Preview of id Software's Rage

id Software's upcoming shooter Rage is nearing its Oct. 4 release, and the company recently provided some hands-on time with the game in its current state. GiantBomb described it thus: "In those three hours, I discovered a first-person shooter. Also, a racing game. And a car combat game. And an open-world adventure. A collectible card came, too. Lastly, it's practically every piece of apocalyptic science fiction we have known to date tossed into a blender, set to puree, poured onto a disc, and spread evenly over a seemingly lengthy and elaborate single-player adventure. In short, Rage is a kitchen sink kind of game, the kind so often labeled as 'missed potential' due to a lack of focus on any one particular aspect. I don't think Rage will garner any such labels." Rock, Paper, Shotgun's write-up is a bit more poetic, providing a first-person preview of the first-person shooter.

id color palette

[derGoldstein]

From the in-game videos released so far [gametrailers.com], the game looks fantastic. But it still has the same color scheme that id (and many other companies) have decided must haunt FPSs since the early 90's: grey, brown, beige, and some chrome. I get that it's part of the environment, but at least some departure would have been nice.

Re:id color palette

[derGoldstein]

Maybe I should re-word my complaint that FPSs tend to take place where the brown-grey-beige color scheme is prevalent. I realize that Portal isn't technically an FPS, but in Portal 2 you have (at least) two separate aesthetics. For an exceptional example of creative environment design, check out the trailers/videos for BioShock Infinite.

The brown-grey palette just gets boring after a while. You'd think that it would *especially* get boring for the developers, who sometimes have to spend years in that environment. This is a game in which you can strap a bomb on an RC car, throw a boomerang-like weapon, or upgrade your weapons in countless ways. It's not like they lack creativity. And yet so far the only environments within the game (that I've seen, anyway) are the same dust-dirt-rust that's typical of the genre.

Even if it's post-apocalyptic, you could find excuses that some structures survived. Possibly underground. I'm not looking for a rainforest, but there's no reason for all the indoor environments to look the same.

Re:The groupthink in more detail

[RivenAleem]

I came from a generation of playing the SEGA with my brothers, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, "lives and levels" of Kid Chamelon/Sonic/Strider. They liked games, but I was a natural nerd/geek and far better than them. So when Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat came along, the fun rapidly disappated as they got beaten a lot. Eventually I was left (post it's release) playing my PS1, and Tekken, alone as they wouldn't play me anymore :(

So now I know not to try to play head-to-head games at home anymore, sticking to games where we both finish the session happy. I play competitively online on my PC instead, where I can trash and be trashed by anonymous people.

There are so many 'vocal regulars' that say the same thing over and over again. Sony BAD, they tuk ur linux. My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies. Sony never took away something from me that I never would have used.

I tried for a while to get my Fiancee to paly WoW with me, but the other PC is in another room, so we actually had to skype eachother to talk, and if there was something she didn't understand with the UI, I had to get up and walk over to sort her out. I resolved to only play co-op games where she could be right beside me, under my watchful eye :P

This is where consoles with capability for more than one controller come in. They are one machine, plugged into one TV with 2-4 input devices. If I felt that the X-Box had better co-op titles, I'd sell up in a blink and get one. But, as many games are coming up across platforms now, there's little to distinguish between them. (I'd like to avoid bringing the Wii into this debate, as I've played one and don't like the controls)

I really like playing with people in the same room. It's more social when the person you are playing with it right there. It's also very nice to get some post hard boss physical contact, which is impossible when you are across or in another room.

So it's possible that I have the wrong system, perhaps the PS3, with it's removal of other OS also removed all the co-op splitscreen games. Perhaps it's evil Sony's plan that people never get to play and have fun together. Perhaps it's their intention that all games be confrontational, where all other players are your opponents.

Perhaps there just isn't a way to make another Borderlands. It could be there there is no working formula for split screen games, and I should instead play the Sims.

Perhaps my working parameters are far too narrow.
1) Must be full campaign co-op mode
2) Must be complicated enough to interest a pro-gamer, but simple enough for a casual.

Are these games just so unpopular that the designers don't consider it profitable making them? Why make a game that 2 people will share, when you can try to make one that each has to buy individually?

Is making PC co-op games more profitable, as you have to have one disk per machine (legally playing). Am I being naive thinking that games companies are trying to make games for the fun and enjoyment of consumers or just for profit?