The fact is that reviews prior to the game rocked. When they game was released everyone I spoke to raved about the game. Everyone I know who has played it loved the game. So why not the massive record sales?

The first negative comment I received was on xbox by a friend on my friend's list saying "great game but I completed it too quick". It wasn't until I also completed the game I was like .... uh?....what.... was that it??!! I couldn't even carry on driving around the wasteland or racing etc. It just ended too quick with no where to go

So what's wrong with the game? The answer is ... nothing. Bugs are a problem which seems to be the root of problems and bad press for many games out at present. That is always going to be an issue with new games. Especially on a console as I'm told its harder to correct unlike on pc.

Why then is it not competing with the likes of games such as MW3 and Skyrim?

The reason is look how big and how many hours you can play an Elder Scrolls game for. I'd like to meet someone who has explored every quest and side quest in the game already. I doubt with all the millions of players out there many people have even spoken to a single person claiming to have done so. That and many of the areas you complete re-populate with bad guys so you'll never truly win.

Call of Duty? The main quest is always over quckly but people play it solely for the on-line. Every game is a challenge and obviously no game is ever the same.

So then, how could Rage do better?

More re-generating races with bigger tracks where it takes all kind of mods and perk build ups (like you perks and better stuff in games like COD) the idea being that the main quest become second feature to the game.

More re-generating landscape with bandits and side quests (great for co-op), mini maps solely for online shoot 'em up games.

People love to upgrade and uniquely design their character's look as it gets them more interested in what they've created (and they like to show off what they've made)

The choice of weaponry and the way we make it is already enough and is a great side of the game. The baddies in the games are also a really great side to the game. The only area to improve maybe things like quick scoping for multi-player reasons.

What makes the game unique?
This game is more of a Mad Max game compared to a Fallout 3 game so driving and building wacky vehicles and weaponry out of old junk is an important aspect of the game. As opposed to saluaging ready made stuff from a bygone era like in other games such as the fallout series etc. It also has advance technology carried across from the previous world so electronic etc is also a key element unlike most other post-apocalyptic games.

I'd like to see some truck racing and maybe a futuristic train operating that is armoured plated to protect it from bandit attacks. I'm guessing armored lorries will be used by traders to drive their goods through the wastelands. We've already seen zeppelin and air ships which was a cool idea.

I'd say Rage's problems have to do with the industry as whole going down the toilet. Duke Nukem is my favorite example of just how unreliable the markets have become. Over ten years in development bouncing from one studio to another, hyped to death for years before its release, and universally panned by both critics and gamers alike. Yet the game sold. Once bitten twice shy and consumers are tired of getting bitten by outrageous marketing hype used to sell games that just plain svck. Today only a handful of games a year rake in the big bucks and, like Duke, they're all sequels. Its a rough crowd that has been disappointed so many times the rotten tomatoes never stop flying and if you aren't throwing them the smartest thing to do is duck.

It's an id game. They refuse to even look at what's happened since Doom came out. They believe we want a directed and fairly problem free cruise through their world. A bit of thinking to find a key is as far as they will go.

We have become used to challenging and sometimes baffling games with choices and exploring being needed to do what needs to be done. You will not do well in Stalker, Fallout 3 and NV, any of the TES games, even Deus Ex, without trying to think outside of the normal "get the key and progress" standard id shooter box.

The engine is pretty nice although overly static. Dig generated sky in Skyrim:

http://www.carnagepro.com/pics/lights.jpg

It's always a challenge for a new IP to establish a foothold.

Consumer awareness for a game like MW3 is sky-high, not only because of the massive marketing budget spent during 2011, but you have to take into account the hundreds of millions of dollars spent establishing the brand in prior years as well.

That said, the sales for RAGE are actually rather good in comparison to most other titles released in 2011, as well as past id successes.

armored lorries will be used by traders to drive their goods through the wastelands

I'm with you there!!
(Lorries are Semis to our US friends!)

Rage is a refreshing change from other current titles. There's a time and place for "think outside the box" games and a time and place for mindless, harmless fun and escapism games. It's a big world and there's room for both kinds of game in it. Unfortunately some don't seem to think that, and - rather than just ignore it - seem to feel the need to consistently badmouth it and make comparisons to other games. Oh well; I suppose it keeps them off the streets.

What went wrong? A combination of things. Rage was set up for a hating and id were set up for a backlash well before the game was even released, IMO. There's no way that the game could ever have lived up to the expectation, and, even if the impossible happened and it did, it's quite clear that it would have still recieved a kicking from certain quarters. When you see people posting screenshots of a very heavily modded Doom 3 by way of trying to prove a point against Rage, you know that something is up. There's plenty of evidence of similar and worse all over the web, and if you fancy coming out of it feeling like you've waded through a sewer you can go looking.

The AMD catastrophe helped nobody out, and nobody came out of it covered in glory. Ultimately that can be put down to a bad technical decision but made for the right reasons.

The graphical quality of the game got undue focus, with far too much attention on it's weaknesses and an almost complete ignoring of it's strengths. That's the price of being different.

A lot went right too, though. The game does remain enormous fun, has insanely good replayability, is great for just loading up and spending a few hours blowing crap away without having to think (perfect for when frazzled after a day in work), and has a totally unique look of it's own. It's really difficult to go back to games with bland old ultra-realistic environments and boring old repeating textures after you get used to the highly stylized and non-repeating look.

I would agree with this - it's quite amazing how stunning some of the environments looked despite delivering rather high frame rate at 1080p on my laptop, which has a mediocre GPU.

It would seem that at least to some extent, AMD is gambling on Carmack's megatexture tech being implemented in future games: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1323793-amd-implementing-hardware-acceleration-for-megatextures/