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. Bookmark.
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. http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc...
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.