saying those things was attempting to find a break point to interject and get some more questions in. Obviously I failed.

Also, as for how much of it I understood, I think I got about 75% as we went - I don't think I am near the level of many other technical writers out there but having dealt with this for 11 years I picked up quite a bit.

August 13, 2011 | 08:49 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

lol, now you know how I feel trying to get a word in edgewise with Katy! :P

August 13, 2011 | 09:32 PM - Posted by pdjblum

I assure you, understanding 75% is quite impressive. As far as knowing as much as other technical writers, you bring a lot more to the table that is more important to what you do.

August 13, 2011 | 11:58 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I really, REALLY want Carmack's q2 shirt.

August 13, 2011 | 03:14 PM - Posted by WilhelmR (not verified)

Transcript = awesomeness.

Thanks guys :)

August 13, 2011 | 04:41 PM - Posted by Rahul (not verified)

Good interview and good diverse (and interesting) questions!
Listening to Carmack is always interesting. Thanks for doing this!

August 13, 2011 | 04:49 PM - Posted by Marc Roussel (not verified)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw&feature=player_embedded#at=77

:)

August 13, 2011 | 05:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

This interview is the exact opposite of an interview with say Robert Dinero. With him you could bearly get him to say anything other than yes and no to your questions so the time was filled with the interviewer trying to fill the space by talking. Carmack is an interviewers dream. You ask one question and sit back for 20 minutes a let him go. That being said, he is obviously brilliant. Notice for instance he rarely says "um".... or "right"... or any other things that allow you time to think stuff out, it just flowes out perfectly.

August 13, 2011 | 07:13 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

Yeah, he is a talker, that's for sure! He always has a lot of interesting things to say.

August 17, 2011 | 11:39 AM - Posted by Brad Hollister (not verified)

Not to belittle Mr. Carmack in anyway, but most of his interview answers were really at a high-level / project manager style. This is nothing a smooth talking software salesman couldn't pull off. And for the lack of "um..." or "right...", all that suggests is that he has confidence and has talked on these topics many times before (probably everyday at id). In fact, give a listen to some very brilliant people like Dr. Robert Shiller (Yale) or Dr. Summers (former president of Harvard) and you'll find many "um..." and pauses, which appear to be signs of measured speaking and reflection. Mr. Carmack definitely has been a very successful software engineer which is in part due to proper timing (right code for the right market time).

More importantly, we should all be discussing the content of what he said, not the style or the judgement of the man. I found the hybrid ray-tracer (ray casting for only specular reflections in the context of a rasterized pipeline) quite interesting but superficial in presentation. However, the unnecessary ratio analysis of developer time / rasterized based shaders versus developer time / x86 cores (pertaining to the offline raytracing done for textures) not to be completely necessary - at least in the way he presented it (again nothing more than a stock analyst could pull off).

August 14, 2011 | 06:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Have anyone seen the CentiLeo GPU ray tracer? They show virtual memory access working very well on consumer GPU, it was presented on Siggraph very impressively. Here are some first news about them http://gpgpu.org/2011/08/04/centileo-out-of-core-ray-tracer

August 14, 2011 | 06:23 PM - Posted by Cyco-Dude (not verified)

well, it's about as i figured: as these games get more and more complex, it gets harder and harder for the modding community. with quake 3, even i could make a map. now, you'll need a very talented team to do that. it's a real shame, and a good reason why i'll bet this game disappears 1.5 years after release.

i'm still waiting for a true successor to quake 3...i wonder if those days are over?

August 14, 2011 | 06:43 PM - Posted by FlowSim_geek (not verified)

I am pretty sure the transcript should read "[...] people start looking at Navier-Stokes equations [...]" instead of "[...] people start to look for your Stokes equations [...]" in Carmacks first answer. Those equations are actually used to simulate (turbulent) fluid flow, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

August 14, 2011 | 09:41 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

yeah, you're right. I listened to that at least twice and both times I heard your, but listening to it this time I heard Navier. I'll see about updating it, thanks for the heads up :)

August 14, 2011 | 08:21 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

'doing a render “man-like thing” going down to micro-polygon levels'

should actually be

'doing a RenderMan-like thing going down to micro-polygon levels'

August 14, 2011 | 09:43 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

Ah, so it's a proper noun... I hadn't heard of that before so took his words to mean rendering a human like form/character hehe. I'll see about updating it.

August 15, 2011 | 11:06 AM - Posted by pdjblum

Listened for a second time and was able to understand a lot more than I did the first time. With this listening, was able to recognize when John was going off on a tangent. Ryan did his best to reel him in. Great job and great interview. Thanks.

August 16, 2011 | 01:14 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thanks, appreciate the comment!

August 15, 2011 | 12:54 PM - Posted by BJ Blazkowicz (not verified)

“well we’ve got a Bézier spline, or a nerve, or something like that,”
should probably be
“well we’ve got a Bézier spline, or a NURB, or something like that,”

NURB is short for Non-Uniform Rational B-spline. Makes a bit more sense in context.

August 16, 2011 | 04:16 AM - Posted by Tim Verry

hehe, nice catch. John needs to subtitle himself when he starts talking super technical :)

PS Awesome username

August 19, 2011 | 03:56 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Great guest and great Interview Ryan. Thank You, and thanks for 166 great hardware podcasts you've given us.

You guys could talk for 350 minutes and I'd not stop listening! Enjoyed watching two smart people didcussing intelligently about interesting topics, but you said Ok, OK too many times. Although certainly not your intention, it came accross as if the guest was boring and you needed to terminate each thread. Also, now that you've got this guy, why sit him in front of the elevators and in such a noisy environment with crew members pushing carts around in the background? Heck, with a guest like that, I would've rented a presidential suite room, sat on the couch and had a relaxed long conversation.

March 26, 2012 | 04:57 PM - Posted by Angel G (not verified)

I`ve played DOOM-I with great excitement, because it was the first game with such technology.
But have to say that their games need to become "inspired content", take for example SW KOTOR-II; Witcher-2; etc.
I mean that the game should make you feel, take decisions and witness the consequence, not just point & shoot everything, because it`s boring to kill thousands of opponents (at least for me).
It`s boring also to search labyrinths without any clue where to go....

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.