Rage trailer explores the 'legacy' of id

A new trailer for Rage explores the legacy of the famed developer id Software, including interviews with studio co-founder John Carmack.

23

A new trailer for Rage serves two purposes: to show off id Software's upcoming title and to explore the legacy of the famed developer.

The trailer largely focuses on the vision of id Software co-founder John Carmack and the advancements of id Tech 5. So who is excited about Rage? The development team is, that's for sure, calling Rage "the best thing id has ever done."

Rage is scheduled to arrive on October 4 for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3.

From The Chatty

  • reply
    June 30, 2011 3:00 PM

    Xav de Matos posted a new article, Rage trailer explores the 'legacy' of id.

    A new trailer for Rage explores the legacy of the famed developer id Software, including interviews with studio co-founder John Carmack.

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 3:17 PM

      Trailer needs more Blake Griffin. I hear he's going to need the work after today.

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 3:30 PM

      They kept talking about bringing new stuff to the FPS series, but what they show doesn't seem to be anything new.

      Also, love the part about the consoles. Sounds like they've been developing this engine for how many years? Just to show that it can run with 60fps on 5 year old tech, that's great but why not look to the future instead of trying to be the best at making stuff for the past.

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 3:53 PM

        60fps is huge and a big part of what makes CoD/MW so fun to play. Now, extend that into a post apoc world with shooting mutants in the faces with shotguns, vs real world military and - sold.

        • reply
          June 30, 2011 3:53 PM

          ...with 5x the visual fidelity of a MW game, which has to beat down the gfx in order to run 60fps. Should look sweet, run sweet and play sweet.

        • reply
          June 30, 2011 4:12 PM

          I can play MW at 100fps and still hate the game.

          My main point was why put all that time and money into something that is 6 years old and is already half way through its lifespan (according to Microsoft) when the PC is never going to end and is ever growing in technology. It just doesn't make sense to me, sure you get money now but then that isn't going to keep your company going forever. Its like they make something really big (doom) then hide for 10 years and try the same thing again.

          • reply
            June 30, 2011 4:22 PM

            Easy. Try to replace the Unreal engine licensed games.

            Besides, as you mentioned, 6 years and halfway through the lifespan. Well, that's 6 more years of gaming on that platform.

            And if the technologies applied help the consoles run it better, then would it also likely make it run better on your PC? So you can either crank up the fidelity or they are also able to get it playable on things like a basic Intel Core i3 (Sandy Bridge) or AMD Llano type of computers without a dedicated graphics card. This expands the gaming market for them and also for any potential licensees.

            • reply
              June 30, 2011 4:23 PM

              And, as a followup, who's to say that the engine isn't adaptable to run on the future console/PC hardware.

              I mean look at how long Valve's Source engine has kept going. And things still look "good".

          • reply
            June 30, 2011 4:24 PM

            They are are aiming for 30fps with Doom4 - improving the visuals quite a bit from Rage (a game which I don't see how anyone can say looks dated).

            It is so damn rare for any game to look pure BAD these days. Way too much snobbery involved. Not saying this to you specifically, but just a reminder to all the people who I suspect of sometimes forgetting just how good things really look these days.

            • reply
              June 30, 2011 4:54 PM

              For every Rage there's a MineCraft. lol

          • reply
            June 30, 2011 5:37 PM

            Making the FPS as such for consoles was only one goal. The game will still be a made for PC experience if that is the platform you purchase it for.

          • reply
            June 30, 2011 7:35 PM

            Please don't ever start a business.

        • reply
          June 30, 2011 4:12 PM

          I wish more games for consoles would have 60fps as the goal. It does make a huge difference indeed.

          • reply
            June 30, 2011 4:24 PM

            I prefer 120fps on my PC. I was blown away at the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz when I swapped monitors. Everything was just so....smooth.

            • reply
              June 30, 2011 4:37 PM

              I have to say that most of my gaming is happening on a console lately (which was the main reason why I mentioned consoles and 60fps - it really makes a huge difference).

              My current PC is very old. Bought it for Doom 3 - so it is in no way capable of running anything properly these days. That being said - playing games on a console does make you appreciate just how good things can look even on that. And the best part is that I can take away focus of trying to have things look fantastic (upgrading the PC over and over). But yea.. things being smooth in every game is something I do miss from having a good PC.
              I'd rather have worse graphics and have things being smooth.

            • reply
              June 30, 2011 6:52 PM

              You wouldn't notice a difference between 30fps and 500fps if they stayed steady. The human eye can only see about 26fps so it doesn't matter if anything is over 30fps really as long as it doesn't fluctuate.

              • reply
                June 30, 2011 6:57 PM

                Oh no not this again.

              • reply
                June 30, 2011 7:07 PM

                lol

              • reply
                June 30, 2011 7:39 PM

                Actually there are facts about this, and they don't agree with you. Check google at your leisure. Or I invite you to load up a game such as quake 3 where you can limit your FPS to whatever you want and set it to 26,30,45, and 60 and see if you personally can see the difference and get back to use with results.

                • reply
                  June 30, 2011 7:57 PM

                  I don't see any difference between 30fps and 60fps.

                  • reply
                    June 30, 2011 7:59 PM

                    You should get that checked out by a doctor.

                  • reply
                    June 30, 2011 8:09 PM

                    It's pretty obvious when it spins.

                  • reply
                    June 30, 2011 11:34 PM

                    Go to the doctor.

                    They should have a comparison between 60fps and 120fps, there would be a noticeable difference even there. Diminishing returns are probably once you get past 120fps.

                    • reply
                      July 1, 2011 7:11 AM

                      That wouldn't work with most monitors at 60Hz these days.

                  • reply
                    July 1, 2011 6:11 AM

                    Get over yourself

                  • reply
                    July 1, 2011 7:11 AM

                    You're either lying, using a screen with a very bad refresh rate, or you have an eye problem.

                • reply
                  June 30, 2011 8:18 PM

                  smashT

                • reply
                  June 30, 2011 8:20 PM

                  nice

                • reply
                  July 1, 2011 6:21 AM

                  This is great, but they should make bigger versions too, IMO. The objects there aren't really moving that fast on the screen or covering much distance. (though that just goes to show the difference would only get bigger as you're looking around quickly in a game)

                  • reply
                    July 1, 2011 8:29 AM

                    yeah some random jittering with inertia would show it off a lot better

                • reply
                  June 30, 2011 10:56 PM

                  Don't ever try to prove something with Wiki.

                  • reply
                    July 1, 2011 6:19 AM

                    Why? They're often excellent sources, especially since they cite the original source of the information.

              • reply
                June 30, 2011 8:17 PM

                :(

              • reply
                July 1, 2011 6:18 AM

                This is demonstrably false. You're on a real role with this post and the "why make games half way into a console life cycle one."

                It doesn't matter how many FPS you think your eye can see on its own, it's also the fact that your eyes can dart around the screen and follow moving objects. Tracking a moving object at 30fps is not smooth, whether there's motion blur or not.

                Anyway, the easiest way I've seen to demonstrate how wrong you are was with the old game quake2. You bind keys to different max fps settings, so 1 might be maxfps 10, 2 might be 20, etc. You then stand in the middle of a room, and hold one of the arrow keys so that your guy spins in circles. You can then press the number keys to increase or decrease the framerate on demand. There's a noticeable difference up to and beyond 60fps easily. I forget what my monitor refresh rate was back then, so I don't know what my max was.

                I'm sure there are also simple web-based programs to demonstrate this, and it looks like one was already linked.

              • reply
                July 1, 2011 7:06 AM

                completely false, its closer to 80-85fps for more people.

              • reply
                July 1, 2011 7:09 AM

                Not this shit again, jesus.

                YOU ARE WRONG.

              • reply
                July 1, 2011 9:13 AM

                Even if you couldn't see it directly (which you can), higher framerate in games also reduces input latency significantly, especially when vsync is involved. Going from 30 to 60 fps on a reasonably standard 3 buffer vsync setup will reduce input lag by 48ms, which is huge.

                I miss my 120hz crt =P

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 4:45 PM

        They are saying that they are doing stuff that is new for them, not the entire genre . And from what I've seen so far I'd have to agree. There are many elements they are showing that they have never done before: different types of ammo for various weapons, creatable items, a fleshed out driving element, and a more open environment, just to name a few.

        As for the consoles, looking that good AND getting a smooth 60fps is pretty impressive. Also, as I understand it, the Tech 5 engine was designed to be much more easily upgraded or modular, similar to what Valve has done with the Source engine, as others have stated.

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 5:02 PM

        an open world shooter with vehicle combat has been done before? which games are those, because i must have missed them.

        • reply
          June 30, 2011 6:50 PM

          APB, Battlefield (to an extent), GTA, Red Faction, and more...

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 6:40 PM

        Well, its arguably the best looking game on consoles, AND it runs at 60fps. There is also much more to enable on high PC's to make use of the new tech. I'd say that's looking to the future.

      • reply
        July 1, 2011 5:08 AM

        Yea, the focus is obviously consoles.

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 4:05 PM

      October... so close but so far.

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 4:52 PM

      The more I see of this game, the more I like what I'm seeing.

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 5:06 PM

        Yeah, I reached the level of "CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!!!!" quite a while ago.

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 5:08 PM

      No wonder their games are so dark... look at that studio.. it's like a cave in there.

      PS: CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!!

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 5:13 PM

      I've been wanting to play a game like this for 25 years since SSI's "Roadwar 2000" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadwar_2000 ) a really primitive turn-based/RPG/strategy game with very basic graphics (you realllllly had to use your imagination back then).

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 5:20 PM

      id, fuck yeah!

    • reply
      June 30, 2011 11:17 PM

      wow. was that using a shacknews video stream? No Full Screen Controls??? @#$^%^^@

      • reply
        June 30, 2011 11:42 PM

        Agreed, that was annoying.

      • reply
        July 1, 2011 7:42 AM

        I really don't understand why they don't go with JWPlayer or YouTube or anything else, seriously. Every time I come to the site and see a video I want, I end up going to YouTube and looking for it there. That's how bad this player is.

    • reply
      July 1, 2011 5:55 AM

      Yep, still looks awesome. Really excited to play this.

    • reply
      July 1, 2011 8:15 AM

      I miss the Quake 1 days. I wasn't looking forward to this game, until this video. I hadn't kept up on the game much. Looks great! Might have to get this one!

      • reply
        July 1, 2011 9:10 AM

        In terms of pure singleplayer shootery, it's the game I'm looking forward to the most.

    • reply
      July 1, 2011 1:23 PM

      I didn't know Billy Bob Thornton worked for these guys.

    • reply
      July 1, 2011 1:49 PM

      This game is going to be effing amazing....

    • reply
      July 2, 2011 12:47 PM

      If John Carmack and Tim Sweeney got into a fistfight, who would win?