http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3 ... speaks.php
I thought this was interesting:
But regarding the last paragraph, I think it's neat that a guy who's done so many big titles is interested in working on something that, many years ago, would have been just in the margins.
I thought this was interesting:
I'm surprised that Quake 3 wasn't as successful as Quake 2. Doom 3, I understand: it had been a long time since the last Doom, and Doom 3 was a huge graphical leap over Quake 3.John Carmack wrote:And Quake III was my game. I am all about the elegant, simple, minimalist design. And we thought it was a good thing for what it is. But it wasn't as successful as either Quake II or Doom 3, the games that bracketed it -- although it was plenty successful to be worthwhile.
But it has become clear, over the years since then, that what people expect from a current triple-A title is everything and the kitchen sink. Especially in an established genre like first-person shooters, you have to have everything nowadays. And it's a tall order to go ahead and do all of that. People expect a lot for their $50 or $60 that they're plunking down.
That's all well and good, and it's led to some really fabulous titles coming out, but there is still a lot to be said for that minimalist, simple game design. When we're not trying to claw $60 out of somebody's back pocket, I think there is a place for things that are simple. And I think that there's a possibility that we can actually attract many more players to this than to the big games with the really high barrier to entry.
But regarding the last paragraph, I think it's neat that a guy who's done so many big titles is interested in working on something that, many years ago, would have been just in the margins.
