It's the official Rage forum, you shouldn't be suprised that many people are excited for the game here. And I'm pretty disappointed about the lack of on foot multiplayer modes.

But for the main arguement, why is adding content = RPG elements? The GTA games don't have a lot of content? How do you know Rage won't have a lot of content? They can (and from what they've said will) add a lot of optional side quest for weapon upgrades (which can significantly alter the weapon), car upgrades, turret schematics etc. There will be many different types of bandits in different camps who use differrent weaponry, there will be car races, car combat, its quite possible to cram a lot of stuff in the game without making it an RPG.

But you are probably right that you should wait for Borderlands 2, as you seem to want an exact replica of that from a gameplay standpoint.

EDIT: For the record, this arguement is quite pointless, because the game isn't out yet, and we don't know how much content is there or how good the game is, and won't for a few more months. I just wanted to state that I completely disagree with the assertion that a game has to have RPG elements to have a lot of content, to be replayable, or to be any good.

His argument is not invalid just cause you say so, you're claiming your opinion as fact.

I think most of you fail to understand just how a RPG squeezes more hours outta you, and very little of it comes from extra content as you claim. Ill give you a hint, it's in the name(Role Playing Game). It forces you into a specific role either through story and/or gameplay choices. Story elements that can be decided are interesting but are out of the question for major plot elements if your planning a sequel with a continued storyline, I understand some games did this anyway but they always do it by having a *canon* ending making all your choices mostly pointless.

Gameplay choices is where they really squeeze you for replay value. For example, lets take Borderlands and remove weapon proficiencies and add a everyman class that has all 4 abilities and 4 sets of skill trees. He can only use 1 ability and 1 set of skill trees at a time, he'll get 1 point for each of his separate skill trees upon leveling up. Basically he's ditto from pokemon, able to copy any class but only one at a time. Now I ask you if Borderlands had such a character what would be the point in me investing hours leveling up any of the other classes?

I have more hours put into Borderlands then I care to admit, but truth be told I wouldn't even have half of the hours spent if I could turn my max level hunter into a siren or solider and then back so I could experience the different play styles without playing the same damn missions over and over again. Over all point is alot of those extra hours you get from the game come from the fact that the game purposely restricts specific elements making it so you haft to replay it just to experience all the fun parts, even if the means repetition to the extreme. Pure shooters offer everything up front and let you play the way you want, I've yet to see a RPG that let me switch my class seamlessly in the middle of a game instead of forcing me to start over.

As for a pure shooter replay value that all comes down to AI, something I'm guessing your not to familiar with since RPG AI is extremely scripted and dumb as dirt. Something that unfortunately carries over to hybrids such as Fallout 3 and Borderlands. An example would be COD vs Halo campaign, COD campaigns tend to be highly scripted and thus only good for one play though. Halo on the other hand has always had rather good AI that made each play though challenging and unique, till this day I can still enjoy a game of co-op campaign with a buddy on the original halo even tho I beat it countless times on legendary. Here's hoping that Rage has good AI and open areas to enjoy it in, so far it looks promising.

As for your argument that RPG elements don't detract from a shooter...well...it's not really a argument just your statement. Can you name me one hybrid shooter that is as fast paced as COD or any other pure shooter?

Also this is a comedy article but a pretty good read that talks about how games get us addicted to otherwise unfun elements I suggest you take a look at it, RPGs and MMOs are the biggest offenders :rolleyes: http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted_p2.html

When I am spending 60 dollars for a game nowadays if the single player isn't very long then I expect at least good co-op//replayability value//or good multiplayer. Me personally, I hate racing games. I don't even like twisted metal. They just get boring very very quickly for me. So for the multiplayer pvp to be only racing and vehicle battles it doesn't appeal to me whatsoever. When I buy a FPS I expect to play FPS, not a racing game.

Other than that, the single player is only supposed to be like 10-13 hours or something like that right? That's pretty mediocre, Looking at other sandbox//co-op FPS games... I spent around 30 hours in Just Cause 2 (with only limited exploration), at least 20-30 in new vegas, probably more in fallout 3 and at least 50-60 in borderlands. I've got at least 200+ hours in L4D and maybe 80'sh in l4d2.

So.... yeah. Am I not seeing the big picture here? The game has pretty graphics but what else does it have? Anyone care to explain? Because I don't see it.

even if we try to do this
you'll not understand, simply because you whanna just another fallout3 or borderlands

Youre right its rage. You'll play it once and be done with it.

you already played it to say that?

lol? Don't even know what you are trying to say. How do I not understand? I understand perfectly well. I'm not saying borderlands or fallout were the best games every made. Borderlands and new vegas weren't even that good in my opinion, but I'm not going to pay for a cheap substandard to those titles. Which is exactly what rage is looking like sorry to say.

Rage has cool looking visuals, but what else does it REALLY have going for it? Short single player, 2 player co-op that isn't even connected to the main game with only "8" levels? , and... ONLY racing//vehicle battles for the multiplayer pvp with no ground combat modes like team death match? Yeaahh.....Sorry but ////// pass.

Will wait for battlefield 3// diablo 3// borderlands 2 before I waste my money on a substandard console rental. A game like this isn't even worthy to make it to PC.

Thank you for adding this, it is the crux of the whole thing.

I think I already said that in the 3rd post on the first page.

Substandard? LOL.

I'm sure you were on the testing team or the release team right? to call a product substandard before release.

Short single player? Source please? Stop yapping out of your ass. All we know that the coop will have 8 levels. That's it. That's all about it, we don't eve know how many MP maps we will have we don't know how big the maps are. We don't even know if the coop maps go on for hours instead of a few measly minutes. We have just seen the Wasteland as of now, It's big enough to do random stuff for like over 10 hours. Rest of the regions are not even revealed. Plus different people will spend different amounts of time at mutant bash tv or just racing around. There is no fix yet for how long just the campaign is.

Why is 2 player coop bad? Why does it have to be 4 or 8. I don't see anyone calling portal 2 bad for just 2 player coop. It was finely tuned to be a 2 player coop game. I'm sure Id will do the same for Rage. Apart from borderlands no other games like stalker or fallout even had coop.

PLUS they are giving MOD tools and if they provide the full dedicated servers also. I'm sure modders will come up with massive on foot multi-player games themselves.



Again.. have you played the game? have you seen any multiplayer? have you even even seen the damn thing live?

How do you know that it will be short? There is no official info on lenght as far as I know (if there is feel free to point me towards it), so everything regarding the lenght is pretty much speculation and guesses by forum posters. Also its funny you mention Battlefield, given how you were going on about sandbox games before, but from the trailers its single player will be just as linear and scripted as any CoD game (even one of the designers said so). Its multiplayer will probably be excellent tho...

Anyway back to Rage, it has a lot going for it, a large open world to explore, excellent gunplay that id software is known for, car combat, varied and fun weaponry that includes a lot of stuff from rocket launchers to remote control car bombs and the wingstick, and some huge monsters to shoot with them. You know, things that make an FPS fun. This might not mean anything to you, but that doesn't warrant ridicoulous hyperbole like "substandard console rental". (Btw championing Borderlands and calling Rage a substandard console game is a bit ironic given the state of the PC version of Borderlands at launch. It was downright broken on PC, and a classic case of consoles first...)

Except it's not true, and reasons/examples were given for that in this very thread. And you can add more content without adding more RPG elements. We are starting to run in circles here.

Just for an example, more loot//weapons// would fall more into the category of rpg content than anything else. You don't know what you are talking about. Just blindly defending without even reading what is being said. 2+2 is 4 you know. Not 3 and 1/2. You seem to have very crude understandings of what "rpg" elements means for a FPS//shooter. I would like to know what YOU actually think it means because you don't really seem to have a realistic understanding about what we're asking for or about what it really means to add rpg elements into a shooter. So please, elaborate on why you are against rpg elements into a shooter, and what you even think these "rpg" elements are or would be.

Honestly I think they may be trolling at this point.

They ignore any argument points against them in favor of randomly spouting things they cant possibly know (game length). As for the RPG elements even if you don't get your way you could still play the game like that you know. Limit yourself to 2-3 weapons and 1 or 2 gadgets for each play through and BAM you just macgyvered yourself a shooter RPG. Which brings me back to my main point that both Metamagician and Armedsauce ignored is that most modern shooter RPGs don't have more play time through actual content, your still playing the same campaign just with a different character with a different weapon and ability, you can replicate this affect your self if you want.

I believe Borderlands and Fallout both had a campaign length of around 20-25 hours counting side missions, so I think it's fair to assume this game with a heavy single-player focus will at least be in the 15-20 area. And I already stated how good AI can add instant replay value, good enemy variety can also add replay value and should be assumed from various dev comments about every Gang/Mutant tribe having its own unique style.

As for multiplayer I admit to thinking it's a tad questionable not to include basic DM/TDM and other such modes that Id is so use to making, I really wanna sick a spider-sentry on my buddy or perhaps cut him in half with a wingstick. Heck even a horde mode would be lovely. In a recent commentary they said they never even planned to do multiplayer(good sign the campaign is long btw), so the way I figer it is the car battle is more of a minigame then a defining feature and thus not something they picked over standard multiplayer that might eat into the campaign length.

Just remember more is not always better, I doubt it's that hard for developers to give us room after room of repetitive environments and enemies after all.

Edited for Above comment - You say loot but how much of loot in RPGs is actually unique or interesting and not just slightly better in stats then your previous weapon? For example in FO3 I have the assault rifle I upgrade to the china variant and then the unique china variant, all different rifles that don't handle differently in any significant way other then they kill stuff faster. More guns are pointless if only a few are actually adding something new to the gameplay.

id Software = RPGs



DOES NOT COMPUTE


What are you thinking? id Software making RPG games? How about Rockstar goes ahead and makes a 2D side scroller and Bethesda makes a MMORPG while we're at it.

BTW. Why does everything suddenly have to have RPG elements? Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Quake are some of the best games I've ever played and there's zero RPG elements in those. Not to mention other things like Prince of Persia or Red Dead Redemption. Are you going to start complaining about no RPG elements about those too?



Yep. My theory has been completely confirmed now. You sir are a buffoon.

Well, first of all the OP wasn't just talking about loot and weapons, he was talking about leveling up and skills and stuff like that. Those might give some benefits, but when you add them you run into the problems mentioned before (using the same weapon type too much to level that skill/battle outcomes no longer depend on pure skill but stats as well etc).

For your specific post, adding more weapons wouldn't fall into the realm of RPG, that has nothing to do with it. What you are talking about is a Diablo or Borderlands like loot system. Those games might have millions of weapons, but they all belong to the same few basic weapon types. They have some basic categories like shotguns, machineguns, snipers, or long swords, bows etc, and just add a lot of stats to them. But playing with a low level machine gun, and the rare Uber Machinegun of Doom doesn't feel different at all from a gameplay perspective, you use them the same way, the latter just have better stats, deal more damage etc. So that alone wouldn't add more variety. Another problem is how you balance enemies around them, since devs won't know exactly what stats the players weapons/equipment will have. X enemy has Y hp and does z damage, usually these stats are balanced around the medium compared to what the player can have at that point. While you can be lucky and have an uber machinegun drop and go through them way too easily, or unlucky and don't have anything that does a lot of damage, in which case the enemies will be bullet sponges, and you will be abusing your left mouse button a lot.

Despite all these, I admit I like the loot stuff in Diablo, Torchlight, Borderlands etc. But i do not enjoy the combat in them. It gives me some satisfaction to see my character grow, and to have brutal weapons and all, but actually getting them isn't all that exciting. Its just a lot of mindless clicking. The combat in these games doesn't require either good reflexes/agility, or too much thought put into them. In a pure FPS if you can't get past a point, you need to aim better, and come up with a better plan of how to take down those enemies, which weapons should you use against which etc. Pure reflex based action and quick thinking that gives an adrenaline rush. If a game has a loot system, when you cant get past a point, you just go and grind some more till the game drops you more powerful weapons and armor. You don't need to be better at the game, only the stats of your weapons (or armor) has to be better.

These are two distinct game experiences, the first is closer to Doom, the second is closer to World of Warcraft. I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other, but they are different. Now, since Rage is an id game, who are known for making Doom and Quake it shouldn't be surprising that their fans expect something more similar to those and less similar to RPGs.

Adding a loot system, and other RPG like elements don't just add things to the game, they change some basic things about the gameplay, not neccessarily for the better or worse (tho in the case of the combat I do think its for the worse, but that of course is subjective), but definitely towards a direction id software fans and FPS fans in general don't want to see this game go.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

No! Your saying FPSs have no replayability I'm listing FPSs I've played dozens of times. CoD 1-4 weren't made by id, you completely missed the point.

RAGE has the greatest graphics in gaming, has upgradable weapons and vehicles, and has an open world!

And being a solid shooter also means that the gameplay will be solid, because they can focus on it.

Overall I haven't seen any arguments to make Rage look bad, as it's not an RPG, it's a solid shooter overall with some RPG elements, and to me it's still a buy. Maybe the multiplayer is questionable, but I can see it as very fun, racing and shooting, almost like Wipeout... but with cars, in wasteland. That's awesome.
-----
I wonder what the opinions will be when the game is out... I like it so far

this

Great point...they should also make a lot of side quests \ tasks

They said at E3 that there will be tons of side quests and tasks. In fact the newest video gameplay seems to be a side quest. You know what? They should add guns.....and cars too! That would be sick.

I wonder if people flamed as much as they do in this thread, when Half-Life 2 came out...

is an open world fps not an rpg! the creators of rage are the creators of fps! as well as make a rpg blizzard! because they were the forerunners of this genre! can not make a fps because it goes against their own rules!

its funny to see that ppl judge games by quantity of content in it
to be honest fallout 3 and borderlands are great examples how not to do this
dozens of weapons, but 90% of them just useless crap
or weapon shops in borderlands in most cases they offer weapons that not even near what you already found

dude this game is gonna be too good....Well I hope :flamethrower: