All those pictures look really nice, including the Rage pics. Are they supposed to be examples of really bad graphics? They don't bother me. All those games are fun. Are you really bothered by all of this?

Look at it this way.

Wolfenstien 3D had worse graphics than Commander Keen because instead of nice crisp sprites on a nice crisp 2D background you had big ugly square pixels (especially when viewed up close, by strange coincidence) and untextured floors and ceilings.

Quake had worse graphics than Doom because of a more limited palette, smaller maps and less enemies on screen at once.

The point is that the OP is completely missing the point. He would have come up with the very same arguments (or ones not a million miles away from them) against both Wolf 3D and Quake. He has a fixation with how textures look up close (check out a good chunk of his previous posts) and everything else is excluded due to pursuit of that fixation. Yet both Wolf 3D and Quake were utterly revolutionary in what they achieved. It's too early yet to say whether or not Rage will be, but the one thing that is certain is that other games are pushing the tail end of a rendering paradigm that has run it's course. Vertexes and fragments with tiled, repeating textures applied in various layers and with various blends have been taken as far as they can go. You can no longer do anything new with them, just variations on what has already been done before. More bumpmaps, more detail, more specular. They're a dead end so far as innovations are concerned, they're a dead end so far as the next jump towards cinematic realism is concerned. Each graphical revolution starts with a first version that can be villified by comparison to what went before, because people still judge it using the same standards as applied to what went before, and that is precisely what the OP is doing here.

Just the Rage ones.

Painted sky is really old and the blurry textures in the second shot are not nice at all. This from the much hyped megatexture game that would be sooo hi res.

got a point. if people ignore the bad they wont get improved.

like if your wife ask you if shes getting fat and you say no, she'll end up looking like a bus. sometimes the truth stings but you cant sugar coat things. this is why companies welcome feedback. they know it will be harsh and may sting, but in the end how else would they know. someone may think there the best at whatever and until another person comes by and points out there weaknesses that said person would never know they were less than perfect.

its nice to give props where needed for sure, but pointing out flaws is just as good. ignoring flaws is the worse thing you can do imo.
yes people tend to go over board and get angry about certain things, but that just reflects there age and person.

C,mon people, stop filling the forum with bashing and complaints, if you don't like the game then don't play it. its that simple. Oh and the devs don't come on the forums so your complaints won't be heard, except by us members who love the game. :celebration:

For the record if your playing on the Pc you should expect bugy games, and ugly graphics.

Well said.

I seen so many hideous looking things very similar to and even worse then what the OP has shown. And I played on PC with high settings. Wish I took a screen shot of the desk of the NPC that gives you that awesome gun towards the end of the game! OMG....was actual jaggys on the items on his desk. The whole room looked awesome and was well done but when i seen jaggy looking crap on his desk I was like WTF!

I agree, devs most likely dont visit the forums. Also agree that the PC version dose have bugs but you say PC version will have ugly graphics? Huh? I guess it will if your trying to run it on a seriously old PC or one that has low end hardware.

1.) Forums were originally made for people to post their complaints nubcake.
2.) If I buy a game that is advertised with megatextures and mod tools, which it doesnt have, than I have all the rights to complain.
3.) PC always had and will have better graphics than consoles.




Anyways- Rage does look pretty ugly if you get close to anything in the world. I really dont see the advantage of not using same textures multiple times in a game where everything looks the same and where the use of this technique makes the game look totally [censored]. For me this is just another [censored] console port.
Artstyle is cool yes, but with Borderlands and Fallout being here first this does kind of fall into the same cathegory and does not impress me anymore since its just a desert. The two towns are cool, yes, but other than that its just a bunch of rocks just like in any other game.

Damn, I'm playing on PS3 and it doesn't even look that bad.

First off, don't be dissrespecting me, did i call you names? no.
Forums have become places to [censored] and whine but thats not what they are about, the devs don't come on forums so your complaints are falling on death ears and people who love the game, sure if it makes you feel better than give the game a bash then move on.

Pc's have better graphics LMAO i was once a pc gamer, spent many thousands on a fully modded pc from the case up, the very best hardware money could buy and i could only just run crysis on ful spec, a couple of weeks later and my hardware was obsolete, with pc's you have to constantly tweak and buy new #%$^and then you still have to deal with all the bugs and they are not half as efficiant as consoles and when you look at comparisons the xbox always has the best graphics, even PS3 gamers know this as fact.

Your entitled to your oppinion but i think you need to wake up man.

The devs do monitor this forum, or so they have said.

RAGE is a great game, but yeah...the textures are poor compared to previously mentioned games (wicher2, all stalkers, metro...).

Wow are you kidding me? Are you really saying that consoles have better graphics? Well firstly, if you really had spent thousands on a fully MODDED (whatever that is) PC than the PC would have been great even now days since I still have a dual core processor and can run most games on max settings (except gta and huge open world stuff) so for thousands of dollars you would have had 3ghz quad core processor that would be absolutely good even to this day with 16 gigs of ram (which is way too much.. more than you would ever need) and two crossfire beast graphics cards. So, I really doubt you have spend thousands of dollars on that because you could actually buy that for about 1000-1500 dollars.

PC has, always had and will have much better graphics than consoles. How could you say it does not?

Here is crysis comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcKLjgWl7tM


And here is crysis on pc with realism mod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui3NlNGMDVc

I think the difference is quite obvious.

This thread is all over the place and seems to have ran its course some time ago. If people want to discuss contemporary consoles and games and compare them to those of the past, then there's probably a thread about it in CD. Otherwise you can make one there. If you want to talk about anything other than Rage, this is also not the right forum.