×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Preview of id Software's Rage

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the sunshine-and-unicorns-gameplay dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 147

id Software's upcoming shooter Rage is nearing its Oct. 4 release, and the company recently provided some hands-on time with the game in its current state. GiantBomb described it thus: "In those three hours, I discovered a first-person shooter. Also, a racing game. And a car combat game. And an open-world adventure. A collectible card came, too. Lastly, it's practically every piece of apocalyptic science fiction we have known to date tossed into a blender, set to puree, poured onto a disc, and spread evenly over a seemingly lengthy and elaborate single-player adventure. In short, Rage is a kitchen sink kind of game, the kind so often labeled as 'missed potential' due to a lack of focus on any one particular aspect. I don't think Rage will garner any such labels." Rock, Paper, Shotgun's write-up is a bit more poetic, providing a first-person preview of the first-person shooter.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

147 comments

Fuck yoiu all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970176)

Fuck off

Re:Fuck yoiu all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970224)

this made me chuckle, thanks for that!

Re:Fuck yoiu all (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971118)

Now hold on. I don't think you're giving the above comment a chance. It's easy to lay a "-1 troll" or "-1 offtopic" on something like this, but I believe there may actually be something to this one.

Perhaps we have in that simple "Fuck off" the most appropriate reaction to this obvious marketing campaign by id software. Now, it is their right to market their game, which I'm sure cost a whole lot of money (though never as much as claimed) and there are a lot of middle management positions (maybe 3 or 4) riding on the success of this game.

But it doesn't belong on the front page of Slashdot unless money has changed hands, in which case its fine because I imagine that not that many readers subscribe and it takes money to keep the lights on at a big website like /. If money has not changed hands, however, the most appropriate response to a front page article that is basically, "Get ready to buy this, you're going to want it and its not going to suck as bad as our last game, promise" is definitely "Fuck off". Especially since the probability is .872 that this game will be another shitty port of a console game that tells you to press the "x" key but doesn't mean the "x" key on my computer keyboard. Where trying to take cover behind a low wall (there are always lots of low walls in these games for some reason) is nearly impossible because your character keeps wanting to climb the wall or jump over the wall and the camera does something funny because the game can't figure out whether to climb, jump or take cover because the same fucking control does all three actions. Excuse me. That language wasn't called for, even though the more I think about it the first poster's simple and elegant "Fuck off" really is the appropriate response to the advert masquerading as a story to sell some DRM-laden turd that will cost $59 for 3 1/2 hours of buggy gameplay.

I know that was my response, but I wasn't quick enough to say it first and I don't like when a comments section chews its cabbage more than once.

id color palette (3, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970238)

From the in-game videos released so far [gametrailers.com], the game looks fantastic. But it still has the same color scheme that id (and many other companies) have decided must haunt FPSs since the early 90's: grey, brown, beige, and some chrome. I get that it's part of the environment, but at least some departure would have been nice.

Re:id color palette (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970284)

Really? That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

Even since the original Quake, I never understood the concern - those who were playing it at the time never complained about the palette until much later, if at all - and still don't know. It's a post-apocalyptic, dust-track racer. What colour did you *EXPECT* to see? Even if you had the ruins of something-or-other-colourful, it would be dust-covered and aged by the time the game is set.

If the biggest complaint you have is a steampunk colour scheme (because that's exactly what it is), then I really pity you for not seeing through atmospheric environments like that.

What, exactly, would you suggest you see in a post-apocalyptic world that would be colourful? Who's got time to paint the fence-posts when you're being shot at and chasing food / energy and NOBODY is making paint?

Re:id color palette (4, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970352)

Maybe I should re-word my complaint that FPSs tend to take place where the brown-grey-beige color scheme is prevalent. I realize that Portal isn't technically an FPS, but in Portal 2 you have (at least) two separate aesthetics. For an exceptional example of creative environment design, check out the trailers/videos for BioShock Infinite.

The brown-grey palette just gets boring after a while. You'd think that it would *especially* get boring for the developers, who sometimes have to spend years in that environment. This is a game in which you can strap a bomb on an RC car, throw a boomerang-like weapon, or upgrade your weapons in countless ways. It's not like they lack creativity. And yet so far the only environments within the game (that I've seen, anyway) are the same dust-dirt-rust that's typical of the genre.

Even if it's post-apocalyptic, you could find excuses that some structures survived. Possibly underground. I'm not looking for a rainforest, but there's no reason for all the indoor environments to look the same.

Re:id color palette (0, Flamebait)

craigminah (1885846) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970550)

Do you play the Nintendo modded maps in CS:S to avoid color-depravation?

Re:id color palette (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970630)

Actually, I'm willing to make the opposite complaint about Nintendo games. Like PaRappa the Rapper. How much LSD were the people who designed that on? It's like they omitted the saturation dimension from the the hue/saturation/lightness space.

Re:id color palette (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971098)

Apart from id's own games that color scheme is not that prevalent. I think we all just had more than our fill of it in the '90s so that when we see it come back in Doom 3 or Dead Space or something we immediately say "Oh not this shit again!"

Re:id color palette (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972914)

Portal, seriously? You'd rather have a color scheme of white, silver, and blue? Portal is about as bland as you can get as far as color palettes go. I suppose the sequel added in some green and brown though, didn't it? Of course, Portal is supposed to be bland looking. I assume that's why they had to add in the ruined areas in the second... to be able to add details of some kind.

Bioshock Infinite does appear to have a very wide color palette. But you know what? The game also looks quite cartoony from a stylistic standpoint. I don't think that cartoony would go over as well for Rage given the tone. It may be post-apocalyptic, but it's not Borderlands.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970486)

Really? That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

Those are perfectly cromulent complaints.

Shinin', shinin', shinin' (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970574)

That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night

That or complaining "Kubrick's The Shining is well lit. Why can't I have more horror films like Kubrick's The Shining?"

Re:Shinin', shinin', shinin' (1)

loopitup (2296866) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973332)

We're all out of Kubrick, that's why. And we can't make another, because it's the 21st century and there are environmental laws now that forbid it.

Re:id color palette (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970594)

I am guessing he wants a FPS world that is like the Eye bleeding that you got with the Speed Racer movie...

Re:id color palette (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970658)

Like I said above -- see BioShock Infinite.
The Speed Racer movie is best watched under the influence (of all sorts of things...).

Re:id color palette (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970782)

Even since the original Quake, I never understood the concern - those who were playing it at the time never complained about the palette until much later, if at all - and still don't know. It's a post-apocalyptic, dust-track racer. What colour did you *EXPECT* to see? Even if you had the ruins of something-or-other-colourful, it would be dust-covered and aged by the time the game is set.

First there was Quake. Quake was brown because of technology limitations. Then there was Unreal. Unreal wasn't brown: it even played on the "dank environment" trope by making the first level dark and machine-like, then surprising the player once he got out of there. Half-Life was less brown than Quake, too. So why does every modern FPS have to have the same limited postapocalyptic palette?

Oh well. Hopefully there will be some non-brown areas - like the place with the mutant in Fallout 3.

Re:id color palette (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972898)

Quake was brown because of technology limitations.

That's rubbish. In the 90s we have 16-something million colours to play with - from every part of the spectrum. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from using different colours with their engine, as exemplified by the original Team Fortress. They simply chose to go with the same decrepit sci fi-fantasy theme that has been Id's bread and butter since Doom. And yes, Doom had colour too, occasionally, but still mostly brown. The predominant use of brown was a stylistic decision entirely removed from limitations of technology.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973224)

The original Quake 1 release needed to use VGA palette ranges for lighting and animation performance, dumbass. Read some Abrash, then post.

Re:id color palette (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973244)

Then explain all the colourful mods that use that engine. Really. I'd like to know why third party developers can have colour, but the original engine developers can't.

Re:id color palette (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973762)

Quake matured quite a bit over the years. From what I remember the original wasn't even 3D Accelerated - there were ports of the engine to various techs such as what 3DFX was using at the time. By the time Half Life came around (it was using Quake 1 I think, maybe Quake 2's engine..) the engine was probably far advanced beyond the original one.

Quake 1 to me stands as one of the UGLIEST games ever but also a very important game for the industry. I still remember playing the demo and thinking the weapons were probably just stand in's, never expecting that those WERE the final weapons. It's part of the reason why to this day I still fire up Doom from time to time but never Quake 1..

Re:id color palette (2)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973736)

To be fair, the lava was red, the acid, acid green (or that was very mean algae in those ponds). I seem to remember some very brightly hued things, all of which killed your character quite efficiently. And there were some levels where a bluish gray predominated. One fourth of Q1 was the Medieval style levels, and by all accounts that whole era in the real world was brown all the time, so maybe they can claim historical accuracy. ;-) Quake 2 actually was better - there were levels where the Stroggs had things lit up with a thousand points of blue white laser communications grids, throbbing power-plants, and display screens to where it was often quite pretty. All too many fans criticized that, in effect demanding more brown whether that's what they meant or not. In the same way, there were reviewers and players who criticized the stained glass windows in Hexen.
        Just as a guestimate, a quarter of the posts on this thread will involve somebody complaining in such a way that, if the company actually listens to those complaints and does exactly what they imply should be done, the complainer will still end up very disappointed that they got exactly what they asked for.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971420)

I don't know... Bulletstorm is pretty bright and colorful.

Re:id color palette (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971458)

What colour did you *EXPECT* to see?

Do you really believe that in a post-apocalyptic world the sun never shines? That every day will be dark and cloudy? Even in a nuclear winter, there will be the occasional sunny day.

At least Fallout 3 New Vegas didn't fall into that trap. Stuff might look a little broken and neglected, but it doesn't have to look so dinghy.

Re:id color palette (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971676)

A post-apocalyptic world caused by an asteroid strike powerful enough to wipe out 80% of the population (as culled from the "plot" section of the game on Wikipedia)? Yes. It's what we think killed the dinosaurs, for instance, dust-clouds that blocked the sun and covered the planet for millennia.

And, failing that, just because there might be some place that's colourful in real life, it doesn't mean that every fecking game has to use it's HDR to the full and represent every colour "just because" when they are going for a particular look / feel. Hell, no game should use a feature "just because we can". Do you complain that Aliens was dark (because LV426, you know, "would have had" discos and bars and neon lights and strip joints, etc.) or that Predator was "green" (because jungles have coloured plants, and the alien could be multi-coloured....)? It's a ridiculous assertion to make.

It's *still* the point that you expect it "just because", whereas the game is designed from the ground up to represent one particular kind of atmospheric surrounding. Hell, even on the trailers it's no more bland than any other game (and Quake had lava, doncherknow, and stained glass). Putting something colourful in just because you haven't seen a lot of colour yet is not the way to design a game - that's called crowbarring in things that people think "should" be in a game when, actually, if you weren't looking for them NOBODY would have noticed.

Re:id color palette (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971900)

Really? That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

Worse still is the fact that it doesn't really apply.

I mean... I guess maybe ID does like browns and greys. I can't say I've ever really noticed the color palette that much. But they aren't the only folks making first-person shooters.

The Unreal games have always had a fairly vibrant color scheme. Hell, the original Unreal game had some downright psychedelic vistas. And, depending on the map you had loaded, the Unreal Tournament games were similarly vibrant.

Then there were titles like Serious Sam, and Far Cry, and Crysis that all had pretty vibrant color schemes.

Games like Half-Life and Duke Nukem weren't exactly vibrant... But I wouldn't call them predominantly grey/brown either.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973382)

Even since the original Quake, I never understood the concern - those who were playing it at the time never complained about the palette until much later, if at all

You must not have been around to hear me complain that Quake had fewer colors than my monochrome Game Boy. Quake looked like crap compared to the colorful worlds of Duke3d, Doom, Wolf3d, Ken's Labyrinth, and even Catacomb Abyss. Ultima Underworld could get away with everything looking like dirt and stone because you spent the entire game in an underground dungeon, but even it brightened up the environment with color in places. Quake's limited color palette was awful compared to its competition at the time. I assumed it was a limitation of the new 3-D technology, but it's a solved problem by now. Late '90s 3-D shooters Sin and Half-Life had colorful worlds.

Re:id color palette (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973490)

That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

That's like expressing a particular opinion. I don't see the problem with any of them.

What, exactly, would you suggest you see in a post-apocalyptic world that would be colourful?

That depends on who you ask.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970336)

Agreed, but brownbloom is what many console users especially have come to expect from FPS' so there is considerable inertia behind it. Also it's probably a speed optimisation, particularly important since Rage runs on iOS - it looks like using such a restricted washed-out palette would allow you to get away with 16-bit textures and lighting. (Quake is almost entirely grey and brown because it gets by with a mere 8 bits.)

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970464)

it looks like using such a restricted washed-out palette would allow you to get away with 16 color textures and lighting.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:id color palette (5, Funny)

YojimboJango (978350) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970674)

The "Mostly brown and grey" argument always bothered me, so I'd like you to run a one man experiment for me. Stop reading and look around you. Count the instances of grey, and browns around you. When you get back compare with my results.

I sit at a wood desk (brown) with a hutch that has grey tack board. The walls are beige (grey and brown mixed), the carpet here is brown and beige patterned. There is wood coloured (brown) trim on the walls. My keyboard and monitor are black, so there's a difference, but not towards the direction of adding colour.

Now I want you to compare your results, and imagine how a developer at ID software, perpetually locked in their cubicle, would do. Think on that.

Now consider: Id is based in Mesquite, Texas. I'm not familiar with Mesquite personally, but the last time I drove through Texas even the grass was brown. When the creative talent at Id are allowed to leave their brown and grey boxes, they walk outside to a world where grass is also brown and the concrete is grey. It being Texas I'm sure that there is a high probability for guns and ammo crates to be found littered around the landscape.

You see it's not that they lack the creative talent to do colour. It's that after years of being locked in a brown and grey cube, with only brief access to a brown and grey world outside, it's the only two colours they can comprehend. It's a disability, and making fun of them for it is intolerance.

You intolerant jerk.

Re:id color palette (2)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971616)

It's mostly due to colormapping. Quake's palette was arranged in a 16x16 fashion. Try doing atmospheric lighting with 15 gradients of colors + a row of non-shaded colors. It's also kind of a lost cause for colored lighting in that limitation too. Believe me, I tried [youtube.com] - the only good color lighting shades on 8bpp come in piss yellow and period red. (This would have sent Pentiums to hell by the way, even if you send that wizard Abrash to knock out x86 asm surfmipblocks for colored lighting)

Also there's been colorless games before Quake's released existence. MechWarrior 2's a good one. Entire palettes are dedicated to rendering the whole level a certain shade of color. No one ever called them out on it though...

Serious Sam is even dropping its trademark color for the third game.

Re:id color palette (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972088)

That's a compelling argument, but a lot of people play games to escape reality. That said, if anyone gets to own the dark brown/grey/chrome atmosphere it's ID and they can do whatever they want, and maybe that is the atmosphere of their game, however, to say too many games have (pointlessly) copied that atmosphere is a legitimate complaint.

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972188)

Are you really that fscking stupid?

Re:id color palette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973110)

*whoosh*

Why are there no grass or trees in the future? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972232)

Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green? You know, even in the worst case scenario (and all-out nuclear war) there would still be plenty of plant life (unless you live in the desert or something). Hell, look at Chernobyl. That place got dumped with fallout and there is still a lovely forest there. Is it because everyone has seen Mad Max 2 and assumes that the Australian outback is what a post-apocalyptic future is SUPPOSED to look like?

Re:Why are there no grass or trees in the future? (2)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973674)

Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green? You know, even in the worst case scenario (and all-out nuclear war) there would still be plenty of plant life (unless you live in the desert or something). Hell, look at Chernobyl. That place got dumped with fallout and there is still a lovely forest there. Is it because everyone has seen Mad Max 2 and assumes that the Australian outback is what a post-apocalyptic future is SUPPOSED to look like?

I always assumed that the post-apocalyptic setting was favored for video games because it made the environments a lot easier to draw - sort of a built-in excuse for blandness and lack of creativity, with the desert or Outback-esque theme chosen so you don't have to worry about things like trees.

Why the bland post-apocalyptic setting is still favored I can only assume is due to inertia. People are used to it, so probably wouldn't find a vibrant green Chernobyl or Fukushima-esque environment believable.

Re:Why are there no grass or trees in the future? (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973932)

"Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green?"

Many videogames are about conflict and war, and many do it to create a sense of barren wasteland. Most games center around conflict vs monsters/enemies. You wouldn't exactly want smurf village. Also Crisis and Far cry have done the green/tree thing just fine and so has Modern Warfare series, do you not remember the snow/mountain levels, or the jungle levels? I think many gamers have a bad memory. CoD 5 was jungle/trees for a long time.

Re:id color palette (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972322)

There have been a number of colorful FPS's: No One Lives Forever, Far Cry, Half Life (the XEN levels), just to name a few. There are a lot that stick with the dingy color scheme but typically they tend to be post-apocolyptic or space styled games which find the player in dingy, uncared for environments.

Bethesda has competition? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970240)

I've played Bethesda's last few games (and the one licensed to a third party, but using their engine) for 200+ hours each.

Rage sounds a lot of like the last couple Fallout games, but without the VATS system. I am SO hoping that's the case... And if they manage to make it even better, I'm going to be in heaven. (I actually like the VATS system, but only use it about 1/3 of the time in combat, so it's not like I'll miss it horribly.)

I'm a little sad that it's coming out only a month before Skyrim, though. If I get 200+ hours from it, that'll mean that both games are competing for my attention at some point.

iD software is Bethesda now (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970290)

ZeniMax Media, Bethesda's parent shell company, purchased iD back in 2009. While Rage was for sure developed by iD, and likely without a lot of Bethesda input (dates aside, iD is in Texas, Bethesda is in Maryland as the name implies) it is now all the same company so not really competition.

I would imagine Rage, or rather the engine behind it, is the reason Bethesda wanted to buy iD. Bethesda has been using Gamebryo for their games but development on that has more or less stopped and of course it isn't their engine so they have to pay license fees on it. I image they liked what they saw of iD Tech 5 in Rage and decided it would be good to have that engine as their own, along with the development staff for it.

If the game is also their kind of open world games, well makes all the more sense.

Re:iD software is Bethesda now (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970708)

Ah, interesting. I've heard rumors that they're ditching Gamebryo for Skyrim... I wonder if it's the same engine as Rage? That would give me even more hope for Rage being a game I'll love.

As glitchy as Gamebryo was, Bethesda did a great job of using it. The game was also so good that I was willing to forgive glitches and crashes.

Re:iD software is Bethesda now (1)

sparrowhead (1795632) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972386)

No, it isn't. I am quite certain, that in an interview (think it was on Gametrailers.com's E3 coverage) they said the engine for Skyrim was developped in house. For now Rage is the only game using the engine called "id Tech 5".

Re:iD software is Bethesda now (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972686)

Bethesda is not "really" ditching Gamebryo. They are saying that it's a "new engine", but also that it's directly evolved from Oblivion's engine. So they're really just going from Gamebryo X.0 to Gamebryo X.1 (or maybe Gamebryo (X+1).0).

They have said that using Rage's engine for Skyrim would be impossible. Level sizes are too small.

Re:iD software is Bethesda now (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973004)

I would imagine Rage, or rather the engine behind it, is the reason Bethesda wanted to buy iD.

We can only hope. With an iD engine behind them, I have high hopes for future Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles.

Re:Bethesda has competition? (2)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970448)

as I never heart of VATS (and I'm sure I'm not alone):

VATS is "Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System [mahalo.com]", where you can pause the game and target specific enemy body parts.

PS the first Googlöe result page is full of articles about lobectomy, in this case the abbreviation means "video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [wikipedia.org]"

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970584)

I don't heart VATS either, much prefer to aim myself

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970716)

Personally, I live the slow-mo head shots... :)

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971020)

I did initially, but it slowed the pace of combat too much for my liking. Maybe if the last enemy in a group of enemies was to have a slow-mo that would be ok, but it was way too often for my liking. Even the use of VATS I found intrusive. In the middle of a mad epic gun fight and then suddenly "... pause... ok I'll select that guy... shoot twice... and go.." Didn't feel right

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971748)

Nobody forced you to use VATS. A friend of mine finished the game without ever using it (at least that's what he says, I didn't stand behind him all the time :) ).

"Oh no, there is a completely optional feature that I do not have use at all, but it completely ruins the game for me." - I don't get you people.

Re:Bethesda has competition? (2)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972626)

Nobody said anything about it ruining the game, I simply said I didn't like VATS and prefered not to use it

"Oh no a comment on slashdot, I wont bother reading the full contents of it, I'll just look at some individual words and jump to whatever conclusion/subject I want to rant about" - I don't get you people

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

MattSausage (940218) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972896)

You do realize that if they had left VATS out they would have been completely eviscerated by the Fallout community right?

Fallout 1 and 2 weren't FPSs, but VATS was a HUGE part of the fiction, and the fact they were able to incorporate it into a FPS was one of the most impressive things about Fallout 3 when it came out.

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970680)

My mistake. I didn't feel like trying to explain it, and I assumed everyone would know what it was.

That is indeed correct. VATS was an attempt to hold over the strategy aspect of Fallout 1 & 2 while still having a first person shooter-style game.

Re:Bethesda has competition? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973334)

how do you even play fallout3 without vats, you can dump 6 clips into a super mutant and still not take him down, but it might be 5 shots in vats with a souped up SMG

I just hope it works well on ATi cards (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970322)

Rage is, of course, iD Tech 5 and one big complaint I have about iD Tech 4 is that it does not work so well on ATi cards. I don't mean it doesn't function, I mean it tends to be much slower than on nVidia cards.

This isn't only self interest as right now I have an ATi card, though historically I tend to own nVidia cards, I like them better and will probably move back, but in terms of seeing more games using it. ATi cards are quite popular these days and no wonder why, they've had some real good performance for the money offerings. Thus if iD Tech 5 doesn't run well on them, developers may give it a miss.in favour of other engines (like, say Unreal Engine) that work well on both.

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970392)

I've always found ATI Rage chips work well on servers, but before I stopped buying ATI stuff 10 years ago, there was never any certainty tha recent ATI hardware would actually work at all. I can't count how many hours/days I've lost, over the years, trying to configure ATI products. I still have a capture card that, for all I know, never actually received functional Windows drives. Having migrated to Linux over a decade ago has not improved ATI's chances of ending up in any of my workstations.
nVidia has shone through, in this respect, for a long time. Even when I dual boot, their cards are configured with a minimal amount of effort, in either Win or Lin.

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970418)

why would your server need a graphics card?

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970460)

why would your server need a graphics card?

Yes, why would your server need a cheap but massively powerful parallel computing platform?

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970468)

Because it's much faster to calculate certain things with GPU than with CPU. Servers also do other stuff than just host websites, you know.

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970564)

He specifically said ATI Rage chips 10 years ago. I somehow doubt he was using it as a GPGPU.

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970600)

why would your server need a graphics card?

Because not all machines will finish POST when configured headless.

Re:I just hope it works well on ATi cards (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973860)

That's because id Tech engines use OpenGL, and nVidia has better OpenGL drivers.

RPS writeup was nice but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970368)

But it's far too literary to work as a game review.

As a game preview, it feels like a commercial you see on TV. Flashy and exciting, but rarely reflecting of actual gameplay. Or to put it in an RPS manner...

My eyes flicker at the screen, the dark green border imprinted with Slashdot reflecting on my eyes. I notice, here, a fresh article. A preview of id Software's Rage I hesitate. I hem and haw, but give in to my weakness. I click it and the summary grows outward, like a flood of word upon the heathens, and I, Noah upon my ark adrift in this ocean of cyberspace can do naught more than watch...and read.

A poetic write-up from Rock, Paper, Shotgun. In this there was no hesitation in me, clicking rapidly with my middle mouse button, my hands sweaty with excitement. What wondrous words will I read, what literary masterpiece that would describe this, an FPS? There is a momentary lapse in stimulation as the information superhighway drives this package filled with data through my modem, transformed once into a language I can but hope to comprehend, then through my ethernet cable, finally descending into the near mystic tool which could translate these precise signals that no human could truly understand. My screen flickers, and then I am graced with images, images of an apocalyptic world and words describing it.

Ah! What wondrous words! A delight for my soul! They speak lovingly of a world which would soon be made available for me! A world that exists with pain and doubt and fear, yet also with strength, with passion, and with chaotic order! The world described filled my blood with fervor, with a desire, with a HOPE, that such a world could be true. That I, with this pinnacle of technology and science, could revel as an avatar, as some demigod upon the world of these creatures. To cut, to shoot, to kill, to change the fate of their world. To SAVE! These words described to me such a wonderful world, one that I could truly enjoy...however.

The words ended. The stage darkened. The curtain was drawn. And I was left wondering. What was this? What was this shadow puppetry, this dark reflection which revealed nothing? The words given were brilliant, but empty. What did I learn of this world, what did I hear of how I could interact with them? There was nothing. All that it contained was story, were words. Not a game. This was not a wonder of a GAME, but of a STORY. This author, this writer, may have some form of brilliance in his authorship, but I could not view that which he was playing. There was no substance, merely style. A fleeting brilliance with no heat. And I was left...freezing in the cold.

Multiplayer Mode (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970378)

I have been waiting for this game a while now because it was described to me as "Similar to Borderlands". I loved this game because it had a very simple and enjoyable multiplayer mode. It was complicated enoug (a shooter with talents, mods and many weapons to chose from) but also simple enough to just get in and play. It isn't like Army of Two where you have to use cover all the time, distract and set up crossfires and have the coordination of a navy SEAL team just to progress through the first few levels.

There has been very little information as to how the multiplayer will work, I'm hoping that the character will be customisable enough in terms of skills that 2 people playing together can have different and complimenting abilities, and not just be clones of eachother. I hope that there isn't a number of missions that are solely designed for single player and make no sense when there's 2 or more. I hope that there's a useful passenger/gunner seat in the cars. All these things have been left out of the reviews I've seen, which is pretty poor reporting. Sure he says they didn't get a chance to try multiplayer, but he didn't seem bothered to even ask how it would work.

I'm somewhat disappointed with the PS3 lack of split-screen multiplayer games (Borderlands, Overlord & Hunted being the only decent ones I've found) that give quick enjoyment. Yes, there's many fighting and racing games, but that's no good when I'm a much better player than my fiancée.

Does anyone know of a preview report that goes into any depth on the multiplayability of Rage?

Re:Multiplayer Mode (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970546)

Does anyone know of a preview report that goes into any depth on the multiplayability of Rage?

I'm sure there'll be one as soon as a version with multiplayer is released to reviewers... you're jumping the gun a bit on that one.

Buy more than one PC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970622)

I'm somewhat disappointed with the PS3 lack of split-screen multiplayer games

From my previous discussions on Slashdot about the lack of split-screen multiplayer games on various platforms, apparently the prevailing groupthink is that one is expected to buy two to four PCs for the household and put them in a LAN in order to play multiplayer. But I'd love to read solid evidence as to why this is impractical.

Re:Buy more than one PC (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970962)

How is having multiple PCs going to allow me to sit on a couch with my friends and play my PS3 cooperatively?

The groupthink in more detail (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971240)

I agree with you; I'm just stating my perception of the consensus opinion held by vocal regulars on Slashdot. I'm arguing a position with which I disagree as a thought experiment [wikipedia.org], and I'd love if someone could put into words exactly why this groupthink is untenable so that I can use the ideas in an article describing my own position [pineight.com].

sit on a couch with my friends

Consensus is that sitting on a couch with friends to play a video game is overrated and that you should be sitting in separate chairs.

and play my PS3

Consensus is that Sony products are overrated, especially since the XCP and Hotz scandals. Groupthink is also that you should be playing PC games instead. FPS and RTS handle better with a mouse, and consensus is that genres outside of FPS and RTS matter little.

cooperatively

You got them there. Consensus is that multiplayer means all other players are your opponents. But even in a cooperative game, there appears not to be enough space on the screen for two players' views in an RTS.

Re:The groupthink in more detail (3, Interesting)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971626)

I came from a generation of playing the SEGA with my brothers, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, "lives and levels" of Kid Chamelon/Sonic/Strider. They liked games, but I was a natural nerd/geek and far better than them. So when Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat came along, the fun rapidly disappated as they got beaten a lot. Eventually I was left (post it's release) playing my PS1, and Tekken, alone as they wouldn't play me anymore :(

So now I know not to try to play head-to-head games at home anymore, sticking to games where we both finish the session happy. I play competitively online on my PC instead, where I can trash and be trashed by anonymous people.

There are so many 'vocal regulars' that say the same thing over and over again. Sony BAD, they tuk ur linux. My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies. Sony never took away something from me that I never would have used.

I tried for a while to get my Fiancee to paly WoW with me, but the other PC is in another room, so we actually had to skype eachother to talk, and if there was something she didn't understand with the UI, I had to get up and walk over to sort her out. I resolved to only play co-op games where she could be right beside me, under my watchful eye :P

This is where consoles with capability for more than one controller come in. They are one machine, plugged into one TV with 2-4 input devices. If I felt that the X-Box had better co-op titles, I'd sell up in a blink and get one. But, as many games are coming up across platforms now, there's little to distinguish between them. (I'd like to avoid bringing the Wii into this debate, as I've played one and don't like the controls)

I really like playing with people in the same room. It's more social when the person you are playing with it right there. It's also very nice to get some post hard boss physical contact, which is impossible when you are across or in another room.

So it's possible that I have the wrong system, perhaps the PS3, with it's removal of other OS also removed all the co-op splitscreen games. Perhaps it's evil Sony's plan that people never get to play and have fun together. Perhaps it's their intention that all games be confrontational, where all other players are your opponents.

Perhaps there just isn't a way to make another Borderlands. It could be there there is no working formula for split screen games, and I should instead play the Sims.

Perhaps my working parameters are far too narrow.
1) Must be full campaign co-op mode
2) Must be complicated enough to interest a pro-gamer, but simple enough for a casual.

Are these games just so unpopular that the designers don't consider it profitable making them? Why make a game that 2 people will share, when you can try to make one that each has to buy individually?

Is making PC co-op games more profitable, as you have to have one disk per machine (legally playing). Am I being naive thinking that games companies are trying to make games for the fun and enjoyment of consumers or just for profit?

The groupthink is self-contradictory (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972208)

You make good points. Now to help make your argument stronger, I'd like to discuss a few.

So now I know not to try to play head-to-head games at home anymore, sticking to games where we both finish the session happy.

Thank you for the insight that local multiplayer can allow for stronger group cohesion in a cooperative game.

My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies.

But can you play anything homemade? I'd look up Sony's qualifications for licensed development of indie games for PS3, but the web site in question [scea.com] has been down for nearly four months. (I found this link in a Sony press release and have been checking occasionally since April 10.) Or if not for the PS3, then for which platform should indie co-op split-screen games be developed?

I tried for a while to get my Fiancee to [play some PC MMORPG] with me, but the other PC is in another room

Consensus is that gaming PCs can be easily moved from room to room. Perhaps some people are used to having laptops or small-form-factor desktop PCs designed for easy transport to and from a LAN party.

This is where consoles with capability for more than one controller come in.

And, ideally, where PCs with capability for more than one controller come in. PCs since about 1999 have had USB ports that allow for four gamepads and more. And TVs made since about 2006 have had inputs to show PC video: VGA ports for VGA video and HDMI ports for DVI-D video. So why don't people make use of that?

They are one machine, plugged into one TV with 2-4 input devices.

As are home theater PCs. But consensus is that home theater PCs don't exist. Consensus is that PCs can't be moved from room to room. Yes, this means the consensus is self-contradictory: people are willing to move a PC for a LAN party but not move it next to a TV.

Why make a game that 2 people will share, when you can try to make one that each has to buy individually?

David Wong, columnist for Cracked, agrees with you [cracked.com]. But Slashdot consensus is that PC games are so much cheaper than PS3 games that it's just as cheap for a player to buy two copies of a $30 PC game that doesn't support split-screen as it is to buy one copy of a $60 PS3 game that does support split-screen.

2) Must be complicated enough to interest a pro-gamer, but simple enough for a casual.

Sounds like Super Mario Galaxy for Wii: player 1 controls Mario and player 2 shoots candy at the enemies to get them to stop.

Re:The groupthink is self-contradictory (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972822)

Consensus is that gaming PCs can be easily moved from room to room. Perhaps some people are used to having laptops or small-form-factor desktop PCs designed for easy transport to and from a LAN party.

The occasions where we would play games together would be regular, but not prolonged, say one night a week. Moving the second gaming PC about like this would be inconvenient, especially if something would come up and we have to stop. A gaming 'session' might only be 20 minutes long. For this, a console, with game in the drive and ready to go in under 1 minute comes out to me as the only realistic choice.

But can you play anything homemade? Or if not for the PS3, then for which platform should indie co-op split-screen games be developed?

And, ideally, where PCs with capability for more than one controller come in. PCs since about 1999 have had USB ports that allow for four gamepads and more. And TVs made since about 2006 have had inputs to show PC video: VGA ports for VGA video and HDMI ports for DVI-D video. So why don't people make use of that?

As are home theater PCs. But consensus is that home theater PCs don't exist. Consensus is that PCs can't be moved from room to room. Yes, this means the consensus is self-contradictory: people are willing to move a PC for a LAN party but not move it next to a TV.

This is definitely something that I would quiesce to, If there are good Indie games on the PC, that would justify the investment in controllers and cabling to allow my primary PC to connect to my 37" HD TV. I'm not as tech savvy as the average /. reader (I'm a scientist/chemist by profession) so for me it has just been the convenience of having separate PC and Console set-up in my living room. I own all 3 Humble Bundles, but none of them has the multiplayer co-op I'm looking for. I do regular googles, and I look here for reviews, but I can't find any quality Indy campaign driven splitscreen co-op game for the PC.

But Slashdot consensus is that PC games are so much cheaper than PS3 games that it's just as cheap for a player to buy two copies of a $30 PC game that doesn't support split-screen as it is to buy one copy of a $60 PS3 game that does support split-screen.

The Slashdot consensus is that PC games should be free [piratebay.org]. Or at the very least, you should be able to crack your own version to allow install on more than one PC

Sounds like Super Mario Galaxy for Wii: player 1 controls Mario and player 2 shoots candy at the enemies to get them to stop.

I don't like the controls of the Wii, but that aside, I'd definitely enjoy adventure games like you describe.

The end result is that I know only a small handful of games that were/are enjoyable in splitscreen mode. Borderlands, Hunted & Overlord 2. These have all been on the PS3 and I enjoyed them immensely with my fiancee. I've supported these developers by buying the games fullprice, and I avoid PS3 titles that only support single player (I have a gaming rig, so why block use of the TV while leaving my PC idle?).

I understand from your article that you would like to see more PC multiplayer splitscreen games, but you can see the flaws with FPS/RTS games on one screen. That I would consider to be out of the scope of this conversation, as I'm only interested in co-op games. Co-op FPS works (as seen in Borderlands) and RTS might be too slow and boring for her, taking too long to get a single session going and completed.

I even tried Untold legends Dark Kingdom, a co-op shared screen (not split) but that didn't work where one player controlled the pace of movement, often leaving someone stuck on the edge somewhere.

I wouldn't have any issue with the platform, be it PS3 of PC, but there just doesn't seem to be games out there (or incoming) that really play well splitscreen. Where is the Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls co-op game? Where is the team racing game? Where is the Diablo game?

Re:Multiplayer Mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970648)

there are co-op specific 'prequel' side missions that are, as far as i know, playable in splitscreen as well as online. the main campaign is single player only. http://www.co-optimus.com/article/6248/e3-2011-rage-hands-on-preview.html [co-optimus.com] there might be some details somewhere about versus multiplayer

Re:Multiplayer Mode (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971058)

Thanks for that link. This has just downgraded the game from "Buy new on release day" to "See if I can pick it up second hand" Possibly not even worth buying on the PS3 at all.

If it only has as much Co-op play as modern warfare, then it's not for me.

Re:Multiplayer Mode (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971064)

ID hasn't demo'd multiplayer to anyone. Not that there isn't a MP mode (there is), but this is a solo game first and foremost.

Re:Multiplayer Mode (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971566)

Multiplayer details over at 1UP [1up.com].

There's no co-op, so the charm that Borderlands had running around in the wastes with a friend is pretty much not here. Personally, I think any time you cite the story as the primary reason you left out co-op, you need to reevaluate what players really want. Even more so when they're drawing parallels to between your game and one of the best co-op games in recent years. If I'm looking for co-op, I'm willing to accept the suspension of disbelief about my loner badass wandering around in the wastes with a second person of equal loner badassery.

Re:Multiplayer Mode (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973940)

Killzone 3 supports split-screen multiplayer. The upcoming Resistance 3 as well.

As for Rage, last I heard, the only competitive multiplayer it will have will only involve vehicules. There will be a co-op mode where you play some missions (different from the single player ones) on foot though.

Only interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970534)

If id software does the right thing and releases a linux client... after all their main audience are geeky types who marvel at Carmack's code.

Re:Only interested (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36970694)

No, their main audience is the millions of people who play FPS games. A few guys who marvel at Carmack and really want to run stuff in Linux aren't that.

Re:Only interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970880)

Well what I see however is that FPS games are not exactly rare, and so they'd have to do something different. A linux audience is a sure way to sell a reasonable amount of the product.
Brink and Wolfenstein did quite poorly in sales, and I think it is in part because they didn't go after the right platform and stuck rigidly to Windows and consoles, like everyone else in the industry, how original... It is even more retarded in this particular case because the engine is extremely portable, so its not like they can justify by saying "but it is DirectX!!! can't port DirectX!"
What I see is that generally in the industry (except most indie devs) needs to stop listening to MBAs so much and concetrate on what makes sense technically. Going for the stuff that already works is hardly groundbreaking and it is starting to make gamers generally very very bored.
Time for game developers to have some balls and intuition and less Powerpoints.
Yes I work in said industry.

Re:Only interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971882)

Well for what it's worth, I can have an engine up and running fairly quickly with XNA. There is nothing as simple and robust on Linux, and OpenGL is garbage compared to XNA + D3D (the D3D is hidden by the XNA layer).

I think Carmack has also switch to D3D for everything because it's simply a better API and exposes more features of the graphics card. It's also more consistent, as you don't query a giant string and parse it for a random assortment of features on the card. You just have a card that supports a version of D3D. Simple.

Re:Only interested (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973970)

No, they only use D3D on the Xbox version. The Windows and Mac versions use OpenGL, the PS3 version whatever the PS3 uses.

Re:Only interested (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971948)

Alas, as long as drooling teenage boys (teenage either physically or mentally) keep on shelling out money for Latest Popular Generic Shooter 16 and Assassin's Cliche 8, this will never happen, because executives will be too busy rubbing the $100 notes on their flabby bodies.

HEAVY DRM !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36970536)

As it should be !! More power to the man !!

Yaaaaaawn (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971008)

"In those three hours, I discovered a first-person shooter. Also, a racing game. And a car combat game. And an open-world adventure. A collectible card came, too. Lastly, it's practically every piece of apocalyptic science fiction we have known to date tossed into a blender, set to puree, poured onto a disc, and spread evenly over a seemingly lengthy and elaborate single-player adventure. In short, Rage is a kitchen sink kind of game...

In short, you can play every single genre PC Gaming has in one game. Well done.

Reads as if it's Fallout 3... (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971494)

From the article, you, the avatar, start out by awakening from an "ark" (fallout 3: Vault 101) created to protect mankind from an asteroid (fallout3: nuclear bombs) and you come out and are greated with wastelanders.

Reading the article simply makes it out to be just like any other mundane post-apocalyptic FPS game, but wait you can play cards now and do other mundane shit you couldn't before... you can drive a car (borderlands) and race it or fight in it.... it's just like any other game... nothing new.

I ain't holding my breath on this game...

Re:Reads as if it's Fallout 3... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972542)

just like any other mundane post-apocalyptic FPS game, but wait you can play cards now

You could play cards in Fallout: New Vegas already :-P

Epic article ending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973528)

I wanted to keep playing, to experience more. In fact, a week later, I'm still anxious to do so. I'd take that as a positive sign. Wouldn't you?

Sounds like a nice sentence straight from the mouth of a drug addict!

Yeah... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973558)

Will it be released complete and working or require a patch?
How many crapware items will need to be running to play the game?
Will it be chock full of stupid ass annoying drm?
Will it require an always on connection?
Will it require some bizarre activation that fails on day 1 due to overload?
Is this some shitty console port that will lack basic pc control functionality?
Will half the game be missing and sold back to us as DLC?
Will this be YET ANOTHER quake clone?

It says the publisher is EA games. I'm not hopefull about the above........
EA GAMES - we fuckup everything

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...