So just read http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6500/the_creative_intent_of_rage.php. Seemed like an awful lot of d-baggery going on here. Apparently they dislike the game as is not-so-subtly implied in these tweets.

https://twitter.com/#!/RaveofRavendale/status/120877126164549632

this was tweeted then retracted.

http://h6.abload.de/img/captureb7gv.png

I think it is a bit lowbrow if you ask me. If they don't like the game that is fine, but no reason to be ass-hats about it.

[censored] these scums this is an ID game not some [censored] crew's game like who the [censored] made that borderboredom thing im gettin pissed with all the comparisons going on...

What pissed off the interviewer? That was a horrible interview, he came across like a moody teenager with his bottom lip sticking out!

i just still can't believe people call borederlands post-apocalyptic.

Lets be honest this is a little known site/reviewer, reviewing a huge release... they where going to get it wrong and they did! Rage will be epic there is no doubt of that!

The Borderlands obsession some gamers have pisses me off, it was a good and fun game, not the messiah of gaming. It was rather shallow and repetitive, and it wasn't the first wasteland game. They're more annoying that the COD vs BF fan-boys.

Funny, the Tweet states; "believe me there's a reason Brandon is being so harsh!" - Yeah cause he's a dweeb DB trying to prove how smug he can be.

Sounds like a BIG Borderlands fan who thinks Gearbox should own the post-apocalyptic game concept. Borderlands was not post-apocalyptic, it was about the rough society and settlers starting to colonize a planet and the wild beasties that inhabited that planet.

I liked Borderlands too but it was not the Rembrandt of video games. It was like junk food for the mind. The enemy AI was dumber than a box of hammers. There was little story, the running narrative was you reading text, what little actual plot there was fizzled at the end of the main game and completely pulled the rug out from the player. Then boom it was over - cheap end of a game!

Borderlands wasn't a conventional RPG and to be honest was rather boring in my opinion. id is a reputable developer who have created astonishing games in the past and I expect Rage to be no different!

I think maybe the interviewer was trying to get ID past the usual 'this game is great because the graphics' that they've been relying on heavily. Granted, I'm still buying the game, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to find more substinative details. And notice that it really threw I'D off their center of balance. They didn't know how to answer the questions that didn't pertain to how pretty the game looks or how many FPS it's running.

TBH a developer who is interested in making a game that has replay value, looks good and runs well is only doing one thing and that is making sure its customers get the best for what they pay for...

Rage certainly has good replay value, do you go here and complete this quest or go there and explore a bit and kill some freaks? The game looks gr8... nuff said and if the game does run well on all sorts of systems then id is doing things that other developers are still learn... that the customer always comes first.

Wow, this interviewer is mad bro.


He's not quite the really devoted fan that most blizztards are though - I give him a 2/10 for actually having the nads to say those things to id's face.

-

Want a Borderlands critique - ok, why do your graphics look like a 12 year old emo developed your game? Kudos on making it playable on my commodore though, that took some engineering.

I especially like the part where the interviewer tells Id their game looks like borderlands (a complete slap to the face) and then later acknowlege that Rage was in development before borderlands....

Really?????
Whats the point in that? what are you trying to bring to the attention of the reader?
Maybe i am just tired of the borderlands comparisons, because that game svcked so badly, and the landscpaes and character models were really simple. but come on. I know its really easy to say "BROWN!?!!?! I SAW A GAME USE THAT BEFORE LULZ!!!" but anyone who has seen any videos (ie, actually done their job and researched the game they were interviewing developers about) they would know that the desert portions of the game do not summarize all of its environments.

how about "did it kind of piss you guys off when you created FPS games like a bunch of rock stars, and everyone ripped you guys off and now you have to get interviewed by people like me that question the logic of things that are staple Id features like voiceless protagonists, which anyone with even half a brain should know are in place to help with immersion?"

That interviewer is an idiot.

Boringlands (cwutididthar?) is a mediocre FPS/RPG hybrid with an open world that's lifeless, repetitive fetch quests for side missions and an uninteresting, poorly developed story that falls flat on its face.

RAGE is a post apocalyptic FPS with SOME RPG elements with an open world that has more than three NPCs per settlement, vehicular combat AND races with other vehicles and, best of all, an interesting story revolving around a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis


The two games are very different gameplay wise and, IMO, id Software is INFINITELY more talented and influential than Gearbox ever was or ever will be.

I'm going to go ahead and say the interviewer is pretty ignorant of video games in general. His questions are pretty.... stupid. It's all evident in the first few questions / answers and I'll provide a breakdown. It should give people a general idea of how the interview goes. Seriously if you are going to interview someone at id, please use somebody who knows about games and game technology.

gamasutra: What do you personally feel is the unique element of Rage that's going to get people really playing it?

Todd Hollenshead: Well, the game has a number of things, but I think it starts off with -- as most games do -- with "What does it look like?" And when you look at Rage, regardless of what platform you're playing on, it is a game that doesn't look like any other game. It's the only game that has uniquely textured environment, it's the only game that's using id Tech 5, and visuals go a long way towards like, "Okay, this is something."

But we go beyond that with combining, I think, the classic elements of the shooter genre that we invented, with other elements as well, and when it's put all together -- as you play the game, the whole game is sort of brighter than the sum of its parts. And it's that element of putting these things together, as opposed to, "Well, we have this, and we have this, and we have this," and go down a check box list of features, or "We have this, and another game doesn't," or "we have that, and another game doesn't."

Ninjas Fear me: I think what Todd is saying in answer to the interviewer's question is that what Todd personally believes is the one unique thing that sets RAGE apart is the visuals. No other game looks like RAGE, and being able to have your game stand out like that is a big part of what draws people's attention. Here is the follow up comment / question from the interviewer. Immediately, the interviewer responds stupidly:

gamasutra: I don't actually feel like it looks unlike every other game. It does kind of look like Borderlands or Fallout to me. I mean, I'm sure, when you really get into the tech, it looks different. But it does have a similar kind of look and feel.

Ninjas Fear me: Wrong wrong wrong! I've said myself on here that RAGE falls somewhere in between Fallout and Borderlands in terms of features / structure / theme. But it looks NOTHING like borderlands visually, nothing like fallout. The interviewer clearly doesn't know what he's talking about by making a comment like that. Let me break this down. If I were asked to describe what the visual presentation of Borderlands was like I'd say that the game has a cell shaded feel to it, somewhat cartoonish. I'd say the geometry complexity is rather low, and that environments are rather small and that they contain many repetitive elements. I'd also point out that Borderlands is a 30fps game. I'd also point out that everything in borderlands is clearly tiled with the art folks clearly placing little decorative textures here and there to mix thing up so that building A does not look too similar to building B.

For Fallout 3 / New Vegas, I’d say the visuals are very muddy in that texture resolutions are not only low, but that there is a general lack of use of color. There’s a very limited draw distance. 30fps. I would also say it’s the opposite of RAGE in that it’s very slow moving, very slow paced. Cities are gray. Towns are brown. Geometry is decent, certainly higher than Borderlands.

Now if I had to describe RAGE in the same way, of course it's 60fps. Twice the frame rate. It's also nothing like cell shaded and doesn't have the look / feel to it at all. The art style is gritty and has a painted look and feel, rather than a cartoon look. In fact, RAGE looks as if a group of artists went around painting over every surface from various angles to make every inch of the world look unique. When I think of Borderlands, I know that each area looks unique to the others, but within each area, everything looks tiled except for key locations. I can tell that in RAGE there's MUCH more geometry going on and areas you play in are much larger. This is obvious as even the characters in RAGE look FAR more details than anything in borderlands. Everything is much rounder in RAGE, and everything looks unique. In RAGE it's clear that as you enter another room or round another corner, there's something new that somebody hand painted. The game clearly does not skimp on the geometry as it contains many round objects and smooth surfaces and characters look much more detailed than in Fallout or Borderlands. So it looks NOTHING like borderlands or fallout at all.

But somehow the interviewer responds with: I don't actually feel like it looks unlike every other game.

When I read a response like that my immediate reaction is: Stupid, ignorant, interviewer is wasting my time.

The rest of the interview is very meh and reads like a totally wasted opportunity to ask id about the process by which RAGE was created, what was involved in making each scene unique. What's the one area where they believe the most time was spent in terms of hand painting? Is it accurate to say that the amount of and type of baked in lighting in the game just isn't possible to do in real time on consoles and mainstream PCs?

I would have asked stuff like:
Regarding the creative intent of RAGE and the unique technology of id Tech 5, I've had the thought before that perhaps what the Japanese gaming industry really needs is id Tech 5. Japan has lots of uniquely talented artists, but seems to have fallen behind the west where engine technology is concerned. Would not the unique characteristics of the id Tech 5 engine be perfect for the Japanese gaming industry? It would seem to free them up creatively, while solving the vast majority of their technical requirements. What do you think about that? Has the industry lost a big opportunity in that id Tech 5 won't be used outside of ZeniMax / Bethesda?

Instead what do we get? Stupid comments that suggest that RAGE looks like Borderlands or Fallout. And while all three games deal with a post apocoliptic scenario, all of them are different in various ways. And while all three games deal with a post-apocalyptic scenario, all of them are different in various ways.

In borderlands, you’re on a prison planet. You’re not even on earth. You fight humans, midets and aliens. You’re a treasure hunter, and in the end you discover the treasure you were after was something to do with aliens. You’re in the future where your body and mind can be download / cloned and teleported. You can even teleport / materialize cars out of thin air.

In fallout, you are born in the future earth, where humanity has nuked itsself into a post-apocalyptic scenario where meta-humans and ghouls now exist due to radioactive exposure over extended periods of time. You fight ghouls, Orcs and mutated insects and humans with futuristic technology well past anything in RAGE but not nearly close to the somewhat star trek like technology in borderlands. It’s obvious that in Fallout, the world is at a much greater technological era than we are in now today when it gets destroyed, whereas in RAGE the technology is pretty close to modern day tech.

In RAGE, you are not born in the future, you are born in the past, get put to sleep and wake up in the future out of place. It’s not like Fallout where you’re born and raised in the future. Technology has devolved in RAGE, not moved forward. Thus, rage is a true post-apocalyptic game where technology has reverted and has yet to really move forward yet. In fact, you are the most advanced technological thing in the world because of your nano technology. So the player is the only real exception. Everyone else is your everyday normal or been mutated due to other causes and not due to radiation. The world in RAGE is destroyed due to natural circumstances and not due to nuclear war.

So what similarities do these games share in terms of story? ALMOST NOTHING! Sure they are all post-apocalyptic, but that’s pretty much it. Are there some similarities? Sure. But the key thing is that RAGE is definitely unique, it’s not a copy of some other game. Not sure why the gamasutra interviewer fails to understand this.

So apparantly, http://www.gamereactor.dk/media/23/borderlands_192329.jpg and http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/e/e7/Lone_Wanderer-SMG.jpg look like http://www.tiptoptens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/rage-game.jpg?

What on earth are they smoking? Borderlands has a cartoony cel-shading, and Fallout 3 is desaturated, gritty and "shiny" (lots of 'realistic' Bloom). RAGE has a unique color scheme for every single environment, whether that be the wasteland, dead city et.c..

They are all set in wastelands, but it is not like any of them invented the setting so I don't see how saying one is more original than another makes any sense.

It's also a problem with the words being used.

Not unlike.
Similar.

You know, similar things are things that share some general characteristics, but which are otherwise completely different. This mountain looks similar to that mountain - but they are actually completely different mountains. Not a single thing about this mountain is the same as this mountain, down to the minerals, except for some vague concept of similarity. (they are both mountains)

Thus: Similar things = completely different things that are reminiscent of each other in some way or another.
Gears of War 1 on 360 looks not unlike to Gears of War 1 on PC. It’s a console port to the PC after all.
RAGE on PC looks not unlike to RAGE on 360 and PS3. It’s the same game looking mostly the same on all 3 platforms.
To say that two things are not unlike. Well that's to basically say they are alike. That's saying two things are more or less equivalent. The problem is who in their right mind would look at the graphics in Fallout, Borderlands and RAGE and say that they are "not unlike". That's utter BS and that's why people are attacking this interview. The interviewer comes off as ignorant of games and game technology.

All I can say to the id guys in that interview is: Don’t let them say stuff like that. Challenge them and make them look stupid. Don’t let these pea brains get the best of you. Be sure to CORRECT those mofos in the future and clarify their statements. Call them out on their ignorance. Educate them on the differences, you’ll be helping them AND us gamers. This is why Carmack makes for great interviews, because he’s not afraid of getting technical and actually breaking down a question into a long and complete answer. Gamers LIKE that, they RESPECT that, and it makes for a good in-depth interview with real honest answers. I suggest that the rest of the id team try to emulate that, or you might end up allowing some stupid interviewer misrepresent your product. You wouldn't want people to walk away from reading this interview and thinking that RAGE has the same graphic quality as Borderlands and Fallout.

You're probably thinking from the marketing side, that a lot of gamers don't know what 60Hz means. I've heard at least two id members mention that. Well TELL them, they don't need to understand it fully, they just need to understand that it's a significant technical achievment that gives your game a leg up over the vast majority of other games. Use a good anology. Fight the ignorance where the gaming media is concerned because they should have not excuse, and let people draw their own conclusions.

The interviewer says the tone of the piece comes across harsher then it really was.

In fairness, he is taking a position that I've heard more then once in recent weeks, which is wondering what Rage offers that the Fallouts and Borderlands do not. And since Rage is admittedly less open, they need to sell it in other ways. So that is what most of his questions are trying to discover while the id guys are throwing up a fair amount of marketing speak in response.

haha.. its ridicuous that anyone would think borderlands or fallout3 w3ere good FPS games at all, though.
that alone is a selling point over the other two games.
they were RPG's that relied on a first (or third) person POV, but neither felt like a true FPS.. not talkling about the RPG elements. but the actual shooting- it wasn't right.. Havent played this particular game, but i am guessing that ID has me covered on this.

What does offer that doesn't?

They both get wet - they both want something from you - and they will both probably keep you warm at night . . . . so I ask you, why A over B? Sometimes A just RULES over B, maybe there isn't "as much of it to love".. but that can be a good thing.

You're right.

Fallout is a full blown RPG.
Borderlands is a water down RPG with a large focus on weapon loot. Borderlands is pretty much a Diablo game purely focused on weapons as loot.
RAGE is an FPS shooter made fuller with a story, side missions, car combat and minigames.

In that group, only RAGE is an FPS game.

Sorry for the bias, but you didn't mention . . . Rage is developed by id, id > all. Rage is all that, and a bag of potato-chips *snap*snap* -Dr. Evil

Well there is that too. RAGE will clearly be very tight in terms of code and of gameplay, because we know id sets out to do something and they do it - they are technical masters. The only thing about RAGE is that it REALLY expresses the need for next gen consoles in my opinion. They have have done something amazing on these systems, it's id after all. But just think of all they could accomplish if they were developing for a more powerful system.

Clearly, the console technology is holding id Tech 5 back. This game really could have used a console with 2GB of RAM. Some people are saying that RAM really isn't an issue for id Tech 5, since it runs on consoles which only have less than half a GB for graphics. But the reality is that they made the game look as good as it can for that amount of RAM. If they had MORE RAM and faster GPU's they'd of used higher resolution textures.

But I guess it's OK the way things are for now because 20GB of textures is insane as it is. Imagine if they used uber high resolution textures, the game would be 2 or 3 times as large. Imagine downloading a 60GB game on STEAM. It would take forever for a lot of people. So maybe the real thing holding back id Tech 5 is the amount of data for the game.