Top
390°

Stunning RAGE versus Fallout 3 HD screenshot comparison

GB writes: "RAGE was one of the most amazing looking games this E3. Being developed by the talented people at id Software and published by the folks at at Bethesda, the game should be one of the most visually stunning show pieces this generation. Developers have claimed that every object in the game if different and is totally hand rendered . On the other hand we have Fallout 3 which was also set in a post-apocalyptic world and was easily one of the best role playing games of 2008. So how do these games stack up against each other? Lets take a look."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Arsenic132600d ago

Whats even the point of this? Obviously Rage looks better.

JsonHenry2600d ago

No contest. But then again one is based off of tech created back in 2005 and the other isn't even finished yet.

These were PC screens?

Chubear2600d ago

IT"S 2010 PEOPLE!!! Use video comparisons. That's the only real way to view a game; when it's in motion. We don't play stagnant pics :/

Commander_TK2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

Man, talk about graphical monsters

Conloles2600d ago

Bu bu but it looks this good on consoles

hassi942600d ago

@Arsenic I think they are just trying to show how good the graphics are when stacked next to a similar-styled game from 2 years ago, not to compare and contrast per se.

@Commander_TK

I wouldn't call Brink a graphical monster tbh... It's miles behind Rage.

@Conloles

Oh please stop it with the fanboyism. I have quite a decent rig and play my fair share of PC games as well as games on my Xbox, you don't have to do one or another. And yes, it DOES look good on consoles, just because it looks better on PC doesn't mean it looks shit on consoles.

frostypants2599d ago

@Conloles...stuff it. I have a good PC rig, and PS3, and a 360. My PC pretty much collects dust. Live in the now...PC gaming is dying. Accept it and move on.

That said, I played Fallout 3 on my PC on max settings, and I gotta say...it wasn't that pretty to begin with, even back then. I would hope Rage looks better.

I'll also say that Fallout 3 was overrated in every other aspect as well...Bethesda has done next to nothing to improve upon the original Elder Scrolls formula beyond graphical enhancements and tighter story telling. Same glitch-fests, same half-a**ed animation efforts, same lack of enemy variety, same awkward and ham-fisted set pieces. Bleh. Can we please stop pretending it's a benchmark for anything?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2599d ago
BeOneWithTheGun2600d ago

But I will be getting both games day 1!

Scotland-The-Brave2600d ago

Fallout 3 has been out for ages

OneSneakyMofo2600d ago

We must be in the future where he's from.

hassi942600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

Thou Shall Not Flail, but shall most certainly FAIL. :D

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2600d ago
MNicholas2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

Rage is more cartoony.

Technically speaking, Fallout 3 has a handful of more advanced effects while Rage has more color and texture variety.

Not much to choose between them since neither is mind-blowing from a purely technical standpoint.

Rage has a significant disadvantage compared to games like Fallout 3 or Gears in that a portion of shader power has to be used to run the "megatexture" system which enables texture variety. This means there's less processing power left over for dynamic lighting, normal maps and post-processing.

That's why the visuals in Rage, despite all the color and hand-drawn textures. look so static in videos.

vulcanproject2600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

Every game is a compromise of visuals and performance it just depends what exact style you are aiming for. Virtual texturing's main advantage visual wise is that absolutely no area of the game uses identical textures to the next. Every texture and object can be unique, you dont see the same dull flat wall or floor texture over and over again as in other engines. For an openworld game like RAGE this means you can create impressive 3D vistas and cliff faces with amazing detail. Of course a major downside is the amount of sheer work artists have to put into every detail.

Megatexturing really didnt work all that well in enemy territory, but coupled with the new ID tech engine and the advances made in the technique its fabulous

FragMnTagM2600d ago

There is no comparison. Fallout looks decent, but put next to rage it looks like a turd.

webeblazing2600d ago

both of yall got a point and fallout shouldnt be up here. rage got a one of a kind art style like you said they hand paint the texture and i appreciated. rage dont have all the crazy effect going on but it has enuff this games is a work of art and looks better then most of these half ass games.

PlainOldGamer2600d ago

RAGE vs FALLOUT 3???
Why? RAGE has a slight use of cel-shading.
And FALLOUT 3 looks terrible (Yet still one of my favorite games)

Bigpappy2600d ago

Lets see how it plays now.

Shepherd 2142600d ago

Rage looks better, but Fallout has been an established universe for more than a decade and its gameplay and exploration has always been very immersible.

I still have to see if Rage can even match that.

shovelbum2600d ago

As long as Rage gets the amount of playtime I've spent with Fallout 3 (100s of hours) then I'll be very happy. It obviously looks better but I prefer gameplay to visuals.

DoucheVader2600d ago

Oh you want N4G news articles to have a point? :P What is wrong with you.

Just look at the pics.

Aren't the frigging cool?

hassi942600d ago

@Arsenic I think they are just trying to show how good the graphics are when stacked next to a similar-styled game from 2 years ago, not to compare and contrast per se.

@Commander_TK

I wouldn't call Brink a graphical monster tbh... It's miles behind Rage.

@Conloles

Oh please stop it with the fanboyism. I have quite a decent rig and play my fair share of PC games as well as games on my Xbox, you don't have to do one or another. And yes, it DOES look good on consoles, just because it looks better on PC doesn't mean it looks shit on consoles.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2599d ago
NecrumSlavery2600d ago

I doubt it. Rage may be a better deal than Borderlands but Fallout 3 is untouchable with all it's faults. Let's play it first. Pretty is only a small fraction of what makes a game good.

hassi942600d ago (Edited 2600d ago )

I agree completely with NecrumSlavery.

@halocursed

Maybe in graphics, but if you're a real RPG fan you'd never say that... But judging by your name I doubt you are. Fallout 3's many options, great sidequests (both marked and unmarked), great locations, deep roleplaying and the fun VATS mechanic will be a very hard game to beat by an FPS with light RPG mechanics. At the moment the gameplay seems quite slow, generic and bland so I hope when it comes out there's a lot of variation in quests, NPCs and combat.

tdrules2600d ago

and id software is "untouchable" compared to Bethesda.
John Carmack is a God

StillGray2600d ago

Rage looks freaking sweet. GameBryo is no competition against it.

gameseveryday2600d ago

Rage really does look better in all departments. I mean the time gap is not that big come to think of it. Rage has been in development since 2007 and fallout 3 came
out in 2008. But yes..RAGE is beating Bethesda's best head to toe.

Valay2600d ago

Why compare two games that are pretty different?

aviator1892600d ago

The two games aren't completely different from each other. Both take place in post-apocalyptic settings, in open world setting, similar elements, and the art style is also pretty similar.

But Rage is obviously the victor here. When you do see the game in motion, it's amazing at how such a great looking game is running 60 FPS as well.