I found myself on Wikipedia looking at doom and its innovation, then ran over to Quake and realized how driven this guy really was. Here is the interview I found (yeah not the latest news) Interview with John. My favorite part was at around *8:35 where be begins talking about why a next gen console may not be completed needed at this point.

Who do you believe the video games industries most influential people are?

Cheers!

I strongly recommend reading Masters of Doom if you have not already had the chance - it is very interesting reading.

Along that same vein, Dungeons & Dreamers is also an excellent read

I strongly recommend reading Masters of Doom if you have not already had the chance - it is very interesting reading.

I can second Masters of Doom - it was a really fascinating story, and gives some insight into how things "came to be".

I found myself on Wikipedia looking at doom and its innovation, then ran over to Quake and realized how driven this guy really was. Here is the interview I found (yeah not the latest news) Interview with John. My favorite part was at around *8:35 where be begins talking about why a next gen console may not be completed needed at this point.

Who do you believe the video games industries most influential people are?

Cheers!

John Carmack also said that dedicated game servers are unnecessary. These days he just says whatver hes paid to say. I think recently there are many tech leads outshining Carmack but they arn't in the media spotlight.

John Carmack also said that dedicated game servers are unnecessary. These days he just says whatver hes paid to say. I think recently there are many tech leads outshining Carmack but they arn't in the media spotlight.

I was thinking this too. I note how the well known figures in games - John Carmack, Sid Meier and so on - are those individuals who did notable things back in the 80s and 90s, when it was still feasible for an individual to make a significant impact on their own.

These days the cutting edge games seem to require larger development teams, and the leaders are more likely to be project management type roles AFAICT. Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000? Would we be talking about Carmack now if he hadn't have done Doom and Quake in the 90s? There are many major technically impressive games these days, but most would be hard pressed to name any of the individual developers.

[Another example would be the emotional outpouring and press coverage for Steve Jobs - there are some business leaders that for some reason are public figureheads - Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar (who was so even before The Apprentice), Rupert Murdoch - yet there are many major multinationals producing products that loads of us use every day, yet most people don't have a clue who the CEOs are. It's not that those companies aren't as important or haven't done as much, it's just that most of the time, people don't know who the individuals involved are.]

Carmack really isn't in touch with modern game technologies anymore. He's well vesed in graphics technology but even that has advance far beyond what Doom or Rage uses. The cutting edge stuff is now being done by DICE, Rockstar, Crytek, etc.. and it's not done by one person, but teams now. Games have advance beyond the garage inventor stage and now is more like a movie studio..

These days the cutting edge games seem to require larger development teams, and the leaders are more likely to be project management type roles AFAICT. Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000? Would we be talking about Carmack now if he hadn't have done Doom and Quake in the 90s?

I think Carmack's opinion would still weigh heavily if for no other reason than he's driven to keep learning and actually developing rather than shifting entirely to a management position. He also has a huge breadth and depth of knowledge that is still fairly up to date even if you don't agree with the conclusions he comes to.

I think Doom and Quake's success did in large part come naturally from his personality and expertise, and to ask the question "what if he hadn't done quake or doom?" implies him having a different personality that would lead him to be less credible/talked about. Not sure if that made sense, but what I'm saying is John Carmack and Doom/Quake are essentially the chicken and the egg; if either is removed from the equation, the other would have to be fundamentally different from what we currently perceive them to be.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1325602455' post='4899253']
These days the cutting edge games seem to require larger development teams, and the leaders are more likely to be project management type roles AFAICT. Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000? Would we be talking about Carmack now if he hadn't have done Doom and Quake in the 90s?

I think Carmack's opinion would still weigh heavily if for no other reason than he's driven to keep learning and actually developing rather than shifting entirely to a management position. He also has a huge breadth and depth of knowledge that is still fairly up to date even if you don't agree with the conclusions he comes to.[/quote]Weigh heavily on who? I mean yes, it would weigh heavily on his company, just like other people in other companies. He might write articles and papers, like other people in the industry do. But would he be a well known name in gaming, distinct from most others in the industry?

I think Doom and Quake's success did in large part come naturally from his personality and expertise, and to ask the question "what if he hadn't done quake or doom?" implies him having a different personality that would lead him to be less credible/talked about. Not sure if that made sense, but what I'm saying is John Carmack and Doom/Quake are essentially the chicken and the egg; if either is removed from the equation, the other would have to be fundamentally different from what we currently perceive them to be.[/quote]I see what you mean, but consider someone with similar skills, but born later so them not producing a Doom/Quake in the 90s wasn't due to having a different set of skills, but simply being too young at that time.

Plus I think there's a point that "He wrote Doom" only goes so far - yes, when comparing Carmack to someone in the industry of a similar age to him, we might say Carmack deserves recognition for writing Doom, when the other guy didn't. But when it comes to judging what people are doing today in the industry, I think "But he wrote Doom" only goes so far - it will always be important in the history of gaming technology, but that's a different thing to it being relevant to discussing technology today.

Weigh heavily on who? I mean yes, it would weigh heavily on his company, just like other people in other companies. He might write articles and papers, like other people in the industry do. But would he be a well known name in gaming, distinct from most others in the industry?

I see what you mean, but consider someone with similar skills, but born later so them not producing a Doom/Quake in the 90s wasn't due to having a different set of skills, but simply being too young at that time.

Plus I think there's a point that "He wrote Doom" only goes so far - yes, when comparing Carmack to someone in the industry of a similar age to him, we might say Carmack deserves recognition for writing Doom, when the other guy didn't. But when it comes to judging what people are doing today in the industry, I think "But he wrote Doom" only goes so far - it will always be important in the history of gaming technology, but that's a different thing to it being relevant to discussing technology today.

I think if he were born today and 25 years from now he had the same personality/drive he had when he was that age in 1995, he'd end up being involved in something that would net him nearly as much impact as Doom. By the time he was 40 he'd probably be in one of two places. Either he'd have been an indy developer, and probably a fairly successful one if for no other reason than the speed he is able to produce quality results, in which case we'd probably have a hugely inflated view of how important his opinion is (in my experience successful indy developers opinions usually carry a lot of weight regardless of the accuracy of content) or he'd be well on his way to being a tech lead at a major company making major contributions to the success of their games in which case by the time he were 40 his opinion would probably carry significant weight.

One of those two or he'd be working at Nasa.

Essentially I don't think his personality/drive would allow for a situation to arise where his opinion wouldn't be taken seriously.