id Software proudly shows off new screenshots of Rage, its upcoming first-person shooter and racing video game for PC, Xbox 360, PS3 & Mac directly from SIGGRAPH 2009, New Orleans. More to come at the next QuakeCon (August 13-16).
Wow, jawDROPPING even (lol sorry oliver). But, damn those do look amazing. Is that really in-game? The most impressive part: just look at those clouds, especially where the sun is shining through. That is utterly amazing. And, ferm, water doesn't look all that weird to me. Other than it looks like it's contaminated or something. Then again, looking at that last pic, the water does look a lil weird around the rocks, almost like there is a light fog on top of the water which you can notice around the rocks. But, damn, those clouds and the sun rays. That is amazing.
How the hell are they gonna make this run at 60FPS on xbox and PS3 like they said they will :O
@St0: They just have to optimize the code correctly, which I have no doubt they will.
I hope it's open to modders (being an id game I have little doubt that it will be completely accessible). Although we may have to wait until Doom 4.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... Doom will "not be another four-year development period", said Carmack, but will have "three times the graphics richness" because it runs at 30 frames-per-second, rather than 60, which Rage targets. “The next DOOM game will look like it’s built on another engine, as it uses three times the horsepower”, Carmack said, according to a 1UP report.
three times the graphics richness :O that's crazy
The id are lazy people. This is not the work of a lazy company. If this game releases and looks like this, and I have little doubt it will, Carmack will once again show why he is considered one of the greatest programmers the game industry has ever had. And with id offering a better tool set this time with there engine, even Crytek has to go back to the drawing board if they can do 3x this.
This game looks beautiful. Holy crap. Just look at that environment detail. The sky. The plants... Woah.
You said it. This game's majesty can only be truly experienced on PC. The PC version of this game is going to make the console fanboys look like ignorant twits. They're arguing over scraps.
That my dear is a matter of opinion. There are LOTS of people out there who don't have a PC and don't intend on buying one. In their minds, the console version will be just as beautiful and is certainly up there with the best looking games on both PS3 and 360. Yeah sure, the PC version will 'look' better - what matters though is that console owners get a good gameplay experience. My PC is good enough to run RAGE (I would hope!) but I don't play games on the PC, that's what the living room is for. *opens another spreadsheet
They are entitled to think what they want. But if the fanboys are going to have an argument about which version is better, and needlessly waste bandwidth with their stupid invalid arguments, then they will most definitely be pwned by the facts. The PC version will be the best version. And every point you brought up is irrelevant, my friend. A gaming rig costs too much for some people (even me). And yet, to the PS3 fanboys I can say that the PS3 costs too much for some people, so by your logic the 360 is great. The point is that if anyone is looking for the definitive version of RAGE, they will only find it on PC. The PS3 version's advantages over the 360 and the 360 version's advantages over the PS3 are hereby pathetic because like I said before, the console fanboy twits are arguing over scraps. The PC version is it. The 360 fanboys who only play the game on 360 will never be able to say that they played the definitive version of the game, and the PS3 fanboys who only play the game on PS3 won't be able to say it, either. So the two sides might as well stop nitpicking and stop bashing each other because in the larger scheme of things, they're both getting crap versions of the game.
"So the two sides might as well stop nitpicking and stop bashing each other because in the larger scheme of things, they're both getting crap versions of the game" Perhaps one of the single most narrow minded comments I've read on N4G - and that's saying something! "And every point you brought up is irrelevant" Perhaps for you but not for the large number of people who have consoles and no interest in gaming PC's, CPU specs, RAM clock speeds, overclocking and SLI cards. Sure, the best looking version *may* be on the PC - but since when did that make console versions 'crap' - as you say.
If you think about streaming prerendered textures, you would realize that, while a half-way modern PC will always have the advantage over the current consoles, some of these advantages are reduced. PC GPUs generally have more, if not MUCH more, video RAM than consoles. This is very useful when you want to cram a lot of high-resolution textures in there for each level. When you are continuously streaming textures, however, the extra memory may prove to serve absolutely no benefit - possibly simply unused. With spare memory, the texture cache COULD be enlarged, which would somewhat reduce the chance that a texture page won't be found when needed - but the implementation would be tuned to run well on the least common denominator (256 MB), so there may be no significant benefit to a larger cache. This situation is similar to the lack of improvement seen in the new 2 GB video cards - if the developers haven't written their code or developed their assets to take advantage of it (higher resolution textures, different packing technique, reduction of compression cost), you will see little significant difference with the newer hardware. PC GPus also have much more horsepower in terms of shader performance and number of shaders than the consoles. This proves to be a huge differentiator when you are using multi-pass or multi-texture techniques to hide the fact that you don't have enough video RAM to provide unique textures everywhere. Traditional game engines render low-res repeating textures, topped by detail textures, then multiple layers of decals, and then low-res prerendered shadows (or worse, dynamic shadows for static geometry) to approximate uniqueness everywhere, performing this work EVERY SINGLE FRAME (not to mention the dynamic decals for bullet holes and bloodspatter and the dynamic shadows for the things that move around). If you have prerendered all these static layers together into a single megatexture, not only can you make it look much better, but you don't need as much graphics horsepower to render it - and can spend the horsepower working on other features or better dynamic effects (higher resolution shadow buffers and more particle effects, or example). I look at it like this: which 2D game looks more beautiful, Mario Bros or Myst? Obviously the second, though it required more preprocessing and much more disk space. Megatexturing appears to be the same sort of thing - but for 3D surface texturing.
That's an interesting response. What interests me most about it is how it doesn't even connect to my statement in any single way. How am I being narrow-minded when I am the one who is saying that the console fanboys from both sides are ignoring the FACT that the PC version of RAGE is going to run smoother and look better than either of the console versions, so therefore, their little bickering over their second-rate versions of the game is useless and pathetic in the larger scheme of things. By the way, learn the definition of narrow-minded, because an example of narrow-minded is when fanboys choose not to recognize another version of a game because it doesn't apply to their situation. So, maybe it's you and the fanboys who are narrow-minded. My original post was made to merely point out how silly it is for the fanboys to argue about which version of RAGE is going to look better of the two console versions, when that is irrelevant. The definitive version of the game is on PC. It can still be played in the comfort of a chair or couch chair with a controller if one wishes, and it still beats out the console versions. Maybe you and fanboys like you can't handle that truth, so you choose to call ME narrow-minded, and of course, you will get more agrees, because now both sides of this silly, stupid console superiority debate will feel butthurt that I called their versions the second rate versions and they will agree with you and disagree with me. Even now they deny the truth.
It makes perfect sense - you said... "they're both getting crap versions of the game" Why? because it won't run at 1600x1200? As I said, narrow minded and explains your distinct lack of bubbles. Not sure what part of my comments makes you think I'm a 'fanboy' - if anything, its you who is displaying all the symptoms! Even so, the definition of narrow minded is "bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced" Granted, you don't seem to be a bigot - but you are certainly intolerant and prejudiced against the console releases. As I said already (I think you ignored it) - maybe the PC version will look and run best - but it STILL doesnt make the console versions crap. On yer bike ;)
FYI I don't own a gaming rig. I don't play games on PC. I only own a 360. Do you understand now? I am tired of these stupid fanboys arguing over console versions of the game. Am I prejudice for hating fanboys. Yes, you are correct. I am prejudice against fanboys. Fanboys are not true gamers. Personally, I don't care about the graphics. I don't care if the console version of the game is inferior to the PC version. You're still not getting it. That point of my post was not to bash the consoles, it was to bash the fanboys who are needlessly arguing about something that I find so hilariously funny. How can they both be arguing about who has the best second-rate version of a game? And yes, you also should be able to admit that the console versions are by definition going to be the second-rated versions of RAGE. You misunderstood what I was trying to say, and think somehow that I am a PC fanboy. I'm not. I'm a realist. I don't argue about who has the best version of a multiplatform game because I know that most of the time it's neither the PS3 nor the 360, it's the PC. The PC has the best version of the multiplatform titles, but these fanboys are talking trash to each other when they're both essentially wrong. Thanks for noticing that I don't have as many bubbles as you. Maybe I should make 5 accounts and promote myself to your level, or maybe I'll find a better way to spend my time. My genuine belief is that the guys who have the most bubbles are usually fanboys. You may be an exception to the rule, so I'm not accusing you of being one. But God help you if I read a post of yours that displays fanboyism, because quite frankly, fanboys can take a long walk off a short bridge.
According to John Carmack, there will be little difference between the versions. The design of his new engine is supposed to allow almost unlimited textures. So even if the console versions aren't exactly like the PC version, it should be the best looking console game ever. And the console owners saved about $1000 compared to what most gaming PC owners spend. So I will believe Carmack instead of you. He has a better track record. I will agree that fanboys are worthless though.
But there a sense of 'je ne sais quoi' about the graphics which give it a vivid artstyle and clearly step away from realism. The sky looks absolutely amazing.
I agree dude, that sky looks amazing. It makes me want to cry lol. Just the details of those clouds and the rays of sunlight. The environment as a whole looks really really good actually. From the sand to the boulders to.....god that sky is f*cking beautiful. THAT is what makes my jaw drop.
impressive! but those got to be pc shots, theres no way the ps3 or 360 can handle that... really looking forward to seeing some footage
I think both consoles can handle it but just more jaggies around the rocks and such like you see in fallout 3.
I found the source of the images, which goes over some of the work to get id Tech 5 running on the consoles: http://s09.idav.ucdavis.edu...
Rage focuses on the consoles, it may run very well on them.
no doubt it will look great on consoles but not with the graphical level shown here
Excellent. I liked these images. I think that the graphic is great, this game promises a lot. Very interesting. Only it should not always trust the SS, as always there may be manipulation of images using PS or similar programs
Agree, but let's not forget we are talking about id. :P
Game companies only manipulate console screenshots. PC screenshots with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering always look flawless.
Oh, I need to play this!
don't get a heart attack when you see actual console screen shots lol!. I am getting this game for my PC.
I might need to reconsider my 'No way am I buying this' approach to this game.
60 FPS also
Haha if you have the GPU for it yes.
Wow, those are some of the most high-res skyboxes I've ever seen... and I love it. I didn't think idtech5 looked much better than 4 when I first saw it, but the latest screenshots from Rage are really starting to convince me otherwise.
to the people who are saying it that this has to be pc because it looks so good...lets not for get about a greaphical beast called killzone 2..so in other words consoles can handle amazing graphics
killzone is a graphical beast when you compare it to everything we have seen on console thus far... but next to those pics, the "beast" looks more like a puppy. I don't really know what to say other then they look amazing... whats so impressive is the fact that there is not really that much to the pics. I mean its just barron wasteland, or.... hummm, ok how do i put this. when people compared killzone 2 to Crysis, even though graphics are graphics and all, i think the art direction ( for me anyway) made it hard to really compare them side by side. one was lush green landscape with trees the other was grey baron concrete jungle so to speak, still beautiful but i could not really compare them. this is kind of the same in that its very baron and "hard unforgiving looking" yet there is still so much colour yet it keeps its waste landscape look. i don't know, i am prob not making much sense, lol anyway, very impressive ! for the first time ever i actually whish i had a monster pc that could run this.
Can consoles really put out this level of detail and graphics? This mega texturing seems to be the way forward.
I hope so (then again, not even sure I'm getting this game), but these pics look amazing. Granted that, yes, I'm sure they're PC shots, but if consoles can get close to this....wow! I'm still hung up on that sky. Just sitting here staring at it between typing lol.
Yeah, a lot of people here say things like "no way can a console do that", which may be true with standard game engine designs. But with a whole new rendering technique (continuously streaming textures), who's to say where the limits are, now?
BTW, I saw Rage's dirt-track level running on all four platforms at QuakeCon two years ago. After the keynote, you could walk up and take a close look at the screens. All four looked essentially identical (and were running at, or about, 60 fps). The PC seemed to be running at a higher resolution and the color balance or saturation of one of the consoles looked a bit off, but that would only be apparent running side-by-side (and I'm sure they just hadn't gotten around to tweaking that).
Holy crap!! This looks amezin just look at the sky and the enviroment wow I'm impressed.
That was stunning, definitely getting for PC.
awesome i don't like the water... it's strange plus, there no wheel print on the pic with the car... x°D
Yes, the water violates the Games Industry-mandated requirement that all water must look like it came from a tropical island... even if it is a standing body of stagnant, algae-filled water! It's hard to tell without a moving image, but the effect around the rocks could simply be the lack of visibility due to the algae. Looks somewhat like the images at http://www.pondboss.com/for...
In my opinion it looks great not jaw-dropping
but, i want to see a trailer. these screens have nothing going on. it's just scenery. you see a couple of guys but that's it. so, lets wait till we see an in-game trailer to decide if this is the "best-looking" game available.
what the heck are you guys talking about! this game looks just like any other next-gen game but only slghtly better, and those who say the consoles can't handle this are stupid because Uncharted 2 looks 10x's better. By the way the sand looks like a giant brown coloured cloth sitting on top of a bunch of rocks but the sky does look good, and the rocks have jaggies on them so stop being blind.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.