I would trade 60fps for 30fps with better lighting any day. 60fps or not, Rage is looking less and less impressive every time they show it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rage (id Software)
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
I would trade 60fps for 30fps with better lighting any day. 60fps or not, Rage is looking less and less impressive every time they show it.
Yes but the devs don't share the same opinion, so you are left with whatever they choose.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
For a serious FPS, I wouldn't even consider a game that doesn't run at 60 fps. There's nothing a dev can do to make an FPS look good in my eyes if it can't hit 60 fps.
Now if I'm only going to play it casually and I'm not thinking of any multiplayer then 30 might be fine.Regards,
SB
Since there's no dedicated thread for Rage on the PC side, I'll post here
Static lighting, basic shadowing, flat surfaces without any sort of displacement technology (texture or vertex based) in sight... All that in a 2011 game, from a prominent PC developer. I'm speechless.
John Carmack is such an amazing developer that he probably purposefully code this game to look at least two-year behind the curve technologically, only because he can!*
*
No, seriously, they spent like what feels forever since the launch of Doom 3 (2004!), for that? They lost the rendering engine middleware market leadership they had with Quake 3 with the Doom 3 engine. Missed the launch of the X360/PS3 and its market opportunities, all the while Epic and it Unreal Engine 3 didn't. All that only to release that ID Tech 5 engine we're seeing here in 2011?
They should be happy Zenimax bought them when they did, really.
Static lighting, basic shadowing, flat surfaces without any sort of displacement technology (texture or vertex based) in sight... All that in a 2011 game, from a prominent PC developer. I'm speechless.
John Carmack is such an amazing developer that he probably purposefully code this game to look at least two-year behind the curve technologically, only because he can!*
*
That troll was stolen, by yours truly, from AlexV on IRC.
No, seriously, they spent like what feels forever since the launch of Doom 3 (2004!), for that? They lost the rendering engine middleware market leadership they had with Quake 3 with the Doom 3 engine. Missed the launch of the X360/PS3 and its market opportunities, all the while Epic and it Unreal Engine 3 didn't. All that only to release that ID Tech 5 engine we're seeing here in 2011?
They should be happy Zenimax bought them when they did, really.
dragonelite
Veteran
The E3 playtest on ign looked good enough for a console game and played nice because of 60 fps.
It's never too early or too late for me to make fun of people.
And no, the engine is not 4 years old, since a game using it has yet to be released. The fact that it was left on the backburner for so long is id's problem.
Carmack made a huge mistake with that emphasis of his on the Megatexture technology. In videogames, texture variety in this day an age isn't a pressing issue, machines have enough memory to sustain some variety (long gone are the days where you had low tens of textures per screen), and when you need more variety, you can start streaming off-disk. And given that creating discrete and 100% original textures for every surfaces isn't an economically viable thing, Megatexture will just end up being "classic textures + original decal placements".
There's also the whole fact that the technology requires way, way too much space when used in an optimal way. I've heard sources close to the development citing ~10GB+ maps. Map as in one "normal" sized map, not an over-world type of deal. The refactoring of that issue, also explains why the game is so late. It also explains why I'm so harsh on Carmack's emphasis on that tech.
Id's leveraging its specific talents and advantages to create a unique looking game, I see no problem with that. I'm also quite sure that the texture variety is going to be vastly superior to other terrain engines like the Fallout/Elder Scrolls line or the Battlefield games.
Don't worry. The only thing that's going to hit your eyes is the grill of my dune buggy.For a serious FPS, I wouldn't even consider a game that doesn't run at 60 fps. There's nothing a dev can do to make an FPS look good in my eyes if it can't hit 60 fps.
Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that much , we can already see patterns in rage landscape, nd it's normal since the megatexture is built from a base texture set stamped everywhere rotated and layered.
Vertex blending textures (like Uncharted and now crysis 2 ) is a really good cheap artist driven trick to hide tiling.
Megatexture is a too tedious aproach IMO.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
It's never too early or too late for me to make fun of people.
And no, the engine is not 4 years old, since a game using it has yet to be released. The fact that it was left on the backburner for so long is id's problem.
Carmack made a huge mistake with that emphasis of his on the Megatexture technology. In videogames, texture variety in this day an age isn't a pressing issue, machines have enough memory to sustain some variety (long gone are the days where you had low tens of textures per screen), and when you need more variety, you can start streaming off-disk. And given that creating discrete and 100% original textures for every surfaces isn't an economically viable thing, Megatexture will just end up being "classic textures + original decal placements".
There's also the whole fact that the technology requires way, way too much space when used in an optimal way. I've heard sources close to the development citing ~10GB+ maps. Map as in one "normal" sized map, not an over-world type of deal. The refactoring of that issue, also explains why the game is so late. It also explains why I'm so harsh on Carmack's emphasis on that tech.
I think myself along with many other folks completely got the wrong end of the stick regarding what exactly the whole premise of Id Tech 5 and Megatexture was meant to be about.... When they first started talking about it, i thought it was meant to be about granting unlimited texture detail, i.e. super duper hi resolution textures even on consoles with sever RAM constraints...
Recently i realised the err of my ways and quite frankly i'm baffled as to why Carmack and his boys would go to so much trouble and spend 6+ years making an engine that would at it's best "allow for more texture variety"... :-S
It's certainly not the issue that the majority of console owners this gen even notice at all.
I guess since it's taken them that long working on it, they must have banked on it being an issue like it was last-gen... unfrotunately as it seems (dare i say) i believe they bet their money on the wrong horse...
dragonelite
Veteran
Trailer
caveat - I dont know what theyre doing
but if theyre smart they will be doing this
Use real satellite image data (heights + diffuse) + use that as a base
A/ fastest/cheapest method
B/ no repetitions (unless nature has them)
C/ best looking method
Yes but the devs don't share the same opinion, so you are left with whatever they choose.
And I get to choose to buy or not to buy their games.
Why isn't Rage HDR based? Their lighting solution right now looks inferior.
It's not like Fallout 3/New Vegas or Oblivion were particularly good-looking game to begin with, when you're id, that's a pretty low bar to set.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Love the art style. Love the outdoors !Lighting in corridors look bad and we can see polygons on characters. Otherwise I love the "look" of this game's outdoors ! :smile:
It probably has something to do with the 60fps, the megatexture lookup and decompression part, and so on. I'm not sure how the COD games use HDR (if at all) or what GT5 does, and I'm not really aware of any 60fps game doing HDR the right way on current consoles.
They're the standards of large open world environments as far as I know. Maybe I should add Just Cause and Red Dead Redemption too. The variety in Rage landscapes is definitely far, far better.
