f13.net

So looks like the first trailer for Fallout 4 Rage is up (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/quakecon-trailer-rage/54146).  Think id might be jumping on the post-apocalyptic bandwagon a little bit late here, but the graphics look amazing at least, and vehicular combat could be pretty fun.

For a long time, I've felt this will be the best game id ever made, and probably will make (this trailer only further confirmed that). It's amazing how much better such a world looks when the artists are talented and don't have to put up with Bethesda face creator crap.

Holy crap this looks cool.

Wow.  I was going to give Fallout 3 another try, but maybe I'll just wait for this so I can cross those long stretches of wasteland IN A CAR.

games are so cool.

Looks more like Fallout than Fallout 3.

Reasoning: Fallout was (for me) all about the memorable characters and locations. Fallout 3 had very little to speak of in the memorable front. It was wholly generic and samey. Rage looks to have the memorable locations and characters front in spades.

Also.  Pure shooter? If so seems like a waste of a lot of hard work for preset dialog and circle strafing.

Fallout 3 is a great game, but it certainly could have used a little spice.  This appears to have that missing "oomph".  Is there a release date, or did I miss it somewhere?

According to the Kotaku interviews, this guy (http://www.martiniere.com/) is their art director. His influence and skill seem to be having a great effect on everything. I think he's one of the better modern digital artists out there, but I realize these things can be subjective.

He's a relatively recent hire though (Aprilish 2009). So most of that stuff was done before he got there. This is the original trailer (http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/quakecon-rage-trailer/90994?playlist=featured) shown at QuakeCon 2 years ago where it was announced and you can see that the "style" of the world was already developed back then. There's still plenty of time for him to put his influence on the game, though, as its not going to be released this year (CEO announcement) and id games always have vague release dates ("when it's done").

"Last Ark Buried" =  :yahoo:.  I will never tire of the post-apocalyptic setting the way I tired of WWII.

Long live the Thunderdome.

Why do they have to add those mutants jumping 100 feet at a time?  No better than dogs in other games.  Hate them with a passion.

Hm. I think I shall purchase this delightful looking piece of software.

Damn, I gotta finish F3 so I can play Borderlands so I can play this..

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/11/dedicated-servers-and-rage-news-you-probably-dont-want-to-hear.html?noonline=1
 :cry:

Bobby Kotick is an asshole. Of course, it's hard to care about id multiplayer.

E3 presentation.

http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/play/76364/PC/Rage/Gameplay/E3-2010-IGN-Live-Gameplay-Presentation/Flash-Video

It looks great. It seems to retain that rigid "Id feel" that I like. Still, I get the feeling they've been too ambitious and that it'll end up unfocused as an experience, much like Doom 3 did, because I don't think this is a kind of game the old guard of Id is particularly comfortable or familiar with. Gaming trends seem to have outpaced Id in many ways.

Still, if it can be something like Far Cry 2 with more interesting mechanics, it'll still be game of the year for me.

 :awesome_for_real: can't stop laughing......



edit:honestly, this game just doesn't impress me. Pure shooter? Really? Such a fucking waste.

This.

Pure FPS is not a good medium for delivering story-driven content.

I play FPS for replayability factor of competing against other players. I play story-driven (RPG) to interact and experience story behind it. I get easily bored killing mindless AIs in FPS setting.

For me Oblivion and Jade Empire combat detracted from the story, I wanted less of it and not more. I never finished BioShock2, got tired of killing countless zombies.

I like id, and I usually like their games, but this looks too much like Borderlands.   :sad:

Yea man.  That's the same thing I thought.  It's not a bad thing.  Borderlands looked great.  But I didn't see anything other than a Borderlands-esque art direction worth grabbing my dick over.

I saw some IGN  interview   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAw9MrIW7JM)with a producer going on and on about how original the concept of the game was. All while showing scenery that looked straight out of Borderlands. From the buggy to the building structures, etc.

That said, if it plays well, and the story doesn't totally blow chunks, I'm in.

Edit: found the interview

Borderlands looks like fucking clownshoes compared to that.

It still looked like the same style. If you want that style of game but not a pure shooter, play Borderlands or Fallout.  :oh_i_see:

You're kidding right? The end of Borderlands may have been a letdown but ID has proven time and again they know fuck all about story.

wut?

Perhaps you're on a plane of enlightenment so far higher than I, that you can somehow see visual discrepancies so much more clearly and therefore claim to make that distinction.  But really from down here where us plebes sit, no, it looks pretty much the same.  It's not a bad thing.  It was the dune buggies that pushed it over the precipice to obvious-land.

 :awesome_for_real: at the producer talking about the unique look of the game.

I just showed a chunk of the video to my wife, who asked me if it's a new Borderlands coming out. (We played BL co-op). Looks good, but then, I liked BL. Not what I'd call unique, though.

I'd say it's more a Fallout + Borderlands blend.  I see visual elements of both.  Still, not unique, even in story.

It looks Post-Apocalypsish which basically looks the same almost everywhere since at least Mad Max.

The story sounds quite unoriginal, too. And might take itself too seriously. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since I used to love the genre that much.

Funny thing is, all three games were first shown in 2007.  Rage is just the last one to cross the finish line.

It looks like an Id game more than anything. Murky colours and a realistic but slightly chubby aesthetic. (Id characters have always looked short because of this.) It goes all the way back to Doom.

Seriously though, why the hell are you so hung up on Willits using the word "unique?" It's used to pitch pretty much every single game ever made. Unique doesn't mean "unique like a snowflake" in any context relevant to the discussion.

More importantly though it looked better than Borderlands in that the enemies seemed much more dynamic and fast moving and therefore dangerous. Also I think in that video it almost looked like we saw more enemy variety then was in all of Borderlands.

Technology wise, from what I can tell, Rage is a beginning offering for a new platform/engine where FO3 and Borderlands are pretty much the end of theirs.  The tech wizardry behind Rage is pretty impressive.

You probably will be seeing Rage Engine projects for years to come.

Because it's very clearly not unique. Especially in the context he was using it. Regardless, I'm sure I'll end up buying it, well, unless the DRM scheme is hideous, or the game turns out to be as much fun as Doom3.  :oh_i_see:

Unimpressing video. All I see here is some Fallout 3, some Half Life 2, some Borderlands. It totally feels like too little too late. We'll see how it plays.

Yes, I am sure they HAVE to repeat the word unique as much as they can in an effort to convince themselves they aren't terribly late to the party and wearing the same costume of a bunch of other guests. Good for them they are Id, the popular dude.

So... uhm... I went and looked up the last id game I bought: Quake 4.

Wikipedia says it has single player. I never noticed. I guess I thought it was like Q3 so I just went online instead. Was it good? Was it better than D3, which I absolutely hated?

Quake 4 was developed by Raven. Id only supported (and lent their name to the box front.) The single player was well made but lacklustre, it was much like the recent Wolfenstein in that regard. The multiplayer was an updated Quake 3 (which has been asked for) but with thrice the system requirements. I think the consensus was that Q4 had better single player than D3, eventhough I didn't agree at the time.

Yes, Id are popular, because they were one of the last independent studios around and they have the kind of raw talent that impresses PC gamers with a dash of rockstar developers thrown in and a genious lead programmer. They're relics, but like all relics they are very good at what they do, even if it happens to be out of fashion.

Incidentally, Carmack has always been opposed to these long development cycles and an adherent for functionally simplistic games, like Quake 3, and I agree with him. If they had kept refining what they did in multiplayer between Q1->Q2->Q3 with a two-year interval, they would have released some mighty fine e-sport shooters.

Q4 was pretty fun, but languished in the shadow of Half-Life 2 I think. I remember playing through it and enjoying myself, but it wasn't very memorable.

I've always been a huge fan of id quite simply because of Carmack's technology, whereas the games after Doom 2 have always been a bit meh on the singleplayer.

Doom 3 was probably one of the better games id has made since they made the Quake, but where Doom 3 is standard shock horror, FEAR completely trounced it by just being a better game, gameplaywise AND horror-wise.

I'll probably still buy it, if they haven't gotten infected with the DRMitis, just to watch the megatexture technology in action. I'm a sucker for technology sometimes.

I think they've painted themselves into the same corner as everyone else has: The tech has gotten so impressive that actually using it requires more art than humans can realistically produce in a development cycle. The production speed possible with Doom and Quake, much less Commander Keen or Wolfenstein 3D, just isn't going to pass muster today. Id's ad copy for the new engine is, to paraphrase Carmack, "Your artists can literally work as much as they want to on any tiny part of the game world. There are no limits to how much work they can do. You could employ every artist in the country for a decade just making a city block.  Basically it's a black hole into which you pour your art asset dollars. Forever."

They couldn't just knock out a quick and dirty example game to demonstrate the engine features. In Id's world that is no longer possible.

Raven are a quality dev most of the time. Not that this is especially pertinent to this discussion.



It just occured to me that it could well be console-only. Probably not at this stage, but things are definately headed that way, so it's a possibility. :uhrr:

I think a big issue with Id is that these days nearly everything you do that is graphics-related relies on something built into some hardware. There isn't much room to come up with snazzy new techniques because things built into a GPU are going to be a million times faster than cool things you dream up. Even pure research papers written these days have sections devoted to how they perform on current graphics hardware.

In the days of Doom/Quake the guys at Id were inventing cool 2d/3d drawing techniques, lightmaps, etc. These days it's stuff like "megatextures" that are not as impressive or useful. One of the things that put Id games ahead was the incredible technical muscle behind them, these days Id tech is pretty much the same as the tech at every other place because everyone is working in the same framework of the same graphics hardware which is very good at a relatively small number of things. There isn't much room in that box to play around in.

The rest of the processor is still there.

I don't think it's as different as you suggest. It's just that commercial middleware has boomed over the past ten years, to the point where you can just buy a handful of proven libraries and clobber them together for 90% of the result of a high-end in-house engine, and at a quarter of the cost (and a tenth of the time.)

Eventhough there are some monstrously talented coders, they are few but there's an army of semi-talented coders that together have unlimited time. When the army cooperates, the genious is still going to lose. Fifteen years ago, this wasn't the case.

The actual drawing process is pretty similar, but that still leaves practical stuff like how you get the textures, how you animate models, how they react to events, etc etc etc. That's why Carmack isn't looking at how to draw things, but more how to make it easier for the designers to make something without having to have a deep technical knowledge of what happens underneath, or what the limits of the engine are, since they're looking at making the engine take care of making sure of keeping things within the limits.

At least that's how I understood it when I watched an interview of Carmack, where he essentially said that the graphics presentation part of the engine was pretty clean and simple, but the resource management bit was where things got complicated.

I just don't see id as being a pack leader anymore.  I really don't think they have been a pack leader since the Quake 2 days.

1) There's too much competition at the engine level for id to dominate from that perspective alone (yes, I'm repeating what others have been saying here).  There are plenty of engines that look great, run smoothly and seem to have all the tools needed to support a design-driven house in creating a good game.  The Unreal engine seems to rule the roost from a "what are people using when they don't want to roll their own" perspective.
2) id chronically brings too little to the game from a combat/controls, design (worlds, creatures, map) and story perspective.  Being, at best, as good as everyone else doesn't mean you're awesome.
3) That would leave "gameplay innovation" as an area where they could excel.  Ahhhhh... yeah.  I didn't find playing in total darkness with a flashlight innovative, I found it fucking annoying.

Carmack seems to excel at doing more with less, id should be looking at making games for phones (I think he expressed interest in this).

They are making games for the mobile phones already, and it's apparently nicely profitable for them.

I think Doom3 was the first "proper" attempt at a story-driven game that id attempted, and the result wasn't too bad, but compared to other games released around the same time (most notably FEAR) they just fell woefully short. They've probably made quite a lot of hirings since then (maybe a few of the ion storm people?), so I wouldn't discount rage quite yet.

The most disappointing bit about rage, to me, is how he's expressing interest in the whole "no dedicated server" bit. They've always been PC-oriented, but I hope this isn't the first indication id is going to become console-fixated as well.

I'm sorry, but what? Jesus. Chronically? That would be Doom 3, then, I guess.

Did you play any contemporary games at the time the Quakes released? The Trent Reznor soundtrack? The rocket launcher? Thunderbolt? Railgun? Shamblers? Rocket jumps? Strogg? Strafe jumping? Quad damage? Double-jumping? BFG? Pretty much every map in Quake 2? Q1DM3? Q2DM1? Q3DM6? The games are riddled with iconic designs. The only game in the series that can be accused of lacking artistic design muscle is Quake 3, but that was intended as a best-of, e-sport shooter. Everything was simplified as much as possible to play smoothly.

I mean, seriously, they have always been technologically focused, but they pretty much owned the entire online FPS space for five years and it wasn't because the games were pretty. It was because they were fucking awesome as gaming experiences.

One does not simply piss on the best gaming experiences of my life without getting a talking to. ;D

Quake 1 was a horrible mish-mash SP-wise, Quake 2 at least had a common theme.

I'll still tar and feather those who say those games were horrible, though. I've had tons of fun playing multiplayer with friends, and I've spent literally tons of hours modding levels and playing player-generated levels. It's how I wish today's games were, but meh commercialism :(

Quake 2. Rail matches. What more needs to be said?

I'm not saying they were horrible.  I'm saying, "being as good as everyone else doesn't make you the best in the business".  I'm also saying you have to have released a game within the last five years that was ground-breaking to continue to be called, "best in the business"

Wolfenstien (1992) - lol, holy crap what the hell is this?! This is aweome!

Doom 1 (1993) and 2 (1994) were ground breaking.  id is the best in the business.

Quake 1 (1996) and 2 (1997) were awesome for the engine technology.  The engine enabled them to do things other games couldn't.  This doesn't mean that there maps, weapons, or creatures were significantly better than anyone elses, just that they had an engine that made the game obviously better. Having a great sound track just means you had a great sound track.  That you give HP Lovecraft the big nod means you have an awesome game, ok I'll give you the Shamblers.  Also, agree that during this time id is still the best in the business.

Quake 3 (Dec 1999) was (arguably) the best FPS eSport platform at the time.  It was around this time that id themselves said things like, we depend on third party houses (Raven) to make compelling games with our great engines.  Is id still the best in the business?  Well... they're up there, AND DON'T YOU SAY THEY AREN'T!!!

...

and then?  The engines they released weren't noticeably better than anyone else's engine.  People with worse engines started making more interesting games.

Doom 3 - id (2004).  Ok, great engine... what-the-fuck?! gameplay.

Quake 4 (2005) - Raven.  Ok, this isn't id
Wolfenstein (2009) - Raven.  Ok, this isn't id

It's now 2010.  It's been 11 YEARS since they released a game that was best-in-show (I really liked Quake 3, which is why I'm saying 11 years).

They belong in the annals of gaming history.  They were GIANTS.  But c'mon, it's been a LONG time since they themselves made a great game.  Good engines, yes.  Ground-breaking-LOL-that's-a-great-game level-games?  Not lately.

In single player games, both computing power and eye candy starting to hit diminishing returns. I still remember when "next generation" was huge deal, now you have to ask yourself if it worth expense. As a result games will have harder time competing only based on 'shiny' and will have to excel in game design.

I think I first heard this back when it was Amiga 500 vs Atari ST. Maybe C64 vs Atari 2600.

When we enter a world were games are completely photo real VR experiences, maybe. Still a way to go to that.

No, I think that's undervaluing the state 3D engines are at currently. I don't mean there aren't advances being made, but they're more incremental than revolutionary, and we're looking more at increased power being available to us along with refinement of techniques, than paradigm shifts or radical improvements.

The Doom 3 engine (or id tech 4)'s main feature was (mostly) proper real-time lighting (it didn't work like proper radiocity I don't think), which I don't think any other engine did at the time, but that was mostly it. I mean, it had facial animation, but it was just an improved version of what version of what most other games had at the time (I still giggle at deus ex' facial animation).

As for the unreal engine being vastly popular, that's probably because they've been throwing it after everyone with a pulse compared to id (who have said themselves that they'd rather have some good developers rather than lots of developers use their engine), and the fact that they probably put a lot more effort into making it a usable engine from the designer's perspective. That's also one of the things they've decided to try to fix in tech 5 I believe.

As for id "belonging in the annals of gaming history", I'm not so sure. They haven't really made anything that was vastly superior to anything else out there, gameplay-wise, but it's a much larger jungle out there now than it was back then, and they have staffed up rather heftily since the doom/quake days, so I wouldn't really discount them to the annals quite yet. I'm going to use Rage to determine if they have changed to have what it takes to compete in this new environment where the engine itself doesn't matter as much as the artists/content creators.

In any case, I would be very sad to see them go the way of the dodo, simply because I've always felt they made pretty solid (albeit possibly technical knowledge-heavy) engines, and having more engines than monolith's engine (I forget what its name is), epic's unreal engine, and crytek's cryengine available for hire, can only be good for the industry.

Edit: I've been playing a bit of serious sam HD lately, and I have to say it's a LOT of fun. It's Doom but with 3D models and with graphics that are basic enough that you can be fighting 100+ monsters and still not lag to hell and back. I wish id would do another game like that. No real story, just tons of great levels with great monsters and big guns. Big FUCKING guns.

And a chainsaw. I demand a chainsaw.

Um, no.  Wolfenstien 3D and Doom and Doom II put them firmly in the list of most historically influential game developers ever.

The the 3-D polygonal objects, applied lighting, the modern FPS perspective, WASD+Mouse, the story elements and the sound track were all revolutionary developments.

I always thought Quake 1 was overrated from a game standpoint (technology was obviously not) - I much preferred Duke Nukem 3D for both single and multiplayer. Doom was fucking awesome as hell when it came out, but Quake got a distinct meh from me.

*sigh* I knew I'd forgotten something in that post. I said earlier that Wolf3D, Doom and Doom II were the most important games ever released, since they were the world's first "3D" FPS. And of course, they were awesome games for the time. Quake was equally important with it being the first proper 3D game, and I've literally spent years playing, modding and playing them some more. I haven't got as much value for my money as I have from those games, from any other games. Quake 2 wasn't too bad, but it wasn't as awesome as Quake was, even if the story was more coherent.

What I meant to say was that any game id has released (or had someone else release for them) after that, hasn't kept up with the rest of the industry when it comes to gameplay, even if they've always managed to be at the forefront of engine technology in some aspect, but this has just been evolutionary changes, not revolutionary changes.

As I said earlier, Rage is going to be what I use to measure their current performance when it comes to making a proper singleplayer game. They've staffed out heavily since the Doom 3 days, hopefully they've gotten some SP talent and can stop being in the murky middle ground of gameplay.

For 2D games they were mostly right, what happened is new technology (3D) was introduced that allowed you to do more and progress started from scratch. Not sure if 3D displays/goggles or real-time motion capture going to be this "new frontier" , but as far as current technology of 3D games on a flat display - there is no denying that we hit diminishing returns both in hardware and software.

Rise!

They've been releasing a couple of long gameplay trailers recently.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/dead-city-rage/712960
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/the-shrouded-rage/713568

Technologically impressive as FUCK. Gameplay... I don't really demand more than blowing shit up in satisfying ways.

It didn't impress me a ton visually.  I mean, it looked really nice, but everything looks great these days.  The locational damage was the only clear thing that looks really "next gen" to me.  Looks like a good candidate for Steam Sale!

Goldeneye64 had locational damage...

Not like this.

Looks good enough for a day one purchase to me. Fallout-y environmental goodness with id-grade blowing shit up...I'm there.

What was interesting about the latest gameplay trailers were the differences between the 360 and PC versions. The textures on the 360 were flatout murky whereas the PC looked seriously tits. If it weren't for the ease of multiplayer on Live! this one would be a no-brainer. Lobbying the friend circle for PC only purchases. Amazes me that some of these guys have beefy rigs, but insist on 360 titles only out of sheer laziness. I like the couch as well as anyone, but fuck, look at the movies!

That does its magic and still runs on a 360 is pretty impressive. Means it'll probably run on my PC which, while I'm uninterested in Rage itself (neither Bethseda or Id has ever impressed me in the gameplay department) I look forward to other games licensing the engine.

I haven't really been a fan of their gameplay since the doom days, but I have always been an avid fan of their engines. They're not the frontier guys of 3D engines anymore, not in the way they used to be (mainly because it's much easier to make 3D stuff these days, I reckon), but I'm still a huge fan and I'm still interested in seeing just how the megatexture actually plays out on my 30".

In fact, I think they're the only developers I'd buy the game of simply because of their engine (insert mandatory DRM-frown here, obviously).

The days of people being graphics pioneers is largely over, now that what you can do is almost solely determined by graphics hardware.

Back in the old days when graphics were mostly CPU driven if you had a cool idea you could implement it and be the first person to have lightmaps or whatever. GPUs have pretty fixed capabilities and anything that falls outside of those is generally not worth doing.

Hmph... I was going to post something about Intel's Larrabee project and how it might bring things back around again, but apparently that's stalled out a bit.  Boo.