Velocity Gamer: So many of us believe that amazing graphics can't be done at 60 fps on current consoles because we've been told that so many times, but RAGE begs to differ.
I agree and cod is so outdated when you compare it to every other game that is/has been released this year and it looks like sh*t compared to them.
*Yawn* More Cod trolls...Tell me something new,just another day on N4G. Funny thing is while you people keep complaing Cod players are enjoying there game and do not even know this site exist. Bring on the disagrees is nothing new. @Hockeydud19 Yes im enjoying it thank u :) U say is the same game but pls tell me how many FPS has innovation. U say BF has destruction but funny thing is Black on PS2 has destruction. Y change a game fans r used to. Uncharted,gears,god of war..e.t.c all have the same gameplay . Killzone2 gameplay changed when killzone3 cameout and some killzone fans where not happy. People just love to hate Cod because its cool to hate whats successfull.
Ok have fun playing the same game every year :) Hope you enjoy it.
I hate CoD because it's so damned mindless, not because it's successful. I do think it's sad that it's successful simply because it's so mindless though. That says a lot about the average gamer. I take it from your comment that you think it's bad to take a good feature from one game and add it to another. Interesting opinion. I strongly disagree. KZ3 fans were unhappy because it was made more mindless like CoD, by the way.
Unfortunately there are no shooter games that play better as far as online multiplayer goes, other than Call of Duty, Halo, Uncharted and Battlefield. These are the top dogs, and after playing Resistance 1,2 and 3, Killzone 2 and 3, MAG, SOCOM 4, SOCOM: Confrontation and many others which have all been let downs, nothing else compares. SOCOM games from the PS2, Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2 and GRAW2 are the only other multiplayer games that I would consider to be awesome.
agreed, there is no better experience inonline gaming than call of duty and th eumber of players online on both systems show it, as far as gfx go, the last SP trailer looked good but i wish tey can upgrade to RAGE gfx Level, you know Activision got a lot of $, they gotta do it
Rage spent years in development, with its engine development taking even longer. Criticize Call of Duty all you want but there are far more games that look worse than there are games that look and run better. In Call of Duty you have a rock solid engine which has evolved over iterations. @ Hockeydud19 A lot of us do, troll! That's why the franchise is a resounding success, with industry leading sales and the largest, sustained online communities across all platforms.
Exactly how am I trolling? It's essentially the same game. "Call of Duty" "Insert title here" Where did I say the franchise is a failure? Hmm that's right I didn't.
I actually enjoy the hell out of MW games. You probably wouldn't believe me but they're FUN and most likely the reason they sell so much.
Grow up kid. Video games aren't all about graphics.
Indeed, but still, graphics do play a part. Can you tell me 1 big budget title that has worse graphics than MW3? Please do tell me!! It's a disgrace they keep the cost low by using an engine from the 80's. And that while it's the best sold game franchise in recent years.
It's an unfair comparison. Rage is running on a next gen engine that took one of the industries mist recognised geniuses 6 years to make. Someone at Activision is working on a new engine I'm sure. Probably for next gen consoles though as these things take time now they can't just licence idTech 5.
Doesn't matter. Activision can keep selling a game at $60 with 6 year old graphics and 10 year old gameplay mechanics and people will defend it to their death. Even if BF3 was 60fps, 128 players with full destructibility and vehicles on consoles people would still justify CoD being the way it is. Heck, two years from now people will still be playing CoD on the Xbox 720/PS4 while it looks like an Xbox 360 game and I bet people will still be justifying it.
"Heck, two years from now people will still be playing CoD on the Xbox 720/PS4 while it looks like an Xbox 360 game and I bet people will still be justifying it." I hope this won't happen. I hope the next generation will have more new ip. We can only "hope" I guess.
You say that like there's not been many this gen Lost Planet Deadspace Mirrors Edge Uncharted MotorStorm Alan Wake Homefront Heavy Rain Mass Effect Dragon Age Metro 20** Modnation Bishock LA Noir White Knight Chronicles plus many more never mind the indie devs
@dangert No I didn't mean to say that there weren't some awesome new ips this gen, I just hope this will carry over to the next gen.
I wonder what you have to say to people who still love and play Mario games... Heck as long as COD still selling you guys are going to still hating on it and its fanbase. Let them enjoy their game and you go enjoy yours.
Mario is a classic, and has been on the cusp of platform innovation since the early days of the NES and Gameboy. He revolutionized the genre in 1996 on the N64 and did so again on the Wii with Super Mario Galaxy. I got no beef with Mario because without him and his numerous games the platform genre wouldn't have been as rich as it is (despite the fact that it's also very lacking of competition as well). CoD is just another generic shooter, and Soldier of Fortune from 1998 has more gameplay variety than CoD. The only reason it sells is because of Activision's marketing and an extremely broad base of ignorant consumers (not that they're dumb, they're just ignorant of other games out there). If someone updated and modded Soldier of Fortune with today's visuals you would be hard pressed to say that CoD is any better or worse since it's so generic. But whatever floats your boat is fine with me.
The Devs of the COD franchise don't really have to do anything but the minimum, if people keep swallowing the same game, over and over again with different maps and a different scripted campaign in single player why spend the extra money on better graphics or use a newer engine. You really cannot even blame the creators or the publisher. why sink money into it when you know that you will make the same profit?
Rage took years to make.
The engine took more time than anything I'm sure. I'm sure developers could make good game (by CoD standards) in a two year time frame if they had access to the engine.
It still has bad graphics.
Rage looks phenomenal
rage suffers from the lie of megatextures, which are nothing but gigantic sized textures reduced so much that when u reduce them they lose all their quality. Take a picture to photoshop, reduce it, then enlarge it again, thats what rage is, an absolute atrocity, at least on pc.
The textures are muddy up close your right. BUT who actually goes and stands within a few inches of a wall in a game and looks at it when you got Bandits and Mutants shooting at you. I know i'd rather take a step back and enjoy the beauty then go stare at textures all day just so I have something bad to say about the game.
COD is a name brand mainstream game regardless how it look people will still go out and buy it, just like apple products. I bet Apple could sell a brick and some people would go stand in line just to get it.
how did it maintain that status because it's the most fun online game
yeah, and Justin Bieber is the greatest musician in the world /s
quit passing off your opinion as fact..
I'm renting it for the graphics alone!
First Rage took years to make and also that technology has to use 3 Xbox360 disks to even run. On the PS3 it is horribly rendered. Rage is not the model they are looking for. Why make a technology leap when the next generation leap to be soon.
It needs 1 disk to run, 3 for content. VERY different things. What if pong was made on 8 disks, one for each stage of the game, would it be as graphically superior? (No.....Dur!)
rage got texture issues.
Rage's texture issues, at least on the ps3 can be 95% solved by installing it on an SSD disk.
SSD DISK? LOL! You have NO IDEA what you're talking about...
@3GenGames are you serious? SSD's improve loadings and texture streaming in the majority of ps3 games, unless they were hardlocked around the normal 5400rpm hard drives, which Rage in particular is not. The texture streaming issues are almost 100% gone if you installed the game on a ssd disk on your ps3. To the downvoters, umad?
Graphics are not that great to be honest but way better then COD
RAGE graphics aren't that good on 360 anyway, I was expecting to be blown away but it's a lot of meh, the gun textures are nice but everythign else is blurry and "ok" and theres loads of texture popping in aout as it transitions textures from high to low res, its very noticeable and quite off putting at some points. Look close to most of the textures and they are quite poor. This article is just COD troll bate. Pathetic.
RAGE DOES have some great graphics, but if you look closely, sometimes it falls flat, too. Walk around and you'll notice low-res miscellaneous objects like picture frames, boxes, etc., and in some places the textures just fall flat. Not a HUGE deal, but something I came to notice all too often. RAGE's graphics are really the only thing it has, being the gameplay/mechanics are mediocre at best. Fallout did it better, IMHO. Not hating on the game, I just expected a lot more from it... That being said, MW3's graphics are a joke. For a AAA title, I really expected better. You can blame MW3's visuals on the devs, but there are many new games out there that are falling prey to the fact that these consoles are starting to show their age. GoW3 didn't really wow me as much as it should have. I guess I'm just not as impressed with console graphics as I used to be. I think it's time for some new hardware...
Uhhh dude, Modern Warfare 3 uses a completely new engine, the IW 5.0 engine. Both Call of Duty 1 and 2, and 3 were using modified versions of id Tech 3, but starting with 4 Infinity Ward was started using their own proprietary engine. Each Modern Warfare game uses a new engine, but Treyarch is still using Call of Duty 4's engine, which is now outdated. So yeah, I suppose you could make this argument towards Treyarch, but don't point this argument to Infinity Ward. MW3 may not look as good as Rage or Battlefield 3, but it still looks better than over half the games coming out this year while still running at 60FPS
Honestly, I beg to differ. MW3 looks as good as the first MW. Years ago, I would've whole-heartedly agreed with the statement that MW3 "looks better than half the games coming out this year," but when it comes to the biggest titles this year, MW3 is near the bottom of the list in graphical superiority. It doesn't matter who developed the game, or what engine it's using. What matters is the result, and that's at the fault of the devs, especially given the graphics are sub-par when looking at the fact that console graphics are starting to show their age as it is. MW3's graphics don't look as good as they should in a time where console graphics ALREADY don't look as good as they should. Again, not hating on COD, just stating my own opinion. I would've LOVED to be completely impressed with MW3's graphics, but I can't say that I am.
Um the engine is the same as MW2 and this is IW creating the game. http://n4g.com/news/746438/... and if you didn't know it's the same exact engine used on Call of duty 2. I.W. 5.0 is not a new engine it's a modified one of the last one (4.0 on MW2, and 3.0 on MW1) Improvement does not make it a new engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... funny how it's called the IW 5.0 engine, when there had to have been #.0 before that one. oh and IW. 2.0 (Prob COD 2) was based on quake engine
For every COD vet giving up on the series, there might be 10 new kids who want in on the game after seeing Uncle Joe or Daddy or the high school freshman playing COD... and they don't want to wait until they're at least 18. I'm just guessing.
Call of Duty is 60 fps, Battlefield 3 isn't though
But COD is old and trash now with a milked storyline and the same damn multiplayer. BF3 is pretty new, new fresh story, newer multiplayer additions on console and improvements on PC, and is just going to be flat out superior in every realistic way. Only way COD will be better is it'll be better at NOT having a skilled team when you singlehandedly win a game for 5 crappy team mates and 6 average ones who don't have a bowl of lucky charms and get another dude better.
No disrespect dude, but did you even play the BF3 beta? Its a horrible, blurry, camp fest. How is this better then COD? I agree COD's story is stale, but seriously, nobody buys Cod for the Singleplayer. People Like COD's Online gameplay, they only want it tweaked, not completly changed. If COD was to become a Battlefield clone, then whats the point? Battlefield is Battlefield and Call of duty is Call of duty. It's like How Starcraft is the Greatest RTS of all time, and Starcraft 2 is Almost a Copy Paste. It's what the people really wanted. Starcraft shouldnt play like Dawn of War, thats how Command and Conquer BURRIED itself. See a different side of it now?
I'm going to have to agree with Mikeyy here and how can people disagree with my original comment? It's fact CoD - 60FPS and BF3 - 30FPS, it's just fact
Notice the trolls clicking the disagree buttons on the posts of everyone here of sound mind and fair opinion. Sad.
So, you can either say that CoD has no excuse for not being a great looking game, or you could also say that other games have no excuse for not being 60fps. Yet, for some reason, the author chose to go with the former, and ignored the latter. While the author does have a point that RAGE proved 60fps with great graphics can be achieved on consoles, his subjectivity makes me think he's simply yet another person on the CoD-hate bandwagon.
Like others are saying, Rage's engine took years to develop and refine. That being said, it's not even that great. I rented Rage last night and the amount of texture "popping" is so annoying. You turn left and it takes almost a full second for the textures to load and display correctly. You'd think that once they were there and loaded into RAM, they'd stay there, right? Nope. Turn to the right then back to the left and it has disappeared and takes another second to load the textures. And I'm not even talking about things off in the distance. I'm talking about things right in front of your face! It's like they are using so much of the systems resources that it's constantly having to load only whats visible on the screen at the time. Also, enemies weapons dissolve into the sand as soon as you kill them because the game needs more RAM. I don't care how good a game looks. Current-gen games shouldn't have disappearing weapons. That's last-gen ways of doing things. It just turned me off from the whole game.
I raised an eyebrow when I saw the dissolving enemies and weapons too. It's totally corny to watch the enemies you just killed dissolve into the ground along with their weapons. Perfect Dark, anyone? XD What bothered me more though, was the extreme lack of a competent autosave feature and the gameplay mechanics. Nothing is more frustrating to be killed and have to start the entire damn mission over again, especially when the regular "grunt" enemies require a ridiculous amount of ammo to kill on the "Normal" difficulty. Nothing is more detracting from a game than to be constantly worried about saving your progress. THEN, you end up having to spend all the game's currency on ammo just to be able to do the next mission. I went through 800 Authority Rifle rounds, 50 shotgun shells, and 10 rockets just to do one damn mission. I've played FPS's my whole life. Ridiculous. Thank god I GameFly-ed it, cuz RAGE is gonna be going back in the mail REAL soon.
Totally agree. The lack of an autosave feature sorta takes me out of enjoying the game because you're constantly worrying about when to save so you won't play too much then die, thus losing a shit-ton of progress. The ammo problem wouldn't be so bad if it let you pick up enemies weapons, but noooo..
Hate to say it but I am dissapointed in RAGE. And I am GLAD I rented it. I loaded both disc onto my HD on the 360. The opening sequence looks very good. Not that the game looks bad but its not what I was expecting. A few things im not liking.... I just get out of the Ark thing. And im already being sent on a killing mission. It hasnt even been 5 minutes and someone I dont even know wants me to murder people?? Then after that....oh we need supplies...can you go do this or that. I think for me im just tired of games that just have you do things and NOT have a choice to NOT do it. The enemies dissapearing....I was like DANG I cant pick up there weapons?? After the first mission I decided to walk back to the base and guess what...BARREN ...no enemies. Except this one NPC...who must be a ghost...cause I shot him with NO EFFECT!! I like games that I can SHOOT whoever and suffer the consequences (see fallout). The ATV ride is just BAD imo. I almost will have to force myself to play this game and see if it gets better.
@ BattleAxe You forgot the Gears franchise aka King of The Third person perspective. (Cole Train voice) Disagrees Incoming!!
They have been saying for months now MW3 will be 60 fps, its Battlefield that will be 30fps. I think I passed the time when graphics were everything about 10 years ago. And people who cling to the "COD is the same game every year" really have no clue or just refuse to do anything but hate on a game that more people care about.
@wannagethigh and @mysticsyrummer, you probably suck at all cod games and should retire your gamertags...
People seriously think Rage looks that good? It looks exactly like Call of Duty to me. The texture loading is horrible, the graphics look flat, the animations are really cheesy... it's just terrible. Rage looks like crap to me... sorry. Yeah, I know Call of Duty isn't doing anything mind-blowing in the graphics department, but I still think it's a fun game because I don't pick my games based on graphics... I pick them on whether or not I think they're fun for ME to play. It's so satisfying to throw a knife at someone's head while they're trying so hard to shoot you with their LMG.... HAH! No other game has that. Anyway... my main point is... Rage isn't that great looking to me... plus, it's NOTHING like Call of Duty in terms of art style.
I agree,I enjoy the COD franchise (even though it's haters label everyone who plays their games as narrow-minded)...but Activision has no excuses to make the games in the same engine.They didn't have any reason beyond 'World at War' imo.
Not having texture-pop ins and large installs seem like a good excuse. Still, I agree they need to up the visuals.
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.