The Early Days of id Software

What people said

hyperpallium · 2017-02 · Strong recommendation

This is first class post-hoc bullshit. They weren't making prototypes or reusing code, they sure as hell weren't composing high-sounding principles. They just got on with it because they were talented experienced and motivated. For that reason, the rest of the talk is very inspiring - so listen to the hour-long video (half talk, half questions), and not the article which only has the post-hoc bits. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

tcmb · 2023-12 · Reference

It's also worthwhile to remember where the team honed their craft, as was also mentioned in this session: The early id team worked for a publisher called Softdisk that provided a game subscription where customers received a new game every month. This was basically a way to iterate on the practice and process of game development in one month cycles. The shareware relase of Doom had four months of development, which sounds crazy short by today's standards, but for them it was unusual to have so much time. There's several talks on Youtube by John Romero where he tells the story of the early id software, e.g. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

kudokatz · 2022-11 · Reference

> As I've became more experienced what impresses me is how iD was able to crank out so much software so quickly > usually have multiple dead-ends where it isn't until after I've tried using a technique with real data that I realize it has weaknesses the researchers didn't point out and which can't easily be fixed If you listen to John Romero himself telling the story of id and the fast iteration, it was "due to having, basically, 10 years of intense game development experience prior": [VIDEO] ("it's also due to the first principle we had - no prototypes") A theme I tend to see is that a lot of folks with super output appear to others like icebergs - a LOT of effort that nobody can see, and a tiny peak at which everyone marvels.

Read the original HN comment ↗