So is Rage the next big game?

T

txfeinbergs

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
308
Just wondering what your guys opinions are, because from various articles, it looks like this was designed for console's first, and ported to the PC. Even Carmak himself mentioned at Quakecon that they would have loved to have been able to do a higher texture pack for Rage for PC.

I know that Kyle was rather outspoken with his disdain for Crysis 2. Personally, I thought Crysis 2 was okay, but not as good as the original. To me, the graphics in Crysis 2 look about the same as the graphics in Rage (in terms of quality).

There seems to be no reviews of Rage either, and heavy preorder incentives (i.e. free upgrade to Anarachy edition) which is usually a bad sign.

I already have my copy preordered, but wondering if this is going to turn out being another turd.
 
I'm an old school Quake player, so I normally get excited for Id games. I like the fact that it's a new IP and the game play looks entertaining. The only thing that I'm concerned about will be the driving mechanics. I know that they have the FPS elements down pat. Only time will tell if it's a turd or not.
 
Nah. It isn't going to be earth shattering but it should be a solid game.
 
It isn't consoles holding shit back. It's that the fact that PC now means laptop and PC gaming now means farmville, PC gaming is the cancer, what a PC now is the problem. Unless you can time warp up us back to the 90s and make everything a desktop you should be glad for what you get.
 
Its a bit hard to dismiss a game that you haven't played yet :D Wait a week for proper reviews (from players, not the "professional" reviewers [not kyle, I mean the fools at IGN and other crap]) then see how things lie. The DLC is just extra equipment fluff like bestheda did for fallout new vegas from the looks of it.
 
sd11 said:
It isn't consoles holding shit back. It's that the fact that PC now means laptop and PC gaming now means farmville, PC gaming is the cancer, what a PC now is the problem. Unless you can time warp up us back to the 90s and make everything a desktop you should be glad for what you get.
Click to expand...

This is what lots of people miss. Look at the steam hardware stats...

It disturbs me that I could go out and buy a lowish end laptop and still be able to play all the games availible...

Remember when id were saying that they were pusing things by demanding a pentium for quake. PC exclusive titles (RO2, hard reset) are barely better looking than PC ports of console titles, and pretty any game availible of them can easily be played with a 8800 (circa 2007).
 
I've spoken to people who played it and they were quite impressed. I'm expecting it to be good.
 
I played it at Quakecon. Seems a lot like Borderlands in terms of settings and gameplay (Even though this game was being made prior to Borderlands). The graphics seemed fine to me. You could tell its a id game just by the way it looks, the animations were outstanding, overall it was a fun experience. I'll probably pick it up sometime.
 
If the console version of Rage outsells the PC version 10:1, one might wonder if the Cliffy B syndrome will hit id in the same way that it hit Epic?
 
Didn't Carmack actually press hard saying that there probably will be a "super textures" pack for the PC?
 
SolidSnakeUS said:
Didn't Carmack actually press hard saying that there probably will be a "super textures" pack for the PC?
Click to expand...

In an hour long-or-so speech at QuakeCon, he said he'd like to release a super-high resolution texture pack if he ever had the opportunity for maybe 'a' level as downloadable DLC; hopefully free. His concern was that one level if he went for super-high resolution that would be scalable to the Best-of-the-Best setups(read: tri-580 or 680 for that matter//dual-7990s) is that the one level's textures might be an 16+GB download. There just isn't enough room on a dvd-disc to realistically put even an 4 or 8GB level on it for an entire game's length.

Even with today's higher bandwidth caps, a lot of Steam users I think would be concerned about spending 100GB-200GB of bandwidth and storage on their HD to dl a single game if they released a version of Rage with super-ultra-high-textures. Some people might do one level just to see 'how great could this engine look' if they had rediculous hardware for fun; but it would just be a fun-experiment. Not a serious full-length product.
 
But how big does a game have to be to look a bit better than Crysis?
That said, 3D modelling of rage looks better, so I hope it has a bit more visual bite than say FO3 on PC.
 
THOMO said:
This looks like the sorta shit my kid cousin plays.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it's going to depend on many unknowns, for example, will the world be fun to explore, will it be a challenge, will it have replay value etc...?
 
I don't think the game will support Eyefinity out of the box either. Doesnt' bother me as I run a single 30 inch monitor. I just hope my one GTX580 can run the game at 2560 x 1600 at a decent frame rate.
 
DeathPrincess said:
This is what lots of people miss. Look at the steam hardware stats...

It disturbs me that I could go out and buy a lowish end laptop and still be able to play all the games availible...

Remember when id were saying that they were pusing things by demanding a pentium for quake. PC exclusive titles (RO2, hard reset) are barely better looking than PC ports of console titles, and pretty any game availible of them can easily be played with a 8800 (circa 2007).
Click to expand...

It's called "graphics/video options", you have a slow setup, game looks meh, you have fast one and it looks great.
 
It looks a bit like borderlands, which I paid full price for and hardly played. So this is worth a play from me by at least that reasoning. Besides, this is id we're talking about. They may not make games that ALL gamers enjoy, but their games aren't shit quality by a long long margin.
 
sd11 said:
It isn't consoles holding shit back. It's that the fact that PC now means laptop and PC gaming now means farmville, PC gaming is the cancer, what a PC now is the problem. Unless you can time warp up us back to the 90s and make everything a desktop you should be glad for what you get.
Click to expand...

You have smoked yourself retarded.

Farmville is what is known as a new market segment. You think there was ever a point in pc gaming where everyone had a top of the line rig? People played doom on everything from a 386 to a pentium and only a small percentage of people had hardware accelerated Quake.
 
I'm still confused why people are so hell bent on pristine graphics over gameplay... to me I bet the game will still be gorgeous as is BF3 on high settings with my 5770 - I don't really see why this has anything to do with it...

I also seemed to enjoy crysis and crysis 2 as well - maybe I just don't have a keen eye for super high res awesomeness as I never have the latest in graphics hardware. Either that or I just get past the graphics and look at a game for what it is not what it looks like

I mean sure the advances have been nice the past decade, but it's not the end of the world if a new game doesn't have the highest currently possible limits of graphics is it? It was also my understanding that carmack developed a new engine that allows incredibly high resolution textures, maybe not - or maybe we haven't seen those quite yet...
 
I think it's going to be a fantastic game. The in-game videos I have seen so far have me really excited for it. I don't think id is going to drop the ball on this one, it's their first game since Doom 3 which was one of my favorites of all time. id has yet to let me down and I refuse to believe they will release a turd.

We shall see in little more than 24 hours.
 
b14z3 said:
It was also my understanding that carmack developed a new engine that allows incredibly high resolution textures, maybe not - or maybe we haven't seen those quite yet...
Click to expand...
That's this engine.
 
Well, this sucks. Here is a quote directly from Tim Willits from a recent interview. Sorry, but I would prefer to be able to specify my own graphic fidelity and utilize 30 frames per second. I don't need 60 frames per second to enjoy the game.

RAGE: I took the opportunity and looked at the options menu. There were no graphic options beside resolution, brightness, anti-aliasing and GPU transcoding. Is this a limitation of the test version?
TW: This is a feature of the id Tech 5. The Engine automatically adjusts to your hardware to ensure the best performance and graphics the hardware can provide.
For example: You have a video card with 512MB VRAM, 4GB of normal RAM and a decent processor. Now the id Tech 5 adjusts the quality of the Level of Detail to the available resources. If you have twice the RAM the engine scales dynamically up to it, improves the textures and objects in the far look sharper and more detailed. At the same time the engines tries to keep running at 60 FPS even though this is not also possible – dependent on the situation.

Editing to add link to full interview:
http://www.idgames.de/showthread.php/12896-idGames-Exclusive-Interview-with-Tim-Willits
 
Last edited:
b14z3 said:
It was also my understanding that carmack developed a new engine that allows incredibly high resolution textures, maybe not - or maybe we haven't seen those quite yet...
Click to expand...

This a slight misconception about id tech 5 and "megatexturing." It is designed to use one large texture (of "incredible high resolution"), hence the name, as opposed to many smaller textures (often repeating) which is the more traditional method. This has some advantages, on the development and end user sides. But it doesn't necessarily mean that looking at an individual "section" or "object" in the game that it will have a more detailed higher resolution texture.
 
limitedaccess said:
This a slight misconception about id tech 5 and "megatexturing." It is designed to use one large texture (of "incredible high resolution"), hence the name, as opposed to many smaller textures (often repeating) which is the more traditional method. This has some advantages, on the development and end user sides. But it doesn't necessarily mean that looking at an individual "section" or "object" in the game that it will have a more detailed higher resolution texture.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but it does mean that the engine is designed to handle very high-resolution textures and could probably cope with high levels of texture detail more easily than other engines.
 
txfeinbergs said:
Well, this sucks. Here is a quote directly from Tim Willits from a recent interview. Sorry, but I would prefer to be able to specify my own graphic fidelity and utilize 30 frames per second. I don't need 60 frames per second to enjoy the game.

RAGE: I took the opportunity and looked at the options menu. There were no graphic options beside resolution, brightness, anti-aliasing and GPU transcoding. Is this a limitation of the test version?
TW: This is a feature of the id Tech 5. The Engine automatically adjusts to your hardware to ensure the best performance and graphics the hardware can provide.
For example: You have a video card with 512MB VRAM, 4GB of normal RAM and a decent processor. Now the id Tech 5 adjusts the quality of the Level of Detail to the available resources. If you have twice the RAM the engine scales dynamically up to it, improves the textures and objects in the far look sharper and more detailed. At the same time the engines tries to keep running at 60 FPS even though this is not also possible – dependent on the situation.

Editing to add link to full interview:
http://www.idgames.de/showthread.php/12896-idGames-Exclusive-Interview-with-Tim-Willits
Click to expand...

I at first thought that this is a really crappy thing to do considering my experience with games with an auto detect for graphics quality. Then I realized Rage is just a crap console port and just about any computer will be able to run it at max settings.
 
I think Doom 4 will better showcase the engine's capabilities. The goal for Doom 4 is supposedly 30 FPS as opposed to 60.

I'm also hoping that Doom 4 will be more of a PC game, now that Carmack has indicated some form of regret in his approach to RAGE's console development.
 
b14z3 said:
I'm still confused why people are so hell bent on pristine graphics over gameplay... to me I bet the game will still be gorgeous as is BF3 on high settings with my 5770 - I don't really see why this has anything to do with it...

I also seemed to enjoy crysis and crysis 2 as well - maybe I just don't have a keen eye for super high res awesomeness as I never have the latest in graphics hardware. Either that or I just get past the graphics and look at a game for what it is not what it looks like

I mean sure the advances have been nice the past decade, but it's not the end of the world if a new game doesn't have the highest currently possible limits of graphics is it? It was also my understanding that carmack developed a new engine that allows incredibly high resolution textures, maybe not - or maybe we haven't seen those quite yet...
Click to expand...

It's not about the graphics, it's about the fact that it is yet another generic brown-grey FPS with realistic gunplay built around ADS. There are literally 500 bazillion fafillion mamillion of those already on the market.
 
Last edited:
Previews I have read of playthroughs with recent builds have stated that the game imprints at first as an open world shooter blend of Fallout and Borderlands but once you get down to it...it's just shitty linear shooting action and terrible vehicle mini games.

Consoles, simplistic indie games, facebook, and the infatuation with mediocrity is what's killing PC gaming....let alone quality games in general.
 
Volucris said:
Consoles, simplistic indie games, facebook, and the infatuation with mediocrity is what's killing PC gaming....let alone quality games in general.
Click to expand...

NO, NO, NO, those are societies greatest thinkers flocking together sharing common experiences, the real problem is the PC nerd who wants things like a challenge, relevant GFX and physx, QC on finished goods etc.

How dare you blame the point and click brigade for any of this!!!!
 
eurin said:
"PC QA testers on the game use a control pad simply because that's how it was meant to be played."

Was this the thread that had a title about Rage being the next flacid penis flop? The above quote leads me to believe I'm in the right place.
Click to expand...

No FPS should have ever entered the console fray with controllers as the main input device. FPS will always be best with mice & keyboard (or other devices derived from them).

I hope that id had the sense of QA testing with hardcore FPS gamers...
 
darkstarcow said:
It's called "graphics/video options", you have a slow setup, game looks meh, you have fast one and it looks great.
Click to expand...

This. It's not that games aren't advancing graphically; devs are just figuring out how to make engines that scale very well. They can have their game run well on low settings on a slower PC, and have it look great on high settings on a fast PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top