John Carmack interview. He's talking about the creative ambitions for Doom as opposed to Wolfenstein. He uses the phrase "Turing complete design space", saying that Doom had one, whereas Wolfenstein didn't. It's not super hard to see what he means. Mathematically it probably doesn't correspond to any useful concept, but maybe it does? If so, what?

old news, lol https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5U3SEW6A/p1659642147696869

I like this prompt to discuss a single segment, though.

Ahh I did not see we were starting at a specific segment, yeah its so big that interview its the only way to do it

"Turing-complete" doesn't quite feel like a precise analogy here, though it does have memetic traction. You can't make Doom look like Minecraft, or Minecraft look like Doom, so it's not so much universality as the creative depth he alludes to. Each game occupies really a distinct universe, and considerations of gameplay and per-frame latency restrict how much load you can put on emulation. Perhaps a better analogy is the way we compare boardgames by number of possible positions. Doom has a larger state space than Wolfenstein the way Go has a larger state space than Chess.

You're correct about those games. What is maybe more interesting to discuss is the game engines. You can't make Minecraft look like doom - but you probably can implement doom in minecraft's engine. I don't know how trivial of a statement that is, but that's his point

I see. I thought he was talking about building levels in the Doom game?

You can absolutely make Doom in Minecraft for various definitions of Doom in Minecraft