GRTV met up with Matt Hooper from Id Software to talk about their next big title Rage.
getting this and killzone 3, looks nice. edit:@nastylefthook, yea im looking forward to killzone 3 more, but this looks tight as well, tax return baby! muwhahahaah!
agreed. i like killzone 3 better but thats just me, but both look great. Edit: LOL lucky...
on PC at max settings looks better than KZ3. Yes, I compare console games to PC games since a game which is on a console and PC, then it´s not exlusive.
Rage will not look as good as people seem to think it will on consoles when it launches. It's not even Killzone2 level at this point on consoles.
What you've all seen so far is smoke and mirrors. On PC is where you'll see Rage's graphics looking like we've seen. The console versions will look much mutted than what we've seen today and those KZ2 comparsions will look stupid when you see the thing on consoles next year.
Shame its not 1080P on all platforms, cough
Every time I read an article about rage most of the discussion is centered around Killzone 3? Just your typical game x looks better than game y. When, of course, neither game x or y has been released.
The reason Rage is always mentioned with KZ3 is because everyone knows that KZ2 graphics can not be done on 360 (and we know this because they haven't been done). So, 360 fans say, "Look! Rage has better textures!" When that's ALL Rage has. KZ2 (yes, I said TWO) has better lighting, better animations, better hit reaction, better particle effects, etc etc etc. And KZ3 will run at 60fps, too. Plus, KZ3 has already shown more variety than Rage.
I hope at least PC & PS3 versions will be at FULLHD. No more last gen disk swappings.
Fallout: Vegas, Rage, K3, Deus Ex will all fulfil all my gamin needs
pc's will always have more resolution and frames fer second
Yeah, I am getting RAGE for the PC as well. If you spend the money on a gaming rig then you better take advantage of the much better visuals and higher resolutions. Otherwise you just wasted your money.
Yep what's the point of buying something great and then not enjoying it.
Carmack was behind the times during the PS2 gen. While newer and better developers were pumping out visuals like Jak 3, Ghost Hunter, and God of War, Carmack (who was part of the Xbox division's board of advisors) did nothing but complain about the Emotion Engine and how the PS2 should had an intel processor. Nowadays there are many better developers and vastly more impressive technology and truly dynamic visuals. Rage: Outdated technology. Outdated visuals.
How the hell is the tech outdated? Stop talking out of your ass. I hate when ignorant ass hats such as your self "think" you know how game engines work with out actually ever using them OR taking the time to learn them.
How does unreleased = outdated
One should think before using the statement "not look as good as people seem to think."
60fps seems perfect for online competitive play, while 30fps is just fine for the single player. when i played both KZ2 and CoD online it didnt make a bit of difference to me because i learned to adapt. i learn to adapt to KZ2 control scheme and i loved it; i wouldnt use any other control scheme to play KZ. as for Rage being 60fps its no big deal most games this gen are either 30fps or 60fps.
Sony Cultmembers troll everywhere and mention it's name...
This why so many people hate sony fanbois....
I'll have to see more before I buy. I need to see how open the game is and how many options there are.
I wonder how intensive their engine is for the PC version. What kind of rig is going to be required to get 60fps at 1920x1080 with all settings maxed?
Obviously mine :D
Ooh, what's yours? Mine: Intel DP55KG ATX OCZ 850W PSU AseTek 550LC Liquid Cooling Intel Core i7 860 8GB DDR3 PC3-10600 @ 1333 Mhz Sapphire Radeon 5870 1GB 1.5TB 3G SATA II HDD Blu-Ray DVDRW w/ LightScribe Seitek Eclipse Razer DeathAdder w/ Vespula Logitech ClearChat Pro LG 47" 1080p 120hz LCD TV Onkyo HT-SR800 7.1 (110W per channel, 230W sub) Edit: Oh yeah, and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Wow! 6 disagrees? I take it that people don't believe me? Let me see if I can post some pictures for you.
My system is as follows - Asus crossfire MB, 4gigs DDR3 1600, AMD Phenom 965 quad core @ 3.6ghz, 500gig HDD, Radeon HD5870, and depending on whether I am playing on my 24 inch LED monitor or my 46 inch SONY Bravia HDTV with my Yamaha 5.1 surround sound.
@callahan09: I think they're envious of your rig. It's an excellent combo, of course. If you could get another identical HDD and make them do RAID0 that would raise the speed of disk access more, but that would mean reinstalling Windows again.
A $200 videocard runs Modern Warfare 2 at 1200p 4xAA at 100+ FPS, while consoles did 600p at 30+ fps with no AA. Therefore, I don't think it will take much to run RAGE at 60fps(which implies you have v-sync enabled) 1080p on PC if consoles are doing it at 720p.
PC specific features such as Ambient Occlusion however do drop your frames down considerably.
"at 30+ fps" You did a nice work downplaying MW2 on consoles, didnt you? I dont care about the game, but it is not just 30+ fps, I would say 50fps average, at least on PS3. RAGE is a pretty plain game. I do agree it shouldnt be that hard to run it on a PC.
And how much did the rest of the PC cost? And how well did it sustain the 100+ FPS throughout the game?
Given the quality and sustained performance of consoles, a high-end PC to deliver the same overall sustained experience is going to cost you 5-10x what a PS3 or Xbox costs.
Running it, and running it right are two different things.
I don't know where you shop(or where you took math) but anyone can build a PC for $600ish that would run circles around PS3/360 multiplatforms.
And the 100+fps is an average, not a maximum.
5-10x? No, no, and no. You can build a PC that can give the same quality as a console for about $400. lol, 5-10x.. so, $1500-$3000? Just, wow.
Equivalent settings on PC to console games and resolutions do not require anything like powerful hardware. A mere Radeon 4670 starts to provide console besting visuals with more resolution and filtering. Its a 65 dollar card.
Modern warfare 2 will usually average well over 40 frames a second on such a card @ 1280 x 1024, maximum details and 4 x AA. Console version averages about the same @ 2 x AA with reduced details, and just under half that resolution (1024 x 600).
Of course the intial hardware cost of a PC is more than a console, but it can do so much more. Most people use a Pc, so why not have one with a decent graphics card added in? Its games are considerably cheaper which easily recoups its cost versus consoles and their expensive games, peripherals, online subs etc etc. Already worked out that the first six months of this year i have saved over 150 dollars on games alone if i had purchased the console versions, and we havent even reached the peak period for releases yet :-)
A 360 costs $299. You can't build a PC that can run Mass Effect, Splinter Cell...etc on $300...lol.
For $300 you get a new 360 with 250gb hard drive, a head set, the best wireless gaming controller ever made and access to the best on line service with the best looking and playing games ever made. There is no comparison. The PC has the best Tech demo's made that nobody can run on their PC's. Every PC is different, meaning every PC gamers experience is different. Comparing PC gaming to consoles is apples and oranges. END OF STORY.
BTW...let me know when PC has a game running like this for $300...LOL. PC gaming is struggling right now, that's why they are moving over to consoles to make some money.
Please, post a link or components for the $400-700 PC that can run Resident Evil 5 from start to finish with the same quality and consistency as a PS3 or Xbox. No slowing to a crawl while something reads or writes to the HD, whether it's a game or Windows, no sound skippling, screen tearing, frame dropping. I really wanna see what you come up with ...
Please name a console that can completely replace a PC? Can't do it? Closest you can get to a PC is with a PS3, but even then it isn't a suitable replacement because you can't run whatever software you want on it (with the exception of linux back when otherOS was implemented). A computer does so much more than gaming, so expecting a $300 PC to match a $300 console is just moronic. You could get a Radeon 5670 that costs ~$90, it will do 1080p RE5 with avg fps of 43fps and minimum fps of 30. You could probably find something even cheaper to match the console's 720p performance. http://www.xbitlabs.com/art... $30 case http://www.ncix.com/product... $20 dvd drive http://www.ncix.com/product... $47 2GB of DDR2-800 http://www.ncix.com/product... $40 250GB HD (7200rpm) http://www.directcanada.com... $20 kb/mouse http://www.ncix.com/product... $50 mobo (with 10mir bringing it to 40 but we'll do this without MIR) http://www.ncix.com/product... $39 PSU http://www.bestdirect.ca/pr... $69 CPU http://www.ncix.com/product... Total: $405 I know its hard to believe, but PC gaming isn't nearly as expensive as you think it is. Consoles aren't just magically cheap. These aren't even the lowest prices, and they're all in Canadian too, so it would probably be cheaper in the US.
We're not trying to replace a general computing PC with a console. People here are saying you can replace a console for gaming, with a $400 pc and get equal consistent game performance. I've been building PCs since brain dead 286's and the system you spec'd will hiccup. It will not play RE5 from start to finish with no serious frame drops or stuttering here and there. If you want a PC that can play games acceptably, sure. But you cannot get console performance without compromise for $400-700. ALL console buses are optimized throughout the system to maintain their throughput specifically for audio and video. There are no background processes that ever steals CPU cycles, etc., or causes disk reads/writes. You can build a system that has so much power when these things happen, they are not noticed at all during gameplay, but having build many, many systems big and small, you can't do it in the price range you're talking about. We just have to agree to disagree.
MorganX the days of hiccupping in games are long gone when PCs were introduced dual core CPU's and large amounts of RAM with high bus speeds, i.e. 4 years ago.
RE5's MT Framework is actually a great engine, and will run on the vast majority of PC's across the board. What makes you think that RE5 on PC is optimized any different than consoles...I think what your trying to say is that PC games are bad ports? In that case I can see some instances when your correct(Saints Row 2...), but that is the engine coding, not the hardware capability, which comes down to lazy developers, kinda like how a lot of PS3 games run and look worse than the 360 version, same thing.
BTW here's your PC for $550, http://www.tomshardware.com... Pretty impressive [email protected]
Great stuff letros. That configuration that tomshardware knocked up would obliterate resident evil 5. My laptop runs resident evil 5 better than the consoles. 1280 x 720 and 30 frames is so easy to reach these days, resident evil 5 can be run better on a 65 dollar card than it can on a console.
Even with DX10 activated, maximum quality and an absurd 8 x MSAA(!) @ 1280 x 1024 the 5550 manages to average 25 and 32 frames between the scenes tested. A little sluggish on the first scene perhaps, but then it is running the game with 50 percent more pixels than PS3, 8 x anti aliasing compared to NONE on PS3, and direct X 10 maximum effects which the consoles dont match and cant do. Whats more, the overclocked version breezes both tests at those settings without really sweating. Turn off DX10 or back down on the AA a tad and the framerate will rocket
Building PCs since 286s means absolutely nothing, sorry but just not impressed. If you aren't keeping up with current trends, your past experience will not help you. Personally, I've been building since P3's were around (but have also built a few 486s, outdated at the time), but I also keep up on current hardware, reading reviews and articles pretty much every day or two. The fact that you think a gaming PC will cost a minimum of $1500 to match console gaming just proves you don't know what you're talking about. All the stuff I listed was based on running the game at 1080p (which the consoles do not do), and if you were to run it at 720p like the consoles, you'd have an even higher performance. "There are no background processes that ever steals CPU cycles, etc., or causes disk reads/writes." Very wrong. How about XBL? PSN? Any system libraries the game may use (networking, XMB/NXE interaction)? While there aren't as many background processes, they are still there. Not to mention, you can disable many processes in windows if performance is affected (which is rare, considering the processing power). I'm sorry, but I can't agree to disagree, the fact is you are terribly misinformed, as are many who think PC gaming is so expensive.
i played KZ2 at 30 fps and it only slowed down when you reached a load point other than that it was fine. you wouldn't even notice. oh and KZ2 is still the best looking FPS.
lol the difference between 60fps and 30fps is massive, you're just being delusional. Although I'm sure if KZ2 was at 60fps you wouldn't be saying s#it
Wow glad to have someone else defending 60 fps. It's a world of difference. Those go from mw 2 to bad company 2. And you will find that bad company 2 is way less responsive then mw 2 not only will 60 fps be more responsive animation looks so much better and less jerky. let say you have a 3 second animation on 30 fps the animator will only have 90 frames to work with with 60 fps the animator has twice the frames to work with.
I agree. 60fps is the best. When playing on PC, I have to play a game at 60fps minimum. 1080p 60fps <3 Frustrating playing these fantastic looking games on consoles, yet limited by their hardware - would love to see them in full HD, locked at 60fps. Not struggling to run at 720p @ 30fps.
Yup all you have to do is play mw2 and go back to killzone2 and the difference is very evident.
also guys when the new consoles hit and 1080p 60fps will be the standard you will love it I assure you.
60 frames is gorgeous and arcade like buttery smooth for the best control response and eye pleasing. Killzone 2 does chug along sometimes, low twenties and it is noticeable. A lot of console games do. Having the luxury of 60 frames on Pc is wonderful, it can make games feel so much slicker than the console versions. Mass effect 2 for example. Can be a little sluggish on 360 sometimes, but locked out to 60 frames on Pc its as slick as fook
Huh? You don't notice the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps? Rly? @tdrules - 30 fps is more 'realistic' lol
some prefer 30fps because its the framerate films run at IIRC. I don't see it myself
play modern warfare 2 and then play killzone 2 bg difference EDIT:so modern warfare 2 doesnt run at 60 fps @syaz1 because ps3 only does either 30 fps of 60 fps according to some devs if the ps3 drops below 60 fps it will automatically do 30 fps if im not mistaken it was carmack that said it or was it the developers of super stardust
Just play MGS2 and 3, and notice the massive difference in frame-rate. MGS2 was mostly 60FPS, while the highest FPS that MGS3 could reach was 30. It's amazing how much smoother MGS2 was.
That was one thing I liked about MGS4, the frame-rate was much improved from MGS3, where it was pretty bad a lot of the time.
60 fps in 720p on consoles is a technical accomplishment which makes Rage the best looking First person shooter....period! Only an idiot would disagree.
For a shooter yeah...
Since technical accomplishments tend to mean all areas of graphics and you are talking about a game you have seen a dodgy video of that is a year away from release I am going to go out on a limb and call you a disturbing idiot of the masses who is nothing more than a mere fanboy.
Killzone best looking FPS? For consoles.
i am talking about relevant systems @DeathroW22 right thats why the cell is one of the best cpu out now. face it the only thing pc has is more memory otherwise you would be talking. that the number one enemy of dev, trying to do as much as they can with smaller memory and they do. also i didn't see the pc tag so i am sorry to post under a pc article and then say what i said my mistake. sorry about that
trounbyfire You mad that the PS3 and 360 are running on outdated, limited hardware?
Outdated and limited? Show me a PC with built in Blu-Ray and Cell processing included for $300 or less.
I'm not talking about price, i'm talking about limitations. The consoles are limited, and are showing their age.
LOL @ dustgavin weirdly defensive much? Its only a system dude. You cant deny what Deathrow22 is saying.. consoles have limited power...nothing to really debate.
Many PS3 games are compared to PC games because the graphics are good for a console. Of course PC is always going to be better but calling the PS3 limited and outdated is a stretch when considering what it is capable of. @ROX The same can be said of you defending the PC- it is just a computer, dude.
You lot need to get off the Cell's nuts, it isn't all that great anymore. The way Sony measured compute power on the Cell is in TFLOP performance, which it maxes out at around 2TFLOPs, which is much, much higher than a regular desktop CPU - you are completely correct. However, that power is made up in for example, my PC. I have two ATI 5850s, both are capable of computing at 2.1TFLOPs each, plus whatever my CPU can do. Obviously, the entire two GPUs are rarely used on a game, since Crossfire and SLI are not that good - but in actual computing power - there are applications that can use both to the maximum. Besides, games struggling to run at 720p and 30fps proves my point. I love the PS3, I wouldn't be without it - I love the exclusive games, some of my favourite games this generation all on the PS3. But hardware wise, it was impressive for a while, but it is looking old and a bit dated now.
i wonder why developers never lock the framerates to something in the middle, like 45fps. i thought it's a good balance, smooth framerate while less taxing than to run on 60fps.
Wont work you need a multiple of 30 for tv to get smooth games.
@Double T It is actually not a big accomplishment when nothing is going on on screen. @trounbfire Sorry my friend, there is a big difference. 60fps is a lot smoother. That doesnt mean that 30fps is unplayable by any means, but everything feels "slower".
Seems to me people will make an excuse to dislike something. Those people will forever be delusional.
60fps is NOT overrated. You can play games in 60fps much longer without your eyes getting fatigue.
And KZ2 was unfortunately not only slowing down in it's ridiculous loading points, the framerate was unstable anytime whith several enemies on screen. I'm a PS fan to the bone but the 30 or less fps games are very disappointing.
Kudos to devellopers who try to go 60 fps, in my opinion 60fps is more important than super hi res textures.
PS: please excuse any wrong spelling or grammar, I am not a native speaker.
look it really isn't that big of deal at all. kz2 only slowed down during check point every other time it ran smoothly even in big action scenes. also just look at uc2 there is no slow down or nothing and it is doing alot more at one time then rage. 60 fps is only being made it to a big thing now because 360 fanboys are desperate to try and find a game to top ps3 exclusives and pc owners are trying to get some attention since they're o irrelevan to gaming now.
60fps has always been a big deal, that's one of the reasons, that i find mwarfare so impresive, that game always has alot going on, on screen and it keeps at a nice 60fps i'm sure it dips every now and then but not noticeable.
the diffrence of 30fps from 60fps is like night or day yes 30fps is fine but if you can have better why not ? and 60fps maybe but 720p or sub hd anyway i get this pc 1080p max settings 60 or more fps
Welcome to the 90s!