Though he’s widely regarded as an innovator, Carmack is a big fan of old-school arcade games. He’s also an unlikely supporter of Nintendo’s recently announced philosophy that games have become too difficult.
id’s John Carmack
“I agree strongly with that point of view, but I’m in the minority in the PC space,” he told me last week at QuakeCon – the annual Woodstock-like gathering of “Doom” and “Quake” fans. “I want a game you can sit down with, pick up and play. [Role playing games], for example, got to where they had to have a book ship with the game.”
Lest hardcore gamers fear Carmack is going soft, he notes his fights to simplify “Doom 3” haven’t always been successful. He admits the id Software developers got into bitter arguments about whether to include “crouch” and “use” keys in the upcoming game. (He lost the debate over “crouch” – which now appears – but convinced the team there was no need for a “use” key.)
I’m not dissing Mr. Carmack, since I feel all gamers owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. However, that said, haven’t many (most?) CRPGs shipped with significant instruction manuals for quite some time? I remember fondly some of the manuals that game with various games for my C64 or Franklin Ace 1200 (Apple ][ clone).
I’m not a big RPG gamer, but, with the exception of console RPGs – which is a big exception – haven’t most computer RPGs shipped with hefty manuals for the better part of a decade or two?
Quake II didn’t have a “Use” key for manipulating the environment, only for selecting items from your inventory. I seem to remember opening doors and activating switches in Q2 simply by bumping up against them.
I agree that the use key is pretty useless in most FPS games, and wokka wokka hey to all that. But is this really all that controversial? I’m still playing Undying and any time you need to do something, you just walk up to it, and most FPS games have followed this model ever since Quake. Inserting a use key just gives me a few thousand more space bar presses throughout a game, which isn’t really a bulletpoint feature on the back of most game boxes. Unless I can use an item in more than one way (by which I mean something deeper and more gameplay affecting than simple on-off, open-close status) making the player actually input that status change is a waste of time. Where it gets interesting is in games like Deus Ex, System Shock and Thief, and even then not usually. I know there are maniacs like Koontz who want to bind alt-shift-g through k as “grasp knob”, “turn knob”, “push door”, “release knob” but it is hard to see how this would be interesting to anyone except the “simulate the real life I can’t actually access by playing video games all day long” crowd.
Still, it sounds as if Carmack is preaching a universal return to NES two-button interfaces, and that isn’t where I want to see all games go. It seems ridiculous to squander the increasing amount of interactivity technology allows game designers to implement behind some sort of Rousseau-esque “noble savage” design philosophy. Certainly, interfaces should be as simple as possible to use, but I’m not sure why a game’s design needs to be hampered by that. If “making games simpler” means “keeping games as interactive as Doom 2”, which every single game Carmack and Co. have designed since Doom 2 leads me to believe, count me the hell out. Give me intricate, intriguing options in a complicated environment, because I’ve already played Doom 2, but make it as easy to play as Doom 2. Don’t hide behind a philosophy of returning to simplicity to cover up for your lack of skills in interface design.
Anyway, a lot of his points are weird anyway - most RPGs don’t ship with huge manuals to explain the interface, but to flesh out the game world, document the equipment available and to explain the mathematics behind the interface. And, except for the last one, that’s what all manuals do anyway.
Truly, what everyone wants from a video game is bouncing on jump pads and instant-kill weapons. Hopefully their next game will include only those two features.
While it’s sad that Carmack can’t even seem to see the value in more elaborate games, I do think the Use key is extraneous in a shooter.
Simply equip with whatever you want to use and bump against it. Why add extra mechanics to simulate what’s a subconscious activity in real life anyway? (IE: Equip the keys and bump the door is fine – why equip the keys, go to the door, and then select “use?”)
In an RPG, or even an RPG-ish shooter, a use key is fine. In a vacuous twitch-and-death-fest like the DOOM games, it’s unnecessary.
Well, to a point. In Doom, I liked being able to sidle up to a door and angle myself just right, then open it at the time of my choosing for maximum imp-blasting fun.
By reducing mechanics to just running around and bumping into everything, I risk my careful positioning by accidentally bumping the door and flinging it open prematurely. I would become imp chow. This, good sir, is not acceptable!
Besides, it’s always felt silly and clumsy to me to bump into things to activate them. Adding a single key to activate items is hardly overburdening the interface. I think everyone is just getting too old to remember all the buttons now. :P
All the fan boys out there crack me up. Some of them think Carmack is TEH GRETAST PRGMEER EVAR! Some think he should make his own OS and take on Microsoft, some think he’s going to take over NASA. Now, Carmack deserves recognition for what he has done inthe industry, but there are many programmers that I’d say are as good or even better than he is that just aren’t in a high profile company like id. They were in the right place at the right time with the right product, much like BioWare with BG.
As for his game design ideas, I think I’ll bow to people that have made compelling single player games before I follow his initiative.
I think the Use key plays a necessary part in many well designed FPS games, especially Half-Life, NOLF/NOLF 2, and MOH:AA. Like Creole Ned, the one thing I don’t want happening is accidentally opening a door and unleashing a horde of enemies simply because I’m standing next to it, or unintentionally activating objects, vehicles and mounted weapons because I bumped against it in the middle of a firefight. In games with vehicles like HL, NOLF and Jedi Outcast, the Use key can let you choose when and where to engage the enemy, by letting you dismount your rail cart, snowmobile, AT-ST or whatever, so that you can get in some sniping or to sneak up on your enemies, before you get back on it to resume your trip. Searching for intelligence documents and extra goodies in the NOLF games depends almost entirely on the Use key (although it’s bound to the right mouse button), and since you need to devote time to it, it adds an extra layer of tension when sneaking around. In Half-Life I can choose how much of the health and armor charge-up stations I want to use up and I can save some for later if I want because of the Use key. If I’m using a tank for cover in MOH:AA and I walk into it cause I’m dodging gunfire, I don’t necessarily want to plant a timed explosive on the tank or drive it at that particular moment, so the Use key is a must. Playing through the Black Mesa training mission in HL can provide you with a reminder of the many interesting things that could potentially be done with a Use key in any shooter.
He is, but I disagree with his belief that games have gotten more complicated. They have actually gotten much, much simpler. Go mess around with something like Warcraft III, and then go back and futz with some older strategy titles–the original Civilization, for instance, or Warlords II. Panzer General was considered a “beer and pretzels” game in its day, but it’s far more complex than most strategy games today.
There are different types of complexity, too. I think all games should strive for simple interfaces, but it’s a matter of degrees, depending on what you need the interface to do. I strongly disagree that all games should be of the “pick up and play” variety. There is some value to having complex gameplay sometimes–it can add depth to a game that you otherwise lose. Most console games follow the “pick up and play” formula, and I dislike most console games, so I very much do not want to see PC games go too far in that direction.
Carmack is, I think, a little more than lucky. He’s made a concerted effot to maintain a public face and act as a leader in the game programming community. He’s driven the direction of the industry and become the voice of “conventional wisdom” by speaking publicly both online and in industry events, and placing examples of process and procedure into the public domain.
He may not be the greatest programmer ever, but like most of the great geniuses remembered by history, he has combined a proven level of skill with an excellent ability to communicate.
That being said, I think that his game design skills are next to non-existent. He understands control and response, but subtlety of design is hardly the legacy of id’s games.
Sure, games like that need a use key. But we’re talking ID games here. Their games have typically been a bit lighter on the play mechanics than the games you cite.
After the sheer disappointment of Quake III, I have to admit I’m more excited about the DOOM 3 engine than I am about the game. Lots of Quake III-engine games I loved, but Quake III itself was an empty, boring game to me. I like some strategy with my carnage. I do hold out some hope for DOOM 3 since it has a single-player mode.
