*nerd rage

[Eraser]

To be honest, all I expect from this game is balls-to-the-wall gameplay that's fast, intense and filled to the brim with action. If they nail that (and they will, they're id Software) then I'll happily pick it up and enjoy it.

I've already given up on id Software creating revolutionary games like they did in the 90's. For one, there's too much competition now. There are so many companies that can pretty much do exactly what id Software does in terms of technology (Epic, Valve, Crytek, Infinity Ward and all licensees that use their engines) so they'll be unable to create something as amazing as Wolf3D, Doom or Quake again, simply because the leap from where we are isn't big enough. And we have to admit that id Software's games never were special because of the gameplay but because of the tech.

If you still expect id Software to create something completely new or even following trends in terms of gameplay, then you should really take a look at what id Software has released since 1992. It's basically the same game in a different setting over and over again. IMO it's not a bad thing, as all of them are pretty damn well made games (including Doom 3 I tihnk). The gameplay may be considered to be shallow, but there are still few companies that can create shooters that are as intense and in-your-face as id Software's games.

[MKJ]

fast, intense and filled to the brim with action. If they nail that (and they will, they're id Software)

like doom3?

[fKd]

balls-to-the-wall gameplay that's fast, intense and filled to the brim with action.

I've already given up on id Software creating revolutionary games.

And we have to admit that id Software's games never were special because of the gameplay but because of the tech.

If you still expect id Software to create something completely new or even following trends in terms of gameplay, then you should really take a look at what id Software has released since 1992. It's basically the same game in a different setting over and over again. IMO it's not a bad thing, as all of them are pretty damn well made games (including Doom 3 I tihnk). The gameplay may be considered to be shallow, but there are still few companies that can create shooters that are as intense and in-your-face as id Software's games.

wtf?

[Eraser]

What do you mean, "wtf?"

[fKd]

your stance seems very odd.

[Eraser]

why?

christ man, do I have to beat your opinion out of you or what?

[Tsakali]

To be honest, all I expect from this game is balls-to-the-wall gameplay that's fast, intense and filled to the brim with action. If they nail that (and they will, they're id Software) then I'll happily pick it up and enjoy it.

I've already given up on id Software creating revolutionary games like they did in the 90's. For one, there's too much competition now. There are so many companies that can pretty much do exactly what id Software does in terms of technology (Epic, Valve, Crytek, Infinity Ward and all licensees that use their engines) so they'll be unable to create something as amazing as Wolf3D, Doom or Quake again, simply because the leap from where we are isn't big enough. And we have to admit that id Software's games never were special because of the gameplay but because of the tech.

If you still expect id Software to create something completely new or even following trends in terms of gameplay, then you should really take a look at what id Software has released since 1992. It's basically the same game in a different setting over and over again. IMO it's not a bad thing, as all of them are pretty damn well made games (including Doom 3 I tihnk). The gameplay may be considered to be shallow, but there are still few companies that can create shooters that are as intense and in-your-face as id Software's games.

pretty much agree with all this. As soon as I started watching the video, I got this serious "DO NOT WANT" reaction because it felt like I was watching a brighter Doom3 remake with slightly improved graphics and yet all the underlying feel (movement, animations, sounds) felt all too familiar. That guy talking in the video felt flat and boring as fuck. Too bad, but I think I honestly might not even bother with playing this. It's ok though, they gave me Quake3 and I'll love them forever for it, but that's that.

[Plan B]

Eternal gratitude and respect for id aside, because anyone in his right mind should feel this, I also expect a pretty mediocre game with Rage. Doesn't matter; good things will come out of the new id tech.

While once being at the frontier of gaming, id may not be breaking ground like they used to, but they're certainly on the ball, and I have a lot of confidence in Carmack's genius.
id developed a shiny new engine that I hope other developers will take advantage of.

I think we're still looking at a standoff between id - and unreal tech.
Crytek tried to worm itself in there, but that's not really happening;
They developed a great powerhouse engine 4 years ago, but it didn't get picked up by other devs then.
Maybe now, because of the scalabilty for consoles, but I doubt it.

[bitWISE]

To be honest, all I expect from this game is balls-to-the-wall gameplay that's fast, intense and filled to the brim with action. If they nail that (and they will, they're id Software) then I'll happily pick it up and enjoy it.

I've already given up on id Software creating revolutionary games like they did in the 90's. For one, there's too much competition now. There are so many companies that can pretty much do exactly what id Software does in terms of technology (Epic, Valve, Crytek, Infinity Ward and all licensees that use their engines) so they'll be unable to create something as amazing as Wolf3D, Doom or Quake again, simply because the leap from where we are isn't big enough. And we have to admit that id Software's games never were special because of the gameplay but because of the tech.

If you still expect id Software to create something completely new or even following trends in terms of gameplay, then you should really take a look at what id Software has released since 1992. It's basically the same game in a different setting over and over again. IMO it's not a bad thing, as all of them are pretty damn well made games (including Doom 3 I tihnk). The gameplay may be considered to be shallow, but there are still few companies that can create shooters that are as intense and in-your-face as id Software's games.

nailed it

[bitWISE]

The biggest challenge we had on here was making Rage a 60hz game. At times I was almost the only voice in the company saying “We really need to do this”. It always seems easy just to think “if we go 30hzm, it’s the easy way out, we can throw more crap around on the screen, we won’t have to optimise as hard.”

When we finally got to a point where we had a locked frame rate and people could sit down and play it and feel it, it did become something that people could recognise. It’s debateable right now on this generation because it’s hard to do something that looks cutting edge while going at 60 frames per second, because I think that an argument can be made that we’re the best-looking game on this generation of consoles, the fact that we do it two times the frame rate of most of the competitors points out how hard that work was to get to that point.

But I really stuck with the fact we’ve got a lot more performance now than we had. I do a lot of these experiences where I do these A and B comparisons and ask “How does this look when we spend twice as much in fragment processing”? etc. and it is my belief that for an intense action game that you get more from going from 30 to 60 than from adding double as much work into the graphics picture that’s drawn there.

Now across the different platforms, there were a few things that were easy across the platforms. We do have access to very low level access to the hardware there. Though in many cases we have PCs that should have twice the horsepower of the consoles, at least, struggling to maintain the same performance that we have on the consoles.

Now of course you can get PCs that have 10 times the horsepower of a console now, and you can just club things to death with raw brute force and not worry too much about the internal inefficiencies. But it saddens me when we look at PCs that should be able to do this, but for very logical reasons we’re just not able to get at things at that level.

Now the PS3 in particular, and this has been passed over many times over the years, but the core architectural decisions of having the cell processors versus additional symmetric processors makes life more difficult, unquestionably it’s harder to develop for those there. You have to use a separate tool chain, the debugging is crappier, and all this. The upside of that is, there is more raw performance for computing there than there is on 360.

The PS3 is still far and away better than anything else that’s ever been made... except maybe the 360. It’s a great time to be a developer. It’s not like working with the Sega Saturn of the PS2, where these are really kind of quirky, cranky, architectures that are not, well, architected, I would say.

http://www.nowgamer.com/print/feature/1308

[obsidian]

If you have 60 people working on Rage, and we went through all of that and then we said ‘ok, it’s time for the next project’, and we’ve got concept people going here, but what are the final polishers going to be doing? The labour distribution really does pay off to have multiple teams going on where you can move people between at opportune times and buy ourselves into a 200 person company.

That's quite different than his stance even from a few years ago where he preferred working with small teams. I can understand the appeal of working with small teams, but I think with the way the industry is going for "AAA" title companies like id, you have to go large to a certain point. id Software traditionally had a very small headcount and I think they're starting to see limitations to that kind of system.

[Eraser]

That's quite different than his stance even from a few years ago where he preferred working with small teams. I can understand the appeal of working with small teams, but I think with the way the industry is going for "AAA" title companies like id, you have to go large to a certain point. id Software traditionally had a very small headcount and I think they're starting to see limitations to that kind of system.

And it's about bloody time Carmack realized this. His stubbornness in this regard is what caused the long delays between Quake 3 and Doom 3, and now Doom 3 and Rage.

[Eraser]

i can hardly make head nor tail of that tbh. It just doesn't commit to any particular point.

That's Carmack's style. He always brushes along his views and opinions. You kind of have to distill the information out of there. He has improved though. He used to lose himself in techno babble all the time.

[Psyche911]

I think we're still looking at a standoff between id - and unreal tech.

My understanding is that id Tech 5 will only be licensed to developers who sign a publishing deal with Bethesda? That doesn't really step on Epic's toes at all.

There are so many companies that can pretty much do exactly what id Software does in terms of technology (Epic, Valve, Crytek, Infinity Ward and all licensees that use their engines)

Infinity Ward's engine was built off id Tech 3, and I think we can all agree the Source engine is a bit dated now, isn't it? CryEngine has yet to be used outside of Crytek games as well.

I don't have very high hopes for Rage. I'll buy it, don't get me wrong, but it seemed to me all id was really great at since has been making engines to license, and now that's severely limited.

Looks like Epic is in a good spot if you ask me.

[bitWISE]

They've said before that id is not an engine developer, they're a small game studio that happens to make amazing engines. Carmack puts so much effort into making these amazing engines that it feels like a waste to use it for just one game. Epic on the other hand has made a targeted effort to dominate the engine market (which is very evident in the quality of their tool-chain IMO). I'm pretty sure Hollenshead even went as far as showing Epic some respect for their success.

Came across a really cool quote too

"[John Carmack] was taking satellite photographs, almost like how Google Earth works now, which wasn't even there at the time," Hooper says. "For the idea of streaming in textures, he used that as a proving ground. He got a bunch of different satellite images, and as you moved around, it would stream in what it needed. Now, what with Google Earth, you think, 'Well, yeah, I know exactly what that is.' But at the time, that didn't exist. "

[scared?]

lol...

[Psyche911]

The last showing we saw of the Source engine was Episode 2, yeah? Three and a half years ago. I hope it's been improved since then but all the Portal 2 stuff I've seen has been purely focused on the gameplay, not the technical side of things, so how are we to know? It's not like they really do a great job marketing it (the engine), either in their own final product or in order to license it out. I honestly don't know any games not made by Valve that use it. Pricing info isn't even available, except under NDA.

Getting a bit off topic here. We're really are not talking about Rage at all. I just had to object to the statements about competition between different engines, I think (fear) that Epic has a huge advantage at this time. Everyone else is confined to their little niche.

lol...

edit: lol, you have a $6,000 PC but we're retards for talking about video games. Amirite?

[Eraser]

The last showing we saw of the Source engine was Episode 2, yeah? Three and a half years ago.

After Episode 2 there have been Team Fortress 2, Left4Dead, Left4Dead 2, Alien Swarm and ofcourse Portal 2.

I hope it's been improved since then but all the Portal 2 stuff I've seen has been purely focused on the gameplay, not the technical side of things, so how are we to know?

Have you seen the Portal 2 videos? It looks considerably better than anything I've seen powered by the Source engine so far. It definitely does look like a 2011 title. Maybe the beauty of the game isn't so profound because of the very minimalist art direction for Portal, but the Source engine does feature a slew of very modern technological features.

It's not like they really do a great job marketing it (the engine), either in their own final product or in order to license it out. I honestly don't know any games not made by Valve that use it. Pricing info isn't even available, except under NDA.

Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S ... gine_games

Getting a bit off topic here. We're really are not talking about Rage at all. I just had to object to the statements about competition between different engines, I think (fear) that Epic has a huge advantage at this time. Everyone else is confined to their little niche.

I agree with that. Epic is light years ahead when it comes to engine licensing. But that doesn't mean other companies can't successfully develop impressive engines. To be honest I've lost it a bit here.... what was the point you're trying to make again?

[o'dium]

While I agree Source is old hat these days and they need a Source 3.0 soon, you have to admit... Portal 2 is retardedly sexy looking. Theres just something about it that screams "Lets have fun... With Science...".

Also, Gabe needs to release some info on Ep. 3 already... Its almost as if the same guy doing the marketing for that game are the guys behind Black Mesa...

[obsidian]

It WOULD be cool to return to the now abandoned Black Mesa facility to discover a little about WTF happened in the X number of years that Freeman was gone. They seemed to have forgotten about Adrian Shephard, Opposing Force was my favorite HL game and a bit of a cameo would be cool (mini-coop campaign?). Wouldn't it also be cool to... oh, who are we kidding, this is HL2, where episodic releases will mean shorter development times... yeah right. I'd be happy with just an actual release at this point.

[o'dium]

Naw, Ep3 is set in the Arctic on the Borealis playing a large part.

I imagine the reason its taking longer is because the next Source update with include some impressive weather effects or something.

[Psyche911]

My point, as I said, was one of objection to the comments about a competitive state of engines today. That it doesn't matter how good these other engines are if nobody is using them but the creators. One game every 4 years isn't competition. There will be no face off between the Unreal engine and id Tech 5 if only Bethesda licensees are using the latter.

Forgive me for using wikipedia as a reference, I don't have a lot of time to actually look this stuff up right now. In reference to the Unreal engine:

Due to aggressive licensing, this current iteration has garnered a great deal of support from several big licensees, including Atari, Activision, Capcom, Disney, Konami, Koei, 2K Games, Midway Games, THQ, Ubisoft, Sega, Sony, Electronic Arts, Square Enix, 3D Realms, and more.

That blows everyone else out of the water. Competition is good for the consumer. If nobody is really competing with Epic in engine licensing, we're essentially relying on them to further video game technology. To do what has been doing, and let me tell you, as a PC gamer that scares the shit out of me. Epic, who doesn't even bother bringing all their own games to the platform.

P.S. In regards to your link, Eraser, of games using the Source engine; I've only ever heard of one of those that wasn't made by Valve (Zeno Clash, and it was still published by Valve), at least of the ones in the last 6 years or so.

[obsidian]

Agreed. Eraser's list is essentially a non-list. The handful of games are more like mods.

I don't think id ever really intended on make engine licensing a big deal for them, they just happened to have a lot of people asking them for it so they licensed it on the side with very little support. Their marketing strategy used to involve half a paragraph on their website and a link to Hollenshead's email. Most of the support came from the mod community. id still has quite a following with their engines and derivative engines though most are open source. I believe CoD is still licensing idTech 3, Splash Damage and Human Head are using idTech 4.

I think most games still use their own proprietary engines. There are lots of engines out there but most are small fish or engines that are being marketed but not used by anyone other than the developers. It is a little worrying when Epic is holding a large piece of the pie on engine licensees but they certainly don't control the industry nor are they the only ones pushing the technology.

[Tsakali]

they either need to take the risk and grow, or just let their talent dilute into the industry.

[Eraser]

gameplay video:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/five-mi ... size=large

Also, multiplayer modes are called "Combat Rally" and "Legends of the Wasteland".

Combat Rally pits six players against one another in something akin to a cross between Quake 3 Arena and Smuggler's Run.

Players drive around trying to shoot one another while simultaneously gunning to reach checkpoint markers. Checkpoints confer score multipliers but are not activated in a linear circuit-based order, so the action flows all over the map.

Legends of the Wasteland, meanwhile, is a series of two-player co-operative missions based on stories you hear told in the single-player campaign.

For example, a character may tell you about the time bandits took over the town of Wellspring and planted bombs on its water supply, only for a couple of guys to ride in and save the day. In one LOTW episode you get to play those two chaps.

Another LOTW episode will be based on the Mutant Bash TV aspect of the main game, where you're forced to gun a gauntlet of mutant waves in Smash TV-style circumstances.

There are eight planned LOTW episodes at the moment, but id may release more with the game, and did not rule out the possibility of others appearing as downloadable content.

All of this is on top of a campaign that id has said will clock in at between 15 and 20 hours long.

Here's 6 new screenshots:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011- ... ot-gallery

Also, id Software says it's perfectly happy taking a long time to finish up games. But the quote is about 2 and a half to three years instead of the seven years it's already taking them to work on Rage.