TR Forums

michael_d · Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:37 pm

There is new and thus far the longest single player trailer of the upcoming Rage game by ID Software. The trailer below illustrates an excerpt from one of the missions and in typical ID fashion it is very eerie. The visuals are impressive however I do not think that Rage is any better looking than Battlefield 3 or Metro 2033. You be the judge.

Rage gameplay

NIKOLAS · Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:59 pm

The graphics are a bit disappointing, but I did like the sense of gameplay.

I'll definitely be getting this game.

grantmeaname · Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:10 pm

While I agree about the graphics, the art direction is phenomenal IMO... I loved the cityscape backgrounds.

Also: thank god someone finally made an apocalyptic game with sufficient lighting.

tanker27 · Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:22 am

Whats so disappointing about the graphics? I find it very impressive.

Airmantharp · Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:40 am

id always has some form of interesting technology in their engines; the 'mega-texture' thing in Rage looks interesting for sure.

NIKOLAS · Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:18 am

tanker27 wrote:
Whats so disappointing about the graphics? I find it very impressive.

With all the years that have passed, the degree to which this game looks better than Quake 4, isn't enough in my view.

I'll still get the game, and maybe when the engine gets maxed out for Doom 4, then will I then be impressed with the graphics.

tanker27 · Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:04 am

NIKOLAS wrote:
With all the years that have passed, the degree to which this game looks better than Quake 4, isn't enough in my view.

Since my current job is working on a project management team I understand this completely. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. If you dont do this you end up in this endless cycle of product development and never have any real tangible product to show for it, just bits and pieces of tech. A prime example of this is Duke Nukem Forever. Yes the butt of all jokes especially when it comes to a development cycle. See even the devs of DNF explained themselves is that they were caught in an endless development cycle. Always seeing who released what and then in turn trying to incorporate that into their game, never ever getting a real product out there.

Your perception of "it isnt enough since Quake4", while valid, is ignorant.

But yes I am a gamer and I want all these elements that DX11 is supposed to bring to us. I want to be able to push my i7 machine to the breaking point. But at what cost? What cost to me or the developer?

The thing about Id and Epic is that while they create games they are just a by-product of what the really create and thats engines. The game engines are the real product here.

So while Id has created this game Rage its only to showcase their engine. When other companies license this engine for their games is when you will be able to step back and say, "Wow this new game (engine) is a huge leap from Quake 4.)

derFunkenstein · Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:49 am

umm...tanker...psst...over here

tanker27 · Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:21 pm

derFunkenstein wrote:
umm...tanker...psst...over here

Whoa. And that was dated last year.

But still my statements are valid; id makes engines and games are a by product of that. But still even though they are saying they are exiting the middleware market is really a smoke screen. And while that may sound hollow or shallow you can bet that there will be some indie company or some dev that will say I am cool with Bethesda publishing my game.

But what really has me scratching my head is that Bethesda has its own Creation Engine which is what Skyrim is using. I know that both studios are owned by Zenimax it just doesnt seem right for two subsidiaries to be competing. /shrug

Skrying · Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:27 pm

tanker27, how does any of that make since when Rage appears to be less impressive visually than games already released and far less visually appealing than games coming up? id hasn't made a truly impressive visual title since Quake 3. They've been beat to the punch every time. When your claim to fame is the visual quality of your games and not the gameplay, shouldn't your visuals be outstanding?

tanker27 · Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:58 pm

So far from what I have seen of Rage is that its actually visually outstanding. But yeah I do agree that its not anything more impressive then lets say, Bulletstorm.

Skrying wrote:
They've been beat to the punch every time.

Well as far as development cycles go you have to draw the line somewhere.

I dont think they have been beat to the punch everytime. I think they are just doing their thing. Take a closer look at the 12 min Rage video, the grass movements, the dust, the lighting; its all pretty impressive.

Again, id is a engine maker and Rage is just their proof of concept.

Chun¢ · Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:01 pm

grantmeaname wrote:

Also: thank god someone finally made an apocalyptic game with sufficient lighting.

I guess they learned from doom 3 how much people like light.

Seriously though, I see too much doom 3 in this. I wonder if Id still has what it takes to make good games.

Skrying · Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:21 pm

tanker27 wrote:
So far from what I have seen of Rage is that its actually visually outstanding. But yeah I do agree that its not anything more impressive then lets say, Bulletstorm.

Well as far as development cycles go you have to draw the line somewhere.

I dont think they have been beat to the punch everytime. I think they are just doing their thing. Take a closer look at the 12 min Rage video, the grass movements, the dust, the lighting; its all pretty impressive.

Again, id is a engine maker and Rage is just their proof of concept.

First, I would disagree with your characterization of id has an engine maker first. I would guess for some time they've generated more revenue from their games. The Quake 3 engine was a massive success but Doom 3 certainly wasn't and internal competition, let along external, will keep "id Tech 5" from being the foundation for numerous games. Even then, why would a company invest massive amounts of money to create a visually behind-the-times proof of concept? They wouldn't, that makes zero sense. I will say, you're pretty good at turning bad news into kinda-sorta-not-that-bad news.

michael_d · Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:00 pm

BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11. However he claimed that Doom 4 will look significantly better so much better that you would think this is a whole new engine. Now I am curious about visuals in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, Metro 2034 and Doom 4.

NIKOLAS · Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:31 am

michael_d wrote:
BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11.

The shunning no doubt was because Consoles are DX9 and not DX10 or DX11

NIKOLAS · Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:35 am

Skrying wrote:
tanker27 wrote:
So far from what I have seen of Rage is that its actually visually outstanding. But yeah I do agree that its not anything more impressive then lets say, Bulletstorm.

Well as far as development cycles go you have to draw the line somewhere.

I dont think they have been beat to the punch everytime. I think they are just doing their thing. Take a closer look at the 12 min Rage video, the grass movements, the dust, the lighting; its all pretty impressive.

Again, id is a engine maker and Rage is just their proof of concept.

First, I would disagree with your characterization of id has an engine maker first. I would guess for some time they've generated more revenue from their games. The Quake 3 engine was a massive success but Doom 3 certainly wasn't and internal competition, let along external, will keep "id Tech 5" from being the foundation for numerous games. Even then, why would a company invest massive amounts of money to create a visually behind-the-times proof of concept? They wouldn't, that makes zero sense. I will say, you're pretty good at turning bad news into kinda-sorta-not-that-bad news.

Great post, I agree completely.

Airmantharp · Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:48 am

I'd like a link to reference that this is DX9

. I believe that you can still do most of DX11 in DX9, it's just more difficult in that you must code within hard limitations, and must separate vertex and pixel instructions. There are still some great looking DX9 games out there.

For reference though, the 360 is between DX9 and DX10 in terms of capability, and the PS3 is solidly a DX9 part backed up by IBMs Cell processor. The PS3 usually has more horsepower to bring to bear in the end, it seems.

For id's engines, I think that they're somewhere in the middle. Epic has been massively successful in creating an engine that has scaled well with time across hardware platforms, from top-end PCs to cellphones. John Carmack embraced mobile gaming years ago and continues to push this edge, showing Rage off with its unique features on an iPhone already. So while I think they do make more money on games, I also think that they do very well in engine licensing, and I'm really excited to see what Bethesda can do when marrying Tech5 with their RPG assets. Having an engine centric house in their organization is probably a plus

.

And going back to Doom 3, remember that light was used strategically- Doom 3 had the most amazing lighting, revolutionary really, and was the most advanced game to run on the original 360 (a DX8 part).

For the video that Tanker linked above (thanks btw!), I would really like to see a higher resolution version. I felt that there was so much detail I was missing in the compression and scaling that I really couldn't use it to judge the game beyond its gameplay!

tanker27 · Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:43 am

Skrying wrote:
why would a company invest massive amounts of money to create a visually behind-the-times proof of concept? They wouldn't, that makes zero sense. I will say, you're pretty good at turning bad news into kinda-sorta-not-that-bad news.

Because they are trying to create for four different areas; Xbox, PS3, PC, and mobile. I agree with you that idTech 5 is probably behind. Which is a moot point really Carmack has already announced working on idTech 6.

Airmantharp wrote:
.... and I'm really excited to see what Bethesda can do when marrying Tech5 with their RPG assets. Having an engine centric house in their organization is probably a plus .

But Bethesda games already has its own engine! Skyrim is using their Creation Engine. Which doesnt make sense to me. id is not licensing their engine unless the 'product' is released by Bethesda. /shrug

l33t-g4m3r · Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:59 pm

michael_d wrote:
BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11. However he claimed that Doom 4 will look significantly better so much better that you would think this is a whole new engine. Now I am curious about visuals in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, Metro 2034 and Doom 4.

You need to be whacked with a stick. :evil:

Where the Hell is this FUD coming from? :roll:

id Tech 5 is OpenGL, and Carmack has shunned DX since FOREVER. In case you haven't been around, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3, Quake Wars, etc, are all OpenGL. :lol:

Second, id Tech 5 is designed to be scalable. That's what the megatexture engine is all about:

This technique allows the engine to automatically stream textures into memory as needed, meaning that the developer need not concern themselves with memory restraints or texture limits. This has the advantage of simplifying the creation of content, by eliminating the need to adapt content for different platforms. The engine automatically optimizes resources for cross-platform development, making it possible to render the same models on different platforms, while only creating them for one platform, further simplifying cross-platform development.

This game is going to be much different than your standard ports. Rage is going to look good on the PC, and it's going to meet at least my expectations of a PC FPS, being from id. Also, coop is back. id doesn't mass produce garbage.
As for the Bethesda purchase:

Our role will be to provide publisher support through Bethesda Softworks and give id Software the resources it needs to grow and expand.

"This puts id Software in a wonderful position going forward," said John Carmack, who will continue to serve in his current role as Technical Director. "We will now be able to grow and extend all of our franchises under one roof, leveraging our capabilities across multiple teams while enabling forward looking research to be done in the service of all of them. We will be bigger and stronger, as we recruit the best talent to help us build the landmark games of the future. As trite as it may be for me to say that I am extremely pleased and excited about this deal, I am."

Read some of the interviews. Carmack was just trying to take his company to the next level. I don't think id has been compromised from this deal.

Rakhmaninov3 · Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:49 pm

The video in the OP's link looked awfully bright and washed-out to me, maybe the brightness settings were up to high for my taste or something.

Gotta agree that the graphics--at least from the trailers I've seen--aren't anything to write home about, but the game looks like a lot of fun and it has a pretty suspenseful atmosphere.

Was the OP's trailer taken from console gameplay? I'm assuming so, or else that player is the worst PC FPS player ever

And I'll echo those who thought Doom 3's lighting was awesome. I'd sit in my dark basement playing that by myself and after a little while it felt like I was really there.

Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:54 pm

Doom 3's lighting was too harsh. With that much bright light, there should have been some diffuse lighting in the rest of the scene reflecting from the brilliantly-lit surfaces.

I could live with the graphics shortcomings. What spoiled Doom 3 for me was this incredibly stupid game mechanic where after you had cleared out a room, a new enemy would appear out of thin air directly behind you. Okay, it's funny in an amateur horror flick way the first time, but when it's repeated dozens of times, it's just lame.

l33t-g4m3r · Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:17 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
Doom 3's lighting was too harsh. With that much bright light, there should have been some diffuse lighting in the rest of the scene reflecting from the brilliantly-lit surfaces.

I could live with the graphics shortcomings. What spoiled Doom 3 for me was this incredibly stupid game mechanic where after you had cleared out a room, a new enemy would appear out of thin air directly behind you. Okay, it's funny in an amateur horror flick way the first time, but when it's repeated dozens of times, it's just lame.

I believe the lighting issue was a side effect of how the engine rendered all light sources in real time. Better lighting is possible now, but was a problem then. I agree that it wasn't a big deal, and actually added a lot of atmosphere. The enemy "spawning" thing isn't much of an issue. After getting over the initial shock value, you can pretty much guess where "spawning" enemies were going to come from with visual clues, after triggering switches etc. Didn't bother me, I did add a couple mods to increase gore, better sound effects/graphics. I also enjoyed all the secret stashes put in the game, made things more interesting.

Skrying · Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:36 pm

l33t-g4m3r wrote:
michael_d wrote:
BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11. However he claimed that Doom 4 will look significantly better so much better that you would think this is a whole new engine. Now I am curious about visuals in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, Metro 2034 and Doom 4.

You need to be whacked with a stick. Where the Hell is this FUD coming from? id Tech 5 is OpenGL, and Carmack has shunned DX since FOREVER. In case you haven't been around, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3, Quake Wars, etc, are all OpenGL. .

Carmack: Direct3D is now better than OpenGL

l33t-g4m3r · Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:57 pm

Skrying wrote:
Carmack: Direct3D is now better than OpenGL

I don't see what point you're making. Carmack's always used OpenGL for various reasons, and he isn't planning on switching. He also said that even though DX has taken the lead, OGL has caught up to it.

He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D, despite its advantages.
'OpenGL still works fine,' said Carmack, 'and we wouldn’t get any huge benefits by making the switch, so I can’t work up much enthusiasm for cleaning it out of our codebase.

Skrying · Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:07 pm

Your interpretation is rather unique.

grantmeaname · Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:27 pm

l33t-g4m3r wrote:
he isn't planning on switching.

He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D

How is that a unique interpretation?

l33t-g4m3r · Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:31 pm

grantmeaname wrote:
He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D

How is that a unique interpretation?

Exactly.

Skrying wrote:
Your interpretation is rather unique.

Maybe to people who haven't followed id/carmack through the years. That article isn't the big GOTCHA that you think it is, rather it's meaningless. Carmack stated his mind on DX, and that's all it was. Carmack's the Steve Jobs of gaming, so people listen to his musings. Regardless, id+opengl are synonymous. They didn't start out developing games for the 360, but PC, and OpenGL allowed porting to linux and mac. They also release their games source code after a few years go by. I dunno man. You people complain about PC games, and yet you have absolutely no idea what a PC game is, or who pioneered it. Ironic, isn't it?
As long as id stays within their core values, they have a loyal customer here. I don't care what nonsense gets spread about their games, I'll buy them as long as I still enjoy playing them.

SPOOFE · Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:46 pm

While Doom 3's lighting was harsh, especially by today's standards, at the time it ran on very modest hardware and still looked good doing it. Heck, that game looked good even at 640x480 with no AA.

l33t-g4m3r · Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:05 pm

SPOOFE wrote:
While Doom 3's lighting was harsh, especially by today's standards, at the time it ran on very modest hardware and still looked good doing it. Heck, that game looked good even at 640x480 with no AA.

That's true. Doom3 could even run on a GF4MX, which was a GF2, and on the high end supported 512mb dx9 cards. I have a feeling rage will be the same way, due to the megatexture engine.

Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:15 pm

l33t-g4m3r wrote:
That's true. Doom3 could even run on a GF4MX, which was a GF2, and on the high end supported 512mb dx9 cards.

ISTR someone majorly hacking whatever was needed to make D3 "playable" on a Voodoo 5. It wasn't pretty, but it ran without crashing.

TR Forums

Rage

Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Re: Rage

Who is online