[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1325688146' post='4899591']
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.
[/quote]

I don't really agree. If he was born today, I don't think we'd ever hear of him. I don't deny his genius in programming. But genius only goes so far. Drive, motivation, etc., help, but honestly, I know plenty of people who are driven and are fairly intelligent, who are working menial jobs.

There's just more competition today, which only buries more and more talented and motivated individuals. That includes the indie scene too. And while I respect his programming prowess, Carmack has never really been a good game designer. I look at his work and say "Wow, I never knew a computer could do that", and not "Wow, this is a fun game". A lot of what helps levitate many of the great individuals is having a good team which can complement your strengths while offsetting your weaknesses. This was even true with John Carmack.

A lot of it takes luck, being in the right place at the right time. Luck almost always trumps skill.

You're talking as if it were impossible for lone individuals to make a difference in today's world. Granted, there's a bit of luck involved, even he recognizes it. But so happens with everyone and everything; from small to big corporations included.

A lot of it takes luck, being in the right place at the right time. Luck almost always trumps skill.

I really disagree with this in general. 'Right place right time' is a total myth to me. At best it's an incomplete truth. I'm going to post this because it's relevant, so from here:

The R.P.R.T. Myth: Successful people make it because they’re in the right place at the right time.
Reality: It does help to be in the right place at the right time. Many successful entrepreneurs attribute their success to this. But that’s not the whole story. First, any successful entrepreneur who was in the right place at the right time, had to be the right person in the right place, at the right time. In other words, just being clued in on a trend, discovering an innovation, or getting a hot tip isn’t enough. In fact there are opportunities coming at us – all of us – all the time. We’ve all been in the right place at the right time at some point, and we will be again and again. It’s those who recognize those opportunities and act upon them who reap the rewards. Have you ever had a brilliant idea that you didn’t act on and then saw the same idea come to fruition for someone else years later? You were in the right place at the right time for the idea to come to you, and so was the person who made it happen. The reality is that “R.P.R.T.” can’t make it happen. Taking the opportunity given to you in the right place at the right time and making it successful takes work, dedication and focus, not luck.[/quote]

Doom might have been in the right place at the right time and that's what made Doom successful, but if Doom weren't successful do you think Carmack wouldn't have made another successful game that eventually was in the right place at the right time? The RPRT is much more frequent than it's made out to be, it's just that it's rarely capitalized on; I just think John Carmack is the type of person who would be able to capitalize on it quickly.

edit: Here's a Bob Hope quote that I think puts it well, "I've always been in the right place and time. Of course, I steered myself there."

You're talking as if it were impossible for lone individuals to make a difference in today's world. Granted, there's a bit of luck involved, even he recognizes it. But so happens with everyone and everything; from small to big corporations included.

I really disagree with this in general. 'Right place right time' is a total myth to me. At best it's an incomplete truth. I'm going to post this because it's relevant, so from here:

The R.P.R.T. Myth: Successful people make it because they’re in the right place at the right time.
Reality: It does help to be in the right place at the right time. Many successful entrepreneurs attribute their success to this. But that’s not the whole story. First, any successful entrepreneur who was in the right place at the right time, had to be the right person in the right place, at the right time. In other words, just being clued in on a trend, discovering an innovation, or getting a hot tip isn’t enough. In fact there are opportunities coming at us – all of us – all the time. We’ve all been in the right place at the right time at some point, and we will be again and again. It’s those who recognize those opportunities and act upon them who reap the rewards. Have you ever had a brilliant idea that you didn’t act on and then saw the same idea come to fruition for someone else years later? You were in the right place at the right time for the idea to come to you, and so was the person who made it happen. The reality is that “R.P.R.T.” can’t make it happen. Taking the opportunity given to you in the right place at the right time and making it successful takes work, dedication and focus, not luck.

Doom might have been in the right place at the right time and that's what made Doom successful, but if Doom weren't successful do you think Carmack wouldn't have made another successful game that eventually was in the right place at the right time? The RPRT is much more frequent than it's made out to be, it's just that it's rarely capitalized on; I just think John Carmack is the type of person who would be able to capitalize on it quickly.

edit: Here's a Bob Hope quote that I think puts it well, "I've always been in the right place and time. Of course, I steered myself there."
[/quote]

I agree that a lone individual can make a difference. But for what Carmack is known for, being born today, it would put him at such a signficant disadvantage that I don't think someone of his caliber would be that person. As I've stated before, Carmack is better known for his technical abilities than his game design abilities. He wouldn't be the person to create Minecraft. But when it comes to technology, he exploited lesser known avenues for the 1980's and 1990's, which are obselete today. And for his technical expertise later afterwards, he has a step up on other people, in which he is already known and has a voice that wouldn't be accessible to even someone of potentially greater intellect who was born later, primarily because they're unknown. Twenty+ years from today is still twenty+ years worth of technological improvement and complexity. That, and he also has 40 years of experience and knowledge which a future 20 year old wouldn't have.

I just don't see his skillset too useful as a lone individual for the future. Richard Garriott, Roberta Williams, Andrew C Greenberg, and Robert Woodhead were some of the most influential people in the gaming industry. But the keyword here is were. I doubt any of them had any less drive than Carmack, and they all had to be pretty intelligent too to become as successful as they became. But it depends on the type of intelligence. I see it as a question to whether you believe or not that a person can apply their talent to another area. With limited exceptions, I just don't see this as realistic.

As for the R.P.R.T., yes, it involves the right person. But part of the fallacy in the above is you're basing Carmack as a sole individual. I view him more as a figurehead of a core group of people. He might have created the engine for Doom, but he didn't create Doom nor Wolfenstein. He had help which complemented him. And in no way did I say that he wasn't motivated. I never stated that you can become famous, rich, or whatever, just sitting around doing nothing all day. But I'd say it's closer to an incomplete truth than a total myth for me. Only a handful of individuals succeed in life to the extent that Carmack did. I find it hard to believe that it's just dedication and dedication alone. There's not just a simple formula on how to make yourself successful, otherwise everyone could do it. To me, it's more like playing a table game at a casino. Skill helps, but luck is definitely a factor. And unfortunately, at the end of the day, most people end up losing.

But when it comes to technology, he exploited lesser known avenues for the 1980's and 1990's, which are obselete today. And for his technical expertise later afterwards, he has a step up on other people, in which he is already known and has a voice that wouldn't be accessible to even someone of potentially greater intellect who was born later, primarily because they're unknown. Twenty+ years from today is still twenty+ years worth of technological improvement and complexity. That, and he also has 40 years of experience and knowledge which a future 20 year old wouldn't have.

I just don't see his skillset too useful as a lone individual for the future.

I don't think the skillset he has today, other than being a very gifted computer scientist, would be the same skillset he'd have in my scenario.

As for the R.P.R.T., yes, it involves the right person. But part of the fallacy in the above is you're basing Carmack as a sole individual. I view him more as a figurehead of a core group of people. He might have created the engine for Doom, but he didn't create Doom nor Wolfenstein.
[/quote]
And I don't mean to discount the people that were around him, who were also very good. I just think that, being as good as Carmack is, he would eventually surround himself with other great people and make a great product. With other people surrounding him that might have been a hack n slash game, an action rpg, or a racing sim; I still think he would eventually have been the right guy in the right place at the right time.

Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000?

Will Right? He still takes credit for everything maxis does. And boasts about being the sole inventor of sims, he(maxis) did wanders with simcity 4 in my opinion, far more than I've ever felt carmack did with graphics.

oh Wolf gang engle... probably butcher his name...wasn't he the lead behind the gta3 series engine?

Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000?

To what's been said:
This guy, these two guys, and this guy

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.

It's funny that you later mention Steve Jobs. His entire life was about being told exactly what you've just said; it goes something like "stop it! you've been lucky last time, now you're old and outdated". It wasn't until around 2006 IIRC that business people, analyst, and even some tech people got tired of foreseeing Job's "next failure" and started quietly waiting for next Job's invention.
He's now being remembered as one of the top innovators, probably mainly due to his death. But 90% of his life was filled with rejection & opposition, being "obsolete" was one of the top reasons.

We could attempt to say that the days of Pacman taking over the gaming market are over: easy program, big sales. Well, first, coding Pacman in it's time was hell incredibly diffcult, and secondly, then I see games like Angry Birds and well... not exactly Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty.

I think some of those people are more known as being businessmen - yes, it's true that there are recent public figures for Internet businesses (e.g., Facebook). The Sims would be a good example

On the flip side though, I think it's still true that there are many cutting edge games where the people involved aren't well known figures.

It's funny that you later mention Steve Jobs. His entire life was about being told exactly what you've just said; it goes something like "stop it! you've been lucky last time, now you're old and outdated". It wasn't until around 2006 IIRC that business people, analyst, and even some tech people got tired of foreseeing Job's "next failure" and started quietly waiting for next Job's invention.

All I've seen is the entire media hyping everything Apple might be rumoured to do, long before 2006. Things are hyped as an overwhelming success before they're even official announced, whilst their competitors are denounced as failures (even if they sell more in the market). It's true that the obsession has got far worse in recent years, though I'm not sure the media have ever been cruel to Apple. Perhaps Jobs met opposition in business, but that's certainly not the media portrayal of Apple. My list was meant to make clear that being a public figurehead has little to do with what the company produces - e.g., I doubt Amstrad are high up on anyone's list.

Not that this is anything to do with anything I said. I'm not saying that Carmack or anyone else is obsolete. Indeed I'm not really saying anything, but asking a question. From the point that RivieraKid made - is it really true that Carmack is better than everyone else, or is he now known for what he did years ago?

Indeed, even for the examples that people mentioned, I don't think any of these are as well known as Carmack. Not that he doesn't deserve to be well known - but as I say, work in the 1990s isn't that relevant if we are discussing who is pushing the boundaries in games technology today.

We could attempt to say that the days of Pacman taking over the gaming market are over: easy program, big sales. Well, first, coding Pacman in it's time was hell incredibly diffcult, and secondly, then I see games like Angry Birds and well... not exactly Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty.[/quote]Indeed, it's long been known you don't need cutting edge technology to succeed. E.g., the Wii being more successful than X Box or Playstation due to the input devices. Especially long been true for mobile devices - simpler games on Gameboys and DSs; being able to get away with selling simpler games or even just ringtones as long been the case on mobile/"smart" phones. Although I'd argue that a lot of what leads to success here is a lot more to do with factors like marketing.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1325602455' post='4899253']
Is there any public figure in games that's known for something done since 2000?

To what's been said:
This guy, these two guys, and this guy [/quote]
I think Jonathan Blow is a better example than Notch. Notch really was a RPRT situation. Not to undermine Minecraft's success, but I don't think anybody could have realistically predicted or even hoped Minecraft would have taken off like that.

@way2lazy2care: Yes, no doubt a later-born Carmack would still be doing great stuff. But as a "well on his way to being a tech lead at a major company", would it be a name we'd be talking about on here, or a name well known by your average gamer? (As opposed to say industry professionals.) I mean that's the thing here - John Carmack and Sid Meier etc are the kinds of people your average gamer or computer geek know about, a level of fame far above being known or respected in the industry.

As for the people listed since 2000: I think some of those people are more known as being businessmen - yes, it's true that there are recent public figures for Internet businesses (e.g., Facebook). I also agree with Nytegard - yes, clearly there are individuals who can become known, but it's unclear if this is down to being an individual creating game technology, as opposed to someone who is known because of their business, or because of their game design - or indeed, good marketing.

As for the question of luck, I think it's a mixture, and depends on the reasons. If someone went back in time, could they create Doom and get recognition? Well, Doom wasn't just an idea, you had to be skilled enough to do it - figuring out the techniques went you didn't already learn them, and doing them on 1990s hardware, is harder than doing so now of course. I think I'd agree that actually, someone creating Doom would get recognition, and this wasn't simply luck. But at the same time, it's clear that these days creating the cutting edge technology doesn't seem to get you known by the average game - at best, you might rise to become someone known in the industry.

(That doesn't mean I think that needing luck is a myth, there are other examples where this may well be a bigger factor.)

It's funny that you later mention Steve Jobs. His entire life was about being told exactly what you've just said; it goes something like "stop it! you've been lucky last time, now you're old and outdated". It wasn't until around 2006 IIRC that business people, analyst, and even some tech people got tired of foreseeing Job's "next failure" and started quietly waiting for next Job's invention.

I'm not sure I'd agree, regarding media coverage. All I've seen is the media hyping everything Apple might be rumoured to do, long before 2006. Things are hyped as an overwhelming success before they're even officially announced, whilst their competitors are denounced as failures (even if they sell more in the market). It's true that the obsession has got far worse in recent years, though I'm not sure the media have ever been cruel to Apple. Perhaps Jobs met opposition in business, but that's certainly not the media portrayal of Apple as a company, or of Jobs as an individual. My list was meant to make clear that being a public figurehead has little to do with what the company produces - e.g., I doubt Amstrad are high up on anyone's list - some companies aren't covered so much in the media even if they're a market leader or produce products people use every day; other companies are covered well by the media, but no one has a clue who the CEO is (and Apple will likely be one of these from now on - hell, I have no clue who's taken over now).

Not that this is anything to do with anything I said. I'm not saying that Carmack or anyone else is obsolete. Indeed I'm not really saying anything, but asking a question. From the point that RivieraKid made - is it really true that Carmack is better than everyone else, or is he now known for what he did years ago?

Indeed, even for the examples that people mentioned, I don't think any of these are as well known as Carmack. Not that he doesn't deserve to be well known - but as I say, work in the 1990s isn't that relevant if we are discussing who is pushing the boundaries in games technology today.

Don't mistake this for criticising anything Carmack did; rather it's just not clear if other people in gaming today should be ignore, just because they didn't do stuff 15-20 years ago.

We could attempt to say that the days of Pacman taking over the gaming market are over: easy program, big sales. Well, first, coding Pacman in it's time was hell incredibly diffcult, and secondly, then I see games like Angry Birds and well... not exactly Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty.[/quote]Indeed, it's long been known you don't need cutting edge technology to succeed. E.g., the Wii being more successful than X Box or Playstation due to the input devices. Especially long been true for mobile devices - simpler games on Gameboys and DSs; being able to get away with selling simpler games or even just ringtones as long been the case on mobile/"smart" phones.

Again, this links back to what Nytegard was saying - today people may get well known, but Angry Birds isn't an example of being well known due to cutting edge technology.