Carmack: "Doom 4 will have 30 demons crawling all over you on there"

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/12895/doom-4-multiplayer-to-get-quality-feel-that-rage-has-at-60-fps

Doom 4 will have 30 fps single-player & multi @ 60 fps.

Now that they are closing in on Rage release, we should be getting more news on Doom. Quakecon cant come soon enough. What about you guys? Looking forward to Doom 4 or what?

All 30 monsters... I'd like to see Nuts on Doom 4.

lol, at least its more than what Doom 3 could handle.

TheEndOfUs said:

Doom 4 will have 30 fps single-player

On consoles. What the article says is:-

While singleplayer on consoles is 30 frames per second so they can have "30 demons crawling all over," multiplayer will kick it back up to Rage's 60 FPS.

Nothing is said about what the SP framerate will be on the PC.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRnVFzLCGZPAny09bBzrlhIe8PU1AmLlHbk0aeYcYUoJMqlW8n&t=1

DoomUK said:

On consoles. What the article says is:-



Nothing is said about what the SP framerate will be on the PC.

This.

I could be wrong, but some time ago I think I remember reading that the PC version would have far more FPS then just 30 if the player is using top of the line (at release) hardware.

Now of course, most people will in fact not be using top of the line hardware by the time the game releases.

I should be at least fairly good however, since I am planning on making a big upgrade for my PC by the year's end by the time Rage is released.

Well done! Ramp that tech Carmack you bitwizard you! Now lets not fucking turn Doom 4 into a serious same clone yeah?

For all the flack id gets about supposedly developing engines rather than games, I'm glad Carmack always focuses on good performance.

So many game companies just seem to make their stuff without caring about that at all, and all too often there's AAA games with sharp framerate drops because the developers assumed everyone was running a $2k computer from six months ago.

People name a lot of stuff for what they like or dislike in games, but as far as I'm concerned, give me fun guns, cool stuff to shoot, smooth (non-smoothed ;) ) mouselook, 60 FPS and I'm happy. I had a blast with Doom 3, will probably enjoy Rage based on the looks of it and am looking forward to Doom 4.

I could care less about FPS just as long as its not less than 12. I think that's what a stripped down Oblivion runs on my laptop.

30 enemies on the screen I am happy about, because then it opens up the game into less of a cooridoor shooter. DOOM3 had 6 on screen at the most.

geo said:

DOOM3 had 6 on screen at the most.

That's already pushing it :)

Does this mean we'll have modern slaughtermaps? Since a Zerg rush is a pretty trendy subject (Starcraft 2), I can easily see it being transposed into first-person games.

I'm gathering a Zerg Rush is just a sea of enemies with no thought?

I'd say do that with zombies. Imps should be smarter like flankers... but then people will complain about them spawning behind you. Or some kind of specific berserker demon that will race up to you and tank.

printz said:

That's already pushing it :)

Does this mean we'll have modern slaughtermaps? Since a Zerg rush is a pretty trendy subject (Starcraft 2), I can easily see it being transposed into first-person games.

What you want is Serious Sam.

1 BFG vs Zerg Rush, just make it sparingly. Anyone play the Sythe levels? By the end its Zergs of Barons, Revenants, and Cacos.

TheEndOfUs said:

Looking forward to Doom 4 or what?

Not really, no. I have no particular anticipation for Doom4. The thought of the game neither excites me nor turns me off. That being said, I don't expect it to be particularly good and I will wait until it hits the shelves before I think about whether to buy it or not.

Basically, I don't have much faith in id any more and I see them as a company that produce an occasional mediocre game every few years or so. I think that those games get attention as much because of the company's now no-longer-accurate reputation as a fiery and innovative cutting edge game producer rather than based on what they have been doing in recent years. In fact, id really haven't done anything that impressed me this century.

Enjay said:

In fact, id really haven't done anything that impressed me this century.

The last of their games that really got me excited was Quake 2. And Doom 3 was just another not so great modern linear game so my hopes for this being good are precisely zero.

"Doom 4 will have 30 demons crawling all over you on there" - he presumably means they will attack two at a time.

In other news, I applaud Enjay's post, ever since Final Doom and Quake 2 I don't think id have done anything that remotely appealed to me. They tried to fix what wasn't broken.

"...as soon as Rage ships, the core tech team moves over to start making things happen on the Doom 4 project"

Start?

Or is he saying that the ones working on Rage will now help finish Doom 4?

He's talking about "the core tech team". Given that there are now more than 130 people working at Id Software, and that Carmack has previously mentioned building several teams so that the studio can work on two or three games at once, I'm sure there are people currently working on Doom 4 -- just not the code monkeys but the artists, level designers, etc. Carmack's talking about the people who'll improve the engine and adapt it to Doom 4's specific needs.

Eh, 30fps looks like a slide-show to me -- I'd prefer smoothness to graphical fidelity any day. Not that it'd matter on PC anyway, since the frame rate is at the mercy of your hardware.

Admittedly, Doom's 35fps doesn't bother me, but then again, that's a whole 5fps higher... :P

Yeah the 30fps thing only applies to consoles AFAIK

Xaser said:

Eh, 30fps looks like a slide-show to me -- I'd prefer smoothness to graphical fidelity any day. Not that it'd matter on PC anyway, since the frame rate is at the mercy of your hardware.

Admittedly, Doom's 35fps doesn't bother me, but then again, that's a whole 5fps higher... :P

30 frames per second is a SLIDESHOW to you? Maybe it's because I'm a video production geek, but movies run at 24 frames per second, which is the "magic number" for tricking the eye into believing that it is perceiving continuous, smooth movement. With that in mind, I see little reason for a video game to have a significantly higher framerate. 30 frames per second is almost too smooth for me.

I used to think that way until I played Chocolate Doom after a long period of playing with ports with uncapped framerate. You can definitely tell the difference.

DuckReconMajor said:

You can definitely tell the difference.

It seems even more noticeable on higher resolutions to me. Just try toggling the framerate on ZDoom after playing in one mode for so long, and the difference is almost night and day.

It should be noted that the human eye can't detect the difference once the number of FPS has gone beyond a certain number. I could be wrong, but I don't think its possible to actually notice it once the frame rate has gone beyond 60 frames.

I don't see how 30 is a slideshow. That's Youtube's highest limit for frame rates. Basically what you see on TV, no?

Actually, here's a pretty good demonstration of why in video games it's better to have over 30 (download the video in the link below since as mentioned youtube has 30 fps limit)

http://mckack.tumblr.com/post/3535190601/60fps-vs-24fps

hardcore_gamer said:

It should be noted that the human eye can't detect the difference once the number of FPS has gone beyond a certain number. I could be wrong, but I don't think its possible to actually notice it once the frame rate has gone beyond 60 frames.

I actually have been able to notice the difference. I was playing a game with 100 fps before (keep in mind I use a CRT, so my refresh rate can go that high) and it was noticeably smoother than 60. Well, for me at least, I happen to have pretty good eyesight, the eye doctor said I'll never need glasses. :P


EDIT: That video that DuckReconMajor posted shows it pretty well. Game frames are individual frames, as opposed to movie frames which are actually more, but merged into 1 frame. Games cannot do this on the fly (and it would be redundant since they need to generate more frames anyway).

Ever pause a youtube video? Look at the game footage in one of AVGN's videos, every frame is actually 2 combined, turning 60 into 30, not noticeable when in motion.

Just saw a comment on that video's youtube page:

To me, 80 is prime, but at 50 and over is very good in fast paced games like cod.

Fast paced games like CoD?

CoD is very fast paced compared to the more tactical or Halo type games. That's why I like it.

Sodaholic said:

Just saw a comment on that video's youtube page:



Fast paced games like CoD?

Call of Duty actually is a rather fast paced game for its style. Sure you aren't running around at 90 MPH circle strafing things, but it's called an "arcade-y" shooter for a reason.