The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.
So the question is what would you rather have a smooth 60fps game or no 1 sec disk swapping hmmm... Edit: Still waiting for the first multiplatform title which is actually on par/better than its 360 counterpart Anyone know how many disks the PC version will be cause i think thats on DVD too, would be quite funny if the obviously superior version comes on multiple disks lol.
I can have both because I am getting the PC version. edit : Yes the PC version will come on multiple disc's which will all be installed to the hard drive. You know just like how ALL pc games are installed to the hard drive. The dvd media is just to get the game onto the machine so it doesn't matter how many discs the PC version has. The PC version will be clearly better to deny that because of "No. of discs" is ridiculous. PC gamers will be able to play RAGE at 2560 x 1600 if they have the hardware, your console will play it at 1280 x 720. I myself will be playing it at 1680 x 1050 @ 60fps and I won't have to change a single disc because it will all be installed to my hard disc.
I'd rather have it locked at 30fps and on one blu-ray disc, than a theoretical 60fps on four DVD's and having to switch discs every quarter of progress into the game. But the 360 version will also be available for full download on the Marketplace so the switching disc thingy won't affect all owners. And as i have read, it's pretty far away from release... They can enhance the framerate somewhat on the PS3 version by then. I'm not a fanboy, i'm just trying to prevent the whole "YOUR VERSION IS WORSE THAN MINE HAHAHAH!!!" edit: N4F News 4 Fanboys.
1 second disk swapping, I highly doubt it. Also COD 4 on both PS3 and 360 are equally from what I've played of them. SO is Battlefield 1943, those title are on par. Also last I checked the PS3 can do 60fps... namely Wipeout HD, so I don't know what your trying to say.
"I'd rather have it locked at 30fps and on one blu-ray disc, than a theoretical 60fps on four DVD's and having to switch discs every quarter of progress into the game." really? You rather have the gimped down version than take 5-10 seconds changing a disc a couple times? What ever floats your boat!
That just shows us how good of programers they are
It's not even locked at 30FPS for the PS3 version, it's 20-30 while the PC and 360 version are locked at 60FPS. Ouch, considering how excited they were when they thought they had the superior version.. :(
@ Charmers They expect you to install 25GB thats crazy @ Cwalat "360 version of Rage - which uses id's new Tech 5 engine - matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while PS3 runs at just "20-30fps"." Its not locked at 30fps so expect a lot of framerate drops. Swapping disks is nothing compared to that especially for a FPS.
@Charmers Hey let me geuss 22 inch screen? I play at the same resolution, love every minute of it. Going back to 1050 x 785 (I know that may be wrong) makes it seem like everything is 400 times bigger then it should be.
Personally, I have no problems disk swapping because as Xbox Empire said, it takes only about 5-10 seconds. I mean seriously, you must be lazy as hell if you cant get off your ass and take seconds to swap disks. Although I am curious on how disk swapping would work on a sandbox game, such as Rage. BTW Omega, that's a pretty good question because both would be nice.
the xbxox empire@ (lol) Don't know if it's worth commenting back to a fanboy like you, but when is 30fps a gimped down game?! Nearly every single game that gets released runs at 30fps... If you weren't such a fanboy you'd realize that by now. AND YES... I would rather have 30fps (which is standard today) than having to stand up from my couch getting pulled out of that level of immersion when you play a game and change discs... not once.. not twice... but three times.
Anyone surprised by this really needs to put another coin in the meter upstairs. id Software are a PC game developer. The 360 has a very similar set-up to PC so developing a smooth running 360 won't be difficult for them. They are completely inexperienced in PS3 architecture though so of course they're going to struggle. Anyway, no one is going to buy a different console on the strength of this so how does it at all matter?
Getting this game for PC I think. But it's kinda obvious that the game would run better on 360 if the architecture is the same, things need to be optimized for the Cell SPUs to have the same effect on PS3. And if devs did that, they would get games of Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 quality, but they don't. @Omega - I seem to recall that Burnout actually looks better on PS3, and I've played both the PS3 and 360 version of the game. I'm still waiting to see one console game that looks better than Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2.
@ Odion yep slumming it with a 22" monitor waiting for prices to drop a bit on the 2560 x 1600 monitors before I look to my next upgrade. If they don't start dropping soon I may look to getting an interim 1920 x 1200 monitor. I just hope ID have put a bit of work into the gameplay, always felt their games were excellent engines but a bit poor in the gameplay stakes. Still I will be happy to install 25gbs, last time I checked I had close to 700gbs of space free.
Don't you people ever get bored of debating this nonsense?
This doesnt really say anything about how the final product will be. Carmack himself said PS3 has about 20% more theoretical power. I doubt he would let the PS3 version run at half the framerate. That would put a scratch in his reputation.
As a PC gamer, multiple disks never bothered me. I mean, back in the days of 700 MB CD's, Half-Life 2 came on 5 CDs but it only took like 15 minutes to install.
@ SuperM "Carmack himself said PS3 has about 20% more theoretical power. I doubt he would let the PS3 version run at half the framerate" "Theorical power" that's the key word, "Theorical". Anyway, this is a very talented group of developers. Im pretty sure the PS3 version will look a and run as good as the other ones.
Stupid PS3! We could have twice the framerates on most of our games if it wasn't for it holding us back! </sarcasm>
@Omega4 "They expect you to install 25GB thats crazy" 500GB HDs are pretty much the standard for PC nowdays. So, yea, they will expect you to install 25GB. Have you ever known a need to swap disks on a PC game this decade? Also, 20-30 fps for an entire game sucks, period. Especially this generation. Any PS3 fanboy who tries to convince themselves "it's OK, I'd rather have Blueray" is only fooling themselves. The PS3 is an awesome machine, but I'm alot more concerned with performance over graphics. This is coming from a PC only gamer, and it's not a fanboy rant at all. Just my 2 cents.
If 360 fanboys care about graphics why dont they just go out and buy a ps3 a lot of great exclusive games show the power it has in the inside..I rather go with one disk i hate switching disks on and off when i want to play a certain level.its going to be really frustrating and tedious..Also you have to take care of all 3 disk so if you lose one or get get it scratched up you are screwed..lol..
Yes i know. But Carmack is the kind of guy that likes to push hardware to its limits. If his game runs at half the framerate on the console he says has a slight edge then that makes him look bad. Hes also been talking about how 2 consoles have never been as close in performance as this generation. So even with that, he'd still look stupid when 1 version runs at half the framerate.
You speak of immersion. I am sure you have played MGS4 as I have, the level of immersion was taking away with the loading screens between acts and scenes. My question to you is, what the hell is the difference between waiting on a loading screen and switching a disk??? I know I could switch a disk 5 times faster than what it took for MGS4 to load the next level. Play whatever system you like, but your argument fails.
So the PS3 version will have better textures in some places, according to Carmack, and the 360 version will run at a higher frame rate. Interesting. The PS3 version also has the advantage of being on one disc. But I think I will be going for the 360 version on this one.
First of all if you have a computer that can run it you should be getting it on PC anyway, and that goes to all the people bashing the 360 version because the PS3 version is suppose to be the better console version. Now to the main point. Once again we are graced by ignorance, and people trying to get hits through the fan boy war. I'm sure that many of you have the Gameinformer with Rage, and instead of just looking at the picture maybe you should read it. They state that the 360 version is coming along faster than the PS3, because the system is easier to work with. However, they have a team dedicated to working on the PS3 to keep development along with the other platforms. The PC version of the game is most likely going to be ported to the 360, with optimizations to get the best possible game for the 360. But they stated for the PS3 version they started on PC and are building the rest of the game up specifically for the PS3 (this was in another article not GI), and that the PS3 version of the game would most likely have better lighting, better textures, and more things going on screen at once due to the extra processing power, and not having to switch multiple disc for the game. That being said of course there are going to be difficulties when you're putting more into one product, and we all already know it more difficult developing a PS3 game compared to a 360 game as developers have stated this since the beginning of this console generation. But the most important thing is Carmack says both versions will be as close to the PC version as the can possibly be meaning if the PC version runs at 60fps then you better believe the 360 and PS3 will also be at 60fps (hopefully no huge drops for either system). And by the way Rage has no release date, it's still TBA so we won't be seeing this game until 2010 at the earliest. I could see if the game was coming out this year why we should have to worry about the PS3 version being only 20 - 30 fps, but there shouldn't be any worries about this game unless the same thing is happening this time next year. Goodness use your brain to think sometimes people. And this website needs to post the entire article and not just some clip to fuel a fanboy war.
Whats funny is most of you 360 diehard fans probably dont even have a HDTV so the fps wouldnt matter to you.
MGS4 did things weirdly with it's installing. Kojima Productions could've made it all install at the start but they decided to install each act separately to save Hard Disk space. MGS4 is the only PS3 game to handle installs like this so your argument fails.
"As long as it still plays good and is still fun, thats all that matters to its millions of fans." - Omega4 on graphics. So.. thats not the case for the PS3 right? Only the 360? ---- Im shocked 360 fans still debate graphics. What game does the 360 even have that looks better than MGS4? Despite installs. None? Which unreal engine game .. lol.. looks better than PS3 titles again? And as Mark Reign said, most 360 owners don't even have HDTVS.