Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:11 am
by Foo
duffman91 wrote:Interesting, this could be the first warning signs to the breakup of id.
What do you mean breakup?
Companies do not just 'break up'.
As for members going there seperate ways, that's already happened. id software today is not comparable to id in the early 90s.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:23 am
by MKJ
DooMer wrote:Activision is a publisher. I don't think they work on games, they would just own the franchises, and lend them out to other developers to make the games for them.
they also own neversoft and have the bigass contract with tony hawk.
hence the 235987234 million tony hawk games.
imagine a 700-episode Doom game series based on the movie, with oice talent by The Rock
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:24 am
by Canis
That's why you never go into business with family...thanksgiving dinner's gonna be awkward this year.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:25 am
by MKJ
Foo wrote:Carmacks aren't related.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:30 am
by Eraser
MKJ wrote:DooMer wrote:Activision is a publisher. I don't think they work on games, they would just own the franchises, and lend them out to other developers to make the games for them.
they also own neversoft and have the bigass contract with tony hawk.
hence the 235987234 million tony hawk games.
imagine a 700-episode Doom game series based on the movie, with oice talent by The Rock
I'm not sure, my attention may have slipped there for a moment, but did you use the words "talent" and "The Rock" in one sentence there?
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:31 am
by Canis
You sure about that?
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:31 am
by MKJ
that only strengthens my point, i suppose
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:32 am
by MKJ
Canis wrote:You sure about that?
Adrian Carmack (born on May 5, 1969) is one of the four founders of id Software and has worked there as an artist since its creation. He is not related to the id Software programmer, John Carmack. He is a major stock owner of id Software.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:37 am
by Canis
Where's that from?
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:41 am
by MKJ
why,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carmack ofcourse!
and pretty much every otherplace on the net, as its common knowledge that theyre not related
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:44 am
by Canis
It's pretty much not common knowledge, so lets try not to be too condescending. Every gamer I've talked to who's known about id software has been under the assumption they're somehow related. As well, wikipedia aint the best source by far, as any schmucko can edit the information, but I'll let it pass. They may not be brothers per se, but I have a hard time believing they're just not related one bit...
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:47 am
by dzjepp
Then those friends of yours aren't all in the id knowhow dear canis.
I've seen it mentioned on the old id site where they had profiles of the game designers. Or any other game site that has designer bios (search a few google links).
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:49 am
by Canis
no, I was just arguing against MKJ's stupid assumption that it's common knowledge. I've looked for it on the net, and it's the same damn quote everywhere, all referenced to wikipedia, so it's not "pretty much every otherplace on the net"...
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:50 am
by dzjepp
Common knowledge for die-hard id fans maybe.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:52 am
by Canis
I guess...a population that is most likely quite few in number.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:53 am
by MKJ
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:55 am
by Eraser
I knew that they're not related, but I see it's easy to assume they are. Carmack isn't exactly a very common name either. If they were called "Smith", "Jones" or "Johnson" it would be easier to assume they're not relatives.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:58 am
by Canis
Exactly. They're co-founders of a software company and share a similar last name. Other occurances of this stuff (the Myst series, for example) have been through family relations, so the assumption has a bit of logical backing.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:00 am
by Canis
I take everything on wikipedia with a grain of salt. Sure it gets posted and checked, but half the time unless it's a controvercial topic, folks just let it slide.
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:00 am
by Dave
especially on wikipedia...
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:01 am
by MKJ
ofcourse it is. i didnt say it isnt. what i said was that everybody assumes they are (not suprisingly) and therefore gets shot down in a lot of articles concerning the two
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:02 am
by MKJ
Canis wrote:
I take everything on wikipedia with a grain of salt. Sure it gets posted and checked, but half the time unless it's a controvercial topic, folks just let it slide.
true. doesnt mean that everything on wikipedia is plain out wrong though.
hence the other links
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:02 am
by Canis
Shot down? I didnt know this was a contest...
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:03 am
by MKJ
lack of better wording
"gets pointed out that theyre not" then
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:04 am
by Eraser
everything here is a contest
