Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Games

Preview of id Software's Rage 147

Posted by Soulskill
from the sunshine-and-unicorns-gameplay dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Preview of id Software's Rage

Comments Filter:
  • id color palette (Score:4, Interesting)

    by derGoldstein (1494129) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @06:57AM (#36970238) Homepage
    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.
    • by ledow (319597) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @07:07AM (#36970284) Homepage

      Really? That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

      Even since the original Quake, I never understood the concern - those who were playing it at the time never complained about the palette until much later, if at all - and still don't know. It's a post-apocalyptic, dust-track racer. What colour did you *EXPECT* to see? Even if you had the ruins of something-or-other-colourful, it would be dust-covered and aged by the time the game is set.

      If the biggest complaint you have is a steampunk colour scheme (because that's exactly what it is), then I really pity you for not seeing through atmospheric environments like that.

      What, exactly, would you suggest you see in a post-apocalyptic world that would be colourful? Who's got time to paint the fence-posts when you're being shot at and chasing food / energy and NOBODY is making paint?

      • Re:id color palette (Score:5, Interesting)

        by derGoldstein (1494129) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @07:27AM (#36970352) Homepage
        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.
        • The brown-grey palette just gets boring after a while.

          Good thing X-com is being rebooted (as Xcom) ... in the cheery 1950s.

        • Apart from id's own games that color scheme is not that prevalent. I think we all just had more than our fill of it in the '90s so that when we see it come back in Doom 3 or Dead Space or something we immediately say "Oh not this shit again!"

        • by morari (1080535)

          Portal, seriously? You'd rather have a color scheme of white, silver, and blue? Portal is about as bland as you can get as far as color palettes go. I suppose the sequel added in some green and brown though, didn't it? Of course, Portal is supposed to be bland looking. I assume that's why they had to add in the ruined areas in the second... to be able to add details of some kind.

          Bioshock Infinite does appear to have a very wide color palette. But you know what? The game also looks quite cartoony from a styl

          • by nschubach (922175)

            Actually the ruins in Portal 2 are more of the fact that the core was shutdown and nobody maintained the equipment. Also, you "blew the place up" in the Portal 1.

            As far as adding color... look at the outcry on Diablo3. Some people hate the "cartoony look" of it and want it to be more "grim/dark" I recently watched a ton of videos and I personally don't think it's that bad, but it hurts me to go back and play Diablo2 because of the graininess of the pixels and lack of color contrast at times. (I'm not ge

        • by ildon (413912)

          Everyone who calls Portal/Portal 2 a first person shooter is an idiot. There, I said it.

      • That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night

        That or complaining "Kubrick's The Shining is well lit. Why can't I have more horror films like Kubrick's The Shining?"

      • by kvezach (1199717)
        Even since the original Quake, I never understood the concern - those who were playing it at the time never complained about the palette until much later, if at all - and still don't know. It's a post-apocalyptic, dust-track racer. What colour did you *EXPECT* to see? Even if you had the ruins of something-or-other-colourful, it would be dust-covered and aged by the time the game is set.

        First there was Quake. Quake was brown because of technology limitations. Then there was Unreal. Unreal wasn't brown:
        • Quake was brown because of technology limitations.

          That's rubbish. In the 90s we have 16-something million colours to play with - from every part of the spectrum. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from using different colours with their engine, as exemplified by the original Team Fortress. They simply chose to go with the same decrepit sci fi-fantasy theme that has been Id's bread and butter since Doom. And yes, Doom had colour too, occasionally, but still mostly brown. The predominant use of brown was a stylistic decision entirely removed fro

          • by Artifakt (700173)

            To be fair, the lava was red, the acid, acid green (or that was very mean algae in those ponds). I seem to remember some very brightly hued things, all of which killed your character quite efficiently. And there were some levels where a bluish gray predominated. One fourth of Q1 was the Medieval style levels, and by all accounts that whole era in the real world was brown all the time, so maybe they can claim historical accuracy. ;-) Quake 2 actually was better - there were levels where the Stroggs had thing

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        What colour did you *EXPECT* to see?

        Do you really believe that in a post-apocalyptic world the sun never shines? That every day will be dark and cloudy? Even in a nuclear winter, there will be the occasional sunny day.

        At least Fallout 3 New Vegas didn't fall into that trap. Stuff might look a little broken and neglected, but it doesn't have to look so dinghy.

        • by ledow (319597)

          A post-apocalyptic world caused by an asteroid strike powerful enough to wipe out 80% of the population (as culled from the "plot" section of the game on Wikipedia)? Yes. It's what we think killed the dinosaurs, for instance, dust-clouds that blocked the sun and covered the planet for millennia.

          And, failing that, just because there might be some place that's colourful in real life, it doesn't mean that every fecking game has to use it's HDR to the full and represent every colour "just because" when they a

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            Putting something colourful in just because you haven't seen a lot of colour yet is not the way to design a game

            I disagree. The most impressive and enjoyable thing about FPS game design is when a sense of space is conveyed. Open space, with varied light. One of the best games I've ever seen in this regard is the first Far Cry, which actually made the player feel like his character existed in real space. One of the worst games in this regard is the entire Mass Effect series, in which everything is lit li

            • by nschubach (922175)

              I see you make comments on how lighting should reflect the time of day... and it makes me curious what your standpoint is for games that make nighttime like a "blue day" instead of making the world dark.

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                and it makes me curious what your standpoint is for games that make nighttime like a "blue day" instead of making the world dark.

                It's sort of like the way film directors in the black and white era used to make "night" by putting a filter over the lens. It didn't look anything like night time, but it was at least a bit of a change to cue the viewer to the time of day.

                As beautiful as Assassin's Creed 2 and AC Brotherhood have been made, when night falls, it just looks like an overcase day at best. No change

      • Really? That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

        Worse still is the fact that it doesn't really apply.

        I mean... I guess maybe ID does like browns and greys. I can't say I've ever really noticed the color palette that much. But they aren't the only folks making first-person shooters.

        The Unreal games have always had a fairly vibrant color scheme. Hell, the original Unreal game had some downright psychedelic vistas. And, depending on the map you had loaded, the Unreal Tournament games were similarly vibrant.

        Then there were titles like Serious Sam, and F

      • That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.

        That's like expressing a particular opinion. I don't see the problem with any of them.

        What, exactly, would you suggest you see in a post-apocalyptic world that would be colourful?

        That depends on who you ask.

        • by nschubach (922175)

          Well, there's one thing we actually don't know: What a post apocalyptic world looks like. Developers/Designers take creative license to the look and feel of it.

          On the contrary, we do know that a field that was just burnt looks like. We also know that it will sprout up a green lush field of grass (if there was grass in the field beforehand...) after a few weeks feeding off the debris of the fire. If there was no grass, you're going to get a bleak looking grey/brown/tan look.

          This is why that palette is cho

          • Not everyone plays games for realism (or think that it improves the game). I don't really have a problem with the palette, but not everyone agrees, and they aren't necessarily wrong for doing so.

      • by leathered (780018)

        Agreed. Quake II (the game resposible for the loss of 2 years of my life) took quite a bit of flak for the dirty brown look but I loved it. Stroggos was supposed to be a dirty, opressive environment and the color scheme helped captured it perfectly.

    • by YojimboJango (978350) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @08:17AM (#36970674)

      The "Mostly brown and grey" argument always bothered me, so I'd like you to run a one man experiment for me. Stop reading and look around you. Count the instances of grey, and browns around you. When you get back compare with my results.

      I sit at a wood desk (brown) with a hutch that has grey tack board. The walls are beige (grey and brown mixed), the carpet here is brown and beige patterned. There is wood coloured (brown) trim on the walls. My keyboard and monitor are black, so there's a difference, but not towards the direction of adding colour.

      Now I want you to compare your results, and imagine how a developer at ID software, perpetually locked in their cubicle, would do. Think on that.

      Now consider: Id is based in Mesquite, Texas. I'm not familiar with Mesquite personally, but the last time I drove through Texas even the grass was brown. When the creative talent at Id are allowed to leave their brown and grey boxes, they walk outside to a world where grass is also brown and the concrete is grey. It being Texas I'm sure that there is a high probability for guns and ammo crates to be found littered around the landscape.

      You see it's not that they lack the creative talent to do colour. It's that after years of being locked in a brown and grey cube, with only brief access to a brown and grey world outside, it's the only two colours they can comprehend. It's a disability, and making fun of them for it is intolerance.

      You intolerant jerk.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        If you live in Texas you can still find color. You're never far from a Hooters. Or some kind of ethnic fair...

      • by Hsien-Ko (1090623)
        It's mostly due to colormapping. Quake's palette was arranged in a 16x16 fashion. Try doing atmospheric lighting with 15 gradients of colors + a row of non-shaded colors. It's also kind of a lost cause for colored lighting in that limitation too. Believe me, I tried [youtube.com] - the only good color lighting shades on 8bpp come in piss yellow and period red. (This would have sent Pentiums to hell by the way, even if you send that wizard Abrash to knock out x86 asm surfmipblocks for colored lighting)

        Also there's been
      • That's a compelling argument, but a lot of people play games to escape reality. That said, if anyone gets to own the dark brown/grey/chrome atmosphere it's ID and they can do whatever they want, and maybe that is the atmosphere of their game, however, to say too many games have (pointlessly) copied that atmosphere is a legitimate complaint.
      • It being Texas I'm sure that there is a high probability for guns and ammo crates to be found littered around the landscape.

        Next time I drive through Texas. Unfortunately, I'll have to dump all the cool stuff before I hit California due to some pretty dumb gun laws.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @10:19AM (#36972232)

      Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green? You know, even in the worst case scenario (and all-out nuclear war) there would still be plenty of plant life (unless you live in the desert or something). Hell, look at Chernobyl. That place got dumped with fallout and there is still a lovely forest there. Is it because everyone has seen Mad Max 2 and assumes that the Australian outback is what a post-apocalyptic future is SUPPOSED to look like?

      • by demonbug (309515)

        Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green? You know, even in the worst case scenario (and all-out nuclear war) there would still be plenty of plant life (unless you live in the desert or something). Hell, look at Chernobyl. That place got dumped with fallout and there is still a lovely forest there. Is it because everyone has seen Mad Max 2 and assumes that the Australian outback is what a post-apocalyptic future is SUPPOSED to look like?

        I always assumed that the post-apocalyptic setting was favored for video games because it made the environments a lot easier to draw - sort of a built-in excuse for blandness and lack of creativity, with the desert or Outback-esque theme chosen so you don't have to worry about things like trees.

        Why the bland post-apocalyptic setting is still favored I can only assume is due to inertia. People are used to it, so probably wouldn't find a vibrant green Chernobyl or Fukushima-esque environment believable.

      • "Why is it that videogames always seem to presume that a post-apocalyptic future will have no green?"

        Many videogames are about conflict and war, and many do it to create a sense of barren wasteland. Most games center around conflict vs monsters/enemies. You wouldn't exactly want smurf village. Also Crisis and Far cry have done the green/tree thing just fine and so has Modern Warfare series, do you not remember the snow/mountain levels, or the jungle levels? I think many gamers have a bad memory. CoD 5

      • that a post-apocalyptic world will be barren.

        You're right, for the most part it would be a big forest, or at least prairie, as nature reclaims land. Some places would revert to desert though, California's lush Imperial Valley for example.

    • by scubamage (727538)
      There have been a number of colorful FPS's: No One Lives Forever, Far Cry, Half Life (the XEN levels), just to name a few. There are a lot that stick with the dingy color scheme but typically they tend to be post-apocolyptic or space styled games which find the player in dingy, uncared for environments.
    • 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. -- Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

      Two things: firstly, if you damage your graphics card in just the right way, or unpack the game's archives and mess with the texture files, you can have psychedelic rainbow colours. Would that suit you better?

      Secondly, entomology is the study of insects, spiders are not insects. Possible corrections to the sig: "Arthropodologically/Arachnidologically Speaking..." or "Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a subject worthy of study."

      Please excuse my pedantry

  • I've played Bethesda's last few games (and the one licensed to a third party, but using their engine) for 200+ hours each.

    Rage sounds a lot of like the last couple Fallout games, but without the VATS system. I am SO hoping that's the case... And if they manage to make it even better, I'm going to be in heaven. (I actually like the VATS system, but only use it about 1/3 of the time in combat, so it's not like I'll miss it horribly.)

    I'm a little sad that it's coming out only a month before Skyrim, though.

    • ZeniMax Media, Bethesda's parent shell company, purchased iD back in 2009. While Rage was for sure developed by iD, and likely without a lot of Bethesda input (dates aside, iD is in Texas, Bethesda is in Maryland as the name implies) it is now all the same company so not really competition.

      I would imagine Rage, or rather the engine behind it, is the reason Bethesda wanted to buy iD. Bethesda has been using Gamebryo for their games but development on that has more or less stopped and of course it isn't their

      • by Aladrin (926209)

        Ah, interesting. I've heard rumors that they're ditching Gamebryo for Skyrim... I wonder if it's the same engine as Rage? That would give me even more hope for Rage being a game I'll love.

        As glitchy as Gamebryo was, Bethesda did a great job of using it. The game was also so good that I was willing to forgive glitches and crashes.

        • by gman003 (1693318)

          Bethesda is not "really" ditching Gamebryo. They are saying that it's a "new engine", but also that it's directly evolved from Oblivion's engine. So they're really just going from Gamebryo X.0 to Gamebryo X.1 (or maybe Gamebryo (X+1).0).

          They have said that using Rage's engine for Skyrim would be impossible. Level sizes are too small.

          • by ildon (413912)

            I recall reading an interview where they specifically said Skyrim was not based on Gamebryo. Although I supposed it could be like a Quake engine -> Source engine type of deal. Take a licensed engine as your base, and slowly replace every facet of it until you can claim it's your own.

      • by morari (1080535)

        I would imagine Rage, or rather the engine behind it, is the reason Bethesda wanted to buy iD.

        We can only hope. With an iD engine behind them, I have high hopes for future Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles.

    • by rbrausse (1319883)

      as I never heart of VATS (and I'm sure I'm not alone):

      VATS is "Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System [mahalo.com]", where you can pause the game and target specific enemy body parts.

      PS the first Googlöe result page is full of articles about lobectomy, in this case the abbreviation means "video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [wikipedia.org]"

      • I don't heart VATS either, much prefer to aim myself
        • by Assmasher (456699)

          Personally, I live the slow-mo head shots... :)

          • I did initially, but it slowed the pace of combat too much for my liking. Maybe if the last enemy in a group of enemies was to have a slow-mo that would be ok, but it was way too often for my liking. Even the use of VATS I found intrusive. In the middle of a mad epic gun fight and then suddenly "... pause... ok I'll select that guy... shoot twice... and go.." Didn't feel right
            • by yahwotqa (817672)

              Nobody forced you to use VATS. A friend of mine finished the game without ever using it (at least that's what he says, I didn't stand behind him all the time :) ).

              "Oh no, there is a completely optional feature that I do not have use at all, but it completely ruins the game for me." - I don't get you people.

              • Nobody said anything about it ruining the game, I simply said I didn't like VATS and prefered not to use it

                "Oh no a comment on slashdot, I wont bother reading the full contents of it, I'll just look at some individual words and jump to whatever conclusion/subject I want to rant about" - I don't get you people
              • VATS issues were more one of "sometimes it glitches and takes forever to play the animation" or "sometimes it glitches and buries the body in the terrain".

                I used it a lot at first, but over time started using it less and less and just started aiming for the center of mass and squeezing off a burst of automatic fire. Or dug out the trusty sniper rifle and did it the easy way.

                (One thing that Fallout New Vegas got right was the notch in weapon condition where your weapon would perform exactly as expected
            • You do realize that if they had left VATS out they would have been completely eviscerated by the Fallout community right?

              Fallout 1 and 2 weren't FPSs, but VATS was a HUGE part of the fiction, and the fact they were able to incorporate it into a FPS was one of the most impressive things about Fallout 3 when it came out.
              • Huh? There is no mention of VATS whatsoever prior to Fallout 3. It was retroactively inserted into the fiction by Bethesda.

                • Not sure if serious....

                  Very well, it may not have had a name.. but the functionality was there. I've played both games in the last year thanks to GOG.com... and they were just as fun as I remember them.
      • by Aladrin (926209)

        My mistake. I didn't feel like trying to explain it, and I assumed everyone would know what it was.

        That is indeed correct. VATS was an attempt to hold over the strategy aspect of Fallout 1 & 2 while still having a first person shooter-style game.

    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      how do you even play fallout3 without vats, you can dump 6 clips into a super mutant and still not take him down, but it might be 5 shots in vats with a souped up SMG

      • Weapon skills, a weapon near prefect condition and aiming at the weak points.

        Regular super mutants die easily, the brutes are a bit harder but a well maintained Chinese Assault Rifle still slices them up.

        Overlords and behemoths require tenderizing first with the use of frag mines, grenades, bottlecap mines.

        (Things were actually better balanced in New Vegas - the sad thing is that Obsidian doesn't grasp the concept of "open world" so New Vegas was extremely linear.)
        • by Osgeld (1900440)

          good to know I had not played new Vegas yet, I am kind of slow getting these things done

  • Rage is, of course, iD Tech 5 and one big complaint I have about iD Tech 4 is that it does not work so well on ATi cards. I don't mean it doesn't function, I mean it tends to be much slower than on nVidia cards.

    This isn't only self interest as right now I have an ATi card, though historically I tend to own nVidia cards, I like them better and will probably move back, but in terms of seeing more games using it. ATi cards are quite popular these days and no wonder why, they've had some real good performance f

  • I have been waiting for this game a while now because it was described to me as "Similar to Borderlands". I loved this game because it had a very simple and enjoyable multiplayer mode. It was complicated enoug (a shooter with talents, mods and many weapons to chose from) but also simple enough to just get in and play. It isn't like Army of Two where you have to use cover all the time, distract and set up crossfires and have the coordination of a navy SEAL team just to progress through the first few levels.

    T
    • Does anyone know of a preview report that goes into any depth on the multiplayability of Rage?

      I'm sure there'll be one as soon as a version with multiplayer is released to reviewers... you're jumping the gun a bit on that one.

    • I'm somewhat disappointed with the PS3 lack of split-screen multiplayer games

      From my previous discussions on Slashdot about the lack of split-screen multiplayer games on various platforms, apparently the prevailing groupthink is that one is expected to buy two to four PCs for the household and put them in a LAN in order to play multiplayer. But I'd love to read solid evidence as to why this is impractical.

      • How is having multiple PCs going to allow me to sit on a couch with my friends and play my PS3 cooperatively?
        • I agree with you; I'm just stating my perception of the consensus opinion held by vocal regulars on Slashdot. I'm arguing a position with which I disagree as a thought experiment [wikipedia.org], and I'd love if someone could put into words exactly why this groupthink is untenable so that I can use the ideas in an article describing my own position [pineight.com].

          sit on a couch with my friends

          Consensus is that sitting on a couch with friends to play a video game is overrated and that you should be sitting in separate chairs.

          and play my PS3

          Consensus is that Sony products are overrat

          • by RivenAleem (1590553) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:32AM (#36971626)
            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?
            • You make good points. Now to help make your argument stronger, I'd like to discuss a few.

              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.

              Thank you for the insight that local multiplayer can allow for stronger group cohesion in a cooperative game.

              My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies.

              But can you play anything homemade? I'd look up Sony's qualifications for licensed development of indie games for PS3, but the web site in question [scea.com] has been down for nearly four months. (I found this link in a Sony press release and have been checking occasionally since April 10.) Or if not for the PS3, then for

              • Consensus is that gaming PCs can be easily moved from room to room. Perhaps some people are used to having laptops or small-form-factor desktop PCs designed for easy transport to and from a LAN party.

                The occasions where we would play games together would be regular, but not prolonged, say one night a week. Moving the second gaming PC about like this would be inconvenient, especially if something would come up and we have to stop. A gaming 'session' might only be 20 minutes long. For this, a console, with game in the drive and ready to go in under 1 minute comes out to me as the only realistic choice.

                But can you play anything homemade? Or if not for the PS3, then for which platform should indie co-op split-screen games be developed?

                And, ideally, where PCs with capability for more than one controller come in. PCs since about 1999 have had USB ports that allow for four gamepads and more. And TVs made since about 2006 have had inputs to show PC video: VGA ports for VGA video and HDMI ports for DVI-D video. So why don't people make use of that?

                As are home theater PCs. But consensus is that home theater PCs don't exist. Consensus is that PCs can't be moved from room to room. Yes, this means the consensus is self-contradictory: people are willing to move a PC for a LAN party but not move it next to a TV.

                This is definitely something that I would quiesce to, If there are good Indie games on the PC, that would

                • by nschubach (922175)

                  This is definitely something that I would quiesce to, If there are good Indie games on the PC, that would justify the investment in controllers and cabling to allow my primary PC to connect to my 37" HD TV. I'm not as tech savvy as the average /. reader (I'm a scientist/chemist by profession) so for me it has just been the convenience of having separate PC and Console set-up in my living room. I own all 3 Humble Bundles, but none of them has the multiplayer co-op I'm looking for. I do regular googles, and I look here for reviews, but I can't find any quality Indy campaign driven splitscreen co-op game for the PC.

                  There's a small list of PC games that allow it:
                  http://www.co-optimus.com/system.php?id=4&page=0&playerComp=%3E%3D&playerNum=2&esrb=%25&released=Y&couch=on [co-optimus.com]

                  It's not "indie" per say, but they do specialize in the co-op ranking/rating.

                  (not affiliated with co-optimus, but I find it an awesome site for the co-op gamer. For instance, I selected "couch co-op" for this list. It lists splitscreen/multi-controller on same screen games. Although looking at it, they should include Worms on the

            • playing the SEGA

              Which one?

        • by nschubach (922175)

          I had a TV at one time that allowed me to split the screen between inputs (I haven't seen any of the newer TVs with this feature... but I haven't really looked hard.) I only used it once, and that was for a pseudo split screen game where the inputs were from two PCs. It worked out well enough, but it required special hardware...

          • by tepples (727027)
            My Vizio VX32L has picture-in-picture, and setting the inset window to the biggest size causes the "main" picture to shrink to the left half of the screen. I can run one PC on VGA and the other on HDMI this way. So why don't PC games include this as a built-in feature? Probably greed.
    • by Rennt (582550)
      ID hasn't demo'd multiplayer to anyone. Not that there isn't a MP mode (there is), but this is a solo game first and foremost.
    • by The Moof (859402)
      Multiplayer details over at 1UP [1up.com].

      There's no co-op, so the charm that Borderlands had running around in the wastes with a friend is pretty much not here. Personally, I think any time you cite the story as the primary reason you left out co-op, you need to reevaluate what players really want. Even more so when they're drawing parallels to between your game and one of the best co-op games in recent years. If I'm looking for co-op, I'm willing to accept the suspension of disbelief about my loner badass wand
    • by Narishma (822073)

      Killzone 3 supports split-screen multiplayer. The upcoming Resistance 3 as well.

      As for Rage, last I heard, the only competitive multiplayer it will have will only involve vehicules. There will be a co-op mode where you play some missions (different from the single player ones) on foot though.

  • "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...

    In short, you can play every single genre PC Gaming has in one game. Well done.

  • Does this differ in any way other than beefier graphics?

While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining position.

Working...