Top
270°

John Carmack Speaks: 30fps on consoles, 60fps on the PC - Doom 3 levels more taxing than RAGE's

DSOGaming writes: "John Carmack has just revealed in QuakeCon 2012 what we knew all this time. Remember when we were claiming in some of our articles that Doom 3 modded looked better than RAGE? Well, the man himself said that Doom 3 levels were more taxing than the ones of RAGE, especially due to the stencil shadows and its more complex lighting system"

Read Full Story >>
dsogaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
hiptanaka1518d ago

Carmack lost my respect with the PC version of Rage. What a damn shame that was.

TheLeapist1518d ago

You know nothing. I don't know for sure all the things you didn't appreciate about that game but I am 100% certain that every last one of them are things that Carmack has little to nothing to do with.

I swear people act like he made the entire game by himself.

hiptanaka1518d ago

He was a little something called Technical Director. And you obviously know nothing if you weren't aware of the VAST array of technical problems that dogged the PC version from day one.

wicko1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

You mean the technical problems that were solved almost immediately by updated drivers from AMD? Talk about being bitter, I can think of far worse launches than that.

BattleAxe1518d ago

Carmack would make a great Circuit City employee, nothing more.

MysticStrummer1518d ago

Even with no technical problems, it's just an exceedingly mediocre game. I had the same reaction to Rage that I had to Doom 3. Played for a few hours, got bored, and never touched the game again.

lonesoul651518d ago

take the game out completely...the engine tech is what really held it back. From pour muddy textures when you are up close, to texture popping. Remember a time when people used to license iD's engines? Not anymore...

Ser1518d ago

Agreed with MysticStrummer. Rage was boring. I literally played for ONE AFTERNOON and have yet to touch it again.

MikEyG1517d ago

So I was mistakin when I heard Carmack say that his developer's had utilized all 8 core's of the PS3 cpu to avoid texture stream problem's and I must have been hearing thing's when he stated that the texture's were the big thing with this game yet game's before it like fallout 3 battlefield 2 and numourous other's have much better resoulution when up close so go blow carmack in another forum

TheLeapist1517d ago

@hiptanaka:
This is like blaming the guys that coded the unreal engine for any game that uses it that has issues. Once again, you know nothing about programming or what goes into making a game and you're making it more and more obvious.

Kurylo3d1517d ago (Edited 1517d ago )

@TheLeapist

You do realize that it was his company that made the game as well as the engine. I can understand not blaming him if another company used the engine and made the assets wrong, but cmon now... The company that made the engine made the game. If they cant show off what its capable of then no one can. Only Carmack and the people who worked for him are to blame.

As much of a fan i am, the dude is oldschool. Currently he just doesnt shine one bit. Games werent complex back then.. they were just find the key and shoot things. Its gotta be more then that these days. Plus hes no longer even on the cutting edge graphically. Sure mega textures are a good idea.. but apparently it was mostly in theory. Not in practice so far. Maybe when cpus get better.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1517d ago
StayStatic1518d ago

Yup , don't expect an apology from Bobby Kotick any time soon , Carmack + 1 , now make Doom 4 awesome on PC.

AO1JMM1517d ago

Yet all these children on here (look at above posts) will still cry about it.

Eyesoftheraven1518d ago

I haven't lost respect by a long shot; it's a tough world and a very tough business/lifestyle. I was merely just disappointed in a title I was never especially excited over to begin with. Lessons learned, then gradually surfacing; we may hope to see better & proper PC support with future iD titles.

ninjahunter1518d ago

If your talking about the bugs and bad texture loading and ATI incompatibility, those are all fixed. That games so optimized you could get 60FPS on a $500 laptop. Or whatever Piece of junk you can find at goodwill.

Other than that John didnt have anything to do with the other flaws, so please check your facts before you stick your hand up your ass and start throwing what you find.

tee_bag2421518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

I don't get all the carmack hate. How can you loose respect for a guy who is out there trying?! Sure, Rage was a disappointment to alot of people... Get over it! Try directing your hate into the mirror.

lonesoul651518d ago

I really don't think people hate Carmack...the things he has done for the industry as a whole are legendary. I think it has more to do with him talking a little too much. He has kinda become the Sony(not PS3 guys) of the games industry. He has amazing vision and the ability to R&D some great tech, but it takes someone else after him to perfect it.

TheGameFoxJTV1517d ago

These are dumb kids. Nothing you say will change their opinion. They're talking down on him, yet he's the one with actual influence, respect, and a good view of how this industry works.

this is just another example of ignorant kids thinking they know everything that goes on in the industry just because they play the games.

Just like how a month ago they were all complaining about AC3 being all pro-american. Yet, low and behold, newest trailer shows Connor killing colonist as well. They will always complain first.

meetajhu1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

AMD fked up. Nvidia had 0 problems on day one. It's not only Rage almost every game doesn't run properly on AMD GPUs. AMD user are also not smart to identify the problem, there IQ is easily test from buying a AMD product

PersonMan1518d ago

"AMD fked up. Nvidia had 0 problems on day one. It's not only Rage almost every game doesn't run properly on AMD GPUs. AMD user are also not smart to identify the problem, there IQ is easily test from buying a AMD product"

Reading this entire post of yours makes me believe you are an AMD user. How did you put it?... Not smart... yup.

StayStatic1518d ago

Agreed , Saints Row 3 is another game that is subject to bad AMD drivers , playable but disappointing when similar peroforming Nvidia cards run roughly 50% faster in terms of FPS for some games.

It's kind of hit and miss with AMD because there are a lot of games that work really well too.

PockyKing1518d ago

I feel ike 60 percent of THQ games run bad on AMD drivers. I have the AMD Radeon HD 6670 and both Red Faction games are almost unplayable, Warhammer 40K Space Marine same. Company of Heroes and Darksiders are the only THQ games I have that run smooth.

SPAM-FRITTER-1231517d ago (Edited 1517d ago )

@TheLeapist... right so carmack just said here is what i want.....make it.

NO he never. it was his game and his name. why would he let such a wreck leave his company knowing it was broken from the get go.

Rage had such a big build up it was like we had to buy it. it did not perform to standard and made him look stupid.

on a previous post he said: Doom4 will be ready when its ready, more than likely it will be crap BUT over hyped like Rage was. he is making out like everyone is begging him for Doom4. yes we want Doom4 BUT not by you.

OT:great, Nvidia was fine but AMD was not.

try explaining that to the PS3 owners who paid the same price as Xbox users for Skyrim.

why should I as a AMD user be treat different because i chose a different company.

Rage was released for PC not Nvidia.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1517d ago
john21518d ago

Well, the first thing he did in QuakeCon was to apologize for the PC version of RAGE :P

HaVoK3081517d ago

Lost your Respect? I am sure he loses sleep at night. Not very good with priorities I take it?

SPAM-FRITTER-1231517d ago

after playing his PS2 port of Rage i will not be buying his games till he respects the platform that built his company.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1517d ago
TheRacingX1518d ago

Thanks for imparting your wisdom on us John.... no kidding a PC is more powerful than current consoles, current consoles are 7+ yr old tech. Why don't you explain why id hasn't made a good game in 20 yrs, everything is graphics this, shadows that, how about a game thats fun to play?

BiggCMan1518d ago

I understand what you are saying, but Rage was actually very fun to play despite it's awful story, and flat world. The gameplay, as most people will actually say, was the only highlight of the game. The guns feel so good in your hand, and the physics that each and every bullet has on the specific spot on each enemy is astounding. The guns are varied, and very fun to use. The problem is the missions, they get repetitive, and NPC's are more dull than a Bethesda game (questionable). If that same gameplay is brought back in a sequel, or even a new IP, but with a much better world and story, it could be one hell of a game.

MysticStrummer1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

How far do I have to get into the game before it gets fun? I bought the game cheap a few weeks ago and I can't muster the will to play it anymore. I actually deleted it to make room for the Dust 514 beta. I kept my save file, but my weekend beta pass is long over with and I have no desire to reinstall Rage. I'm about 3 or 4 hours in I guess, and I haven't seen this fun gameplay you're talking about.

@Taquito - "ohhh.....im serious, there is NOTHING on console that looks even close to RAGE" Ohhh... you are blind and/or insane.

TheRacingX1515d ago (Edited 1515d ago )

@ Mystic Summer , I'm 14.5 hrs into the game, ( doing the side missions along with the main story ) its a lot of fetch quests, get me this , bring that back, shoot the mutants blocking your path, VERY repetitive, the bright spot I think are the races to participate in town, the story is typical Fallout 3 post apocalyptic stuff, it does pick up somewhat, there are 'mini' boss fights in the main story , but , like you I pushed through hoping for the wow to kick in, I think I just may race through the main story just to finish it and be done.....

beerkeg1518d ago

'Why don't you explain why id hasn't made a good game in 20 yrs, everything is graphics this, shadows that, how about a game thats fun to play? '

What a load of crap. Doom came out in 1993, that's 19 years ago. The sequel came out a year later which was even better. Quake (1996) came out after that, an amazing game that was great in SP, but also made an impact with its multiplayer. Quake 2 (1997) came out which was even better. Quake 3 (1999) came out and become one of the top games for gaming tornaments.

Doom 3, while critised by some, was still a great game and received high scores across the board.

Quake 4 was handled by Raven.

Which leaves us with Rage. It may not have been their best game, but it was still a good solid shooter and a departure from what they usually do. It was in no way a bad game.

They also made a couple of great games for mobile phones.

They've done quite a bit for gaming in the last twenty years, I see no reason to hate on them. And they haven't made one bad game.

NeoTribe1518d ago

Havnt made a bad game? Quake 4 and doom 3 say hi.

AO1JMM1517d ago

@NeoTribe, Nice opinion but it is not shared by everybody and definitely not me.

taquito1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

@hiptanaka

the pc version of rage looked 5x better than any console game ever created/// It wasnt a benchmark for pc games like crysis 1 was back in 2007 or anything, but it makes uncharted 3 look last gen.

so I'm not sure what you mean, it ran at a perfect 60 frames for the entire game and other than the amd/ati users issues with texture loading, i dont really remember anything bad, then again, i buy nvidia always, amd/ati always have driver issues.

androidcndy1518d ago

you cant be serious can you? i played rage at 60 fps, at 6k textures with everything else on and the game looked like utter crap. Those megatextures were a fluke, the only reason it ran at 60 fps its cause it was an engine made for console, whcih btw, you know who uses it as well? max payne 3, thus the reason why it was ¨well optimized¨. Rage was a fluke on PC and you know it. It didnt look 5 x better, the textures only looked better from far cause when you zoomed in those megatextures, they were crap. 20gb of wasted space. Witcher 2 has better graphics than rage.

floetry1011518d ago

Yeah, I gotta say, I defended the living hell out of Rage before it was released, but what I got was an absolute mess of a game. The mega-textures looked great from a distance, but on close inspection were uglier than some of the earliest Source engine textures.

I can tell you that at the time I played it, I was using an Nvidia card (GTX 295) and the game still had absolutely atrocious texture streaming issues. I've since upgraded, but have no intention of ever playing Rage again. The shooting mechanics are about the only thing they nailed, they're perfect. Everything else is a mish-mash of the last 10 years in game design and it just doesn't work.

wicko1518d ago

Can you tell me what 6k textures are, because it sounds a lot like you're making stuff up. And also, Max Payne uses Rockstar's engine, which is called RAGE, not to be confused with the game called RAGE, which runs on an engine called id Tech 5.

pixelsword1517d ago

"Witcher 2 has better graphics than rage".

That's not a compliment for either game...

PockyKing1518d ago

Lol, don't even bring Uncharted 3 into this. The PC version of RAGE was a port anyways, so your pulling shit out of nowhere. It's a great looking game, but it didn't blow anyone out of the water like we thought it would.

taquito1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

lol....dude, you're using words you don't even understand, no game is EVER ported from console to pc, you got your mind all backwards, all games are made on pc, then ported to console.....

people do not build games on a ps3

uncharted 3 was CREATED on a Windows PC, then PORTED to the ps3

sony just paid the devs not to also make a pc version

every game ever made was created on a pc

and seriously, almost every pc game, wheather exclusive or multiplat looks a FULL generation beyond uncharted 3/killzone 3/halo reach/gears 3

you guys that all talk like it doesnt don't own gaming pc's obviously or you wouldn't be arguing with me, you would know the truth, pc makes console look two generations old almost, lately with games like the witcher 2, hard reset, shogun 2

i own a ps3, bought it at launch, still use it rarely, i played uncharted 3, starhawk most recently, killzone 3 was far worse looking and playing than 2, used to have a 360 since 2005, got bored with it, gave it to my nephew, and will probably buy a new one for halo 4 then sell it, i own a wii, ds, iphone, psp, no vita yet buy will get]

i love all platforms, but pc makes every game on console look last gen without even trying, any game you name from the last 5 years, maxed out on pc in 1080p, 1200p, 1600p ect makes uncharted 3 look like a ps2 game

PockyKing1517d ago

I own a gaming PC, but yes games are all developed on PC's what I mean is that they are made specifically for a certain platform. I own all the consoles as well, but there are definitely games on the PS3 and I'd even mention Gears of War 3 on the 360 that look just as good as some of the best games on PC. However, I don't waste my time to see if textures are "ultra" or not. You can't tell me that the vistas and such in Uncharted 3 look last gen.

blakstarz1518d ago

"Last but not least, Carmack admitted that PCs are superior to consoles, although there are still some headaches with drivers and such things on the PC platform."

That is all that needs to be said, of course its gonna look better on a PC, everyone SHOULD KNOW THAT!. But I can care less, I'll play on a console version w/o the headache of driver issues and hardware upgrades, its not like is a 8-bit looking game, RAGE still looked AWESOME on the consoles.

aliengmr1518d ago

If "drivers" give you that big of a headache its a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning.

We get it you like your console.

Console people always make the PC seem far more complicated than it really is. Most just make stuff up. Its really not rocket science, but if you want to say it is, then I'll take that as a compliment.

PersonMan1518d ago

I played on PC only for many years. There are a lot of problems that crop up. Wanna go play an older game? Sure, oh wait, it doesn't work properly anymore because the hardware and OS changed over the years. Then there's: Install one set of drivers, get game A working beautifully, but it broke game B. Uninstall the new drivers, get game B working perfectly and game A is screwed up now.

Yes, it's more of a headache on PC. Not every game is going to be optimized for your system configuration all the time.

However, when you play on consoles only, you know that the game is running as well as can according to the developers. You can also be sure that everyone else you're playing with, has the same framerate, and they're using the same version of the game.

On PC, you get get people who have faster computers, mods installed, tweaked settings (wider FOV and such), hacks and other crap.

blakstarz1516d ago

Please use a better analogy than "getting out of bed". And if you read more carefully, nowhere did I say "I LIKE CONSOLES".
I'm saying, its much more easier that having to deal with the chance of drivers not updated or this is not compatible to play this game at maximum settings, you have to include all those elements when dealing with PC gaming.

PirateThom1518d ago

RAGE looked OK, and just OK, as long as you didn't turn around... or move too fast. The game was a mess on consoles, even with the insane install it did on PS3 it didn't load textures right at any point.

And the game was absolutely woeful. Can't believe I bought it, even if it was only £10, after all the warnings.

jetlian1518d ago (Edited 1518d ago )

360 son lol none of those issues

mochachino1518d ago

This article sounds a bit fanboyish and misleading/confusing. Is it only 30 FPS when in 3D mode or all the time? And does it really need to be re-stated that PCs are more powerful than consoles, that fact couldn't be more obvious.

Being more powerful doesn't necessarily mean superior though, some of the best games are only on consoles and some of the best games are only on PC. I'd prefer to have both as they both have benefits that the other lacks.