Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhilethe Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps

On Aug 5, 5:27*am, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

"Tim O" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

*Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.

You may have missed that the entire post I was responding to was
talking about *graphics.*

As far as gamepads making FPS games "more difficult," I agree that the
mouse and keyboard is technically a superior control interface.
However, when you're talking about someone who has never played an FPS
on a PC but has had years of experience playing games on a gamepad, it
becomes less valid to say that a mouse and keyboard set-up would
improve anything at all for that person.

On Aug 5, 8:16*am, "Tom" wrote:
"Tim O" wrote in message

news


On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

"Tim O" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way
and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of
all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.

So? Almighty was initially the one who mentioned the
hardware/immersion/gameplay aspects. Your reply doesn't come close to
following what you initially replied to me about anyway. I simply concurred
with Alimighty about the concepts of games and the immersion in them as
well, using Fallout 3 as an example. You then picked one element (that is
actually cool as hell anyway) out of F3, that somehow makes the game bad, as
if the whole game plays that way. You can still shoot different body parts
on the enemy in F3 without having to use VATS, equally as well. VATS is just
an immersive element in the game and gives it nice aesthetics also. You
choose to use it or not and it isn't a must use part of the game.

More importantly, Fallout 3 isn't supposed to be a first-person
shooter. It's an action RPG. The "FPS interface" is only rudimentarily
implemented in Fallout 3. When you're first starting out in the game,
you could have the cursor dead center on a target 10 feet away from
you and *still* miss because your character's Small Arms skill is not
high.

On Aug 5, 8:18*am, " wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:27*am, Tim O wrote:



On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

"Tim O" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

*Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No your wrong about Fallout3 , the VATS is based upon old school turn
based RPG type game elements

Not even that so much. Most old school RPGs didn't provide the gamer a
way to target specific parts of an enemy's body.

VATS is actually, simply, an extension of the interface used in
Fallout and Fallout 2.

and has nothing to do with compensation
for gamepad, and who says 'gamepad' anymore??

Although I don't even use VATS anymore, Fallout3 was never intended to
be a twitch FPS game,

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

if you wanna see fluid FPS put in
UT3 ,COD4,COD:WAW,L4D, they are lightning fast FPS and aren't hampered
at all by controllers. Hell put it WAW in turn the X-Y to insane mode
and see what I mean.

Hell I just played L4D on my friends PC with a wired MS controller and
did fine.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 William Wparks023@gmail wrote:
Too bad the consolers haven't realized PC games always have been and
always will be superior, in every way.

Yeah, if there's nothing I love more, it's trying to convinvce customer
service that I'm not really a pirate, because the activation number on the
copy of the game I bought from the store doesn't work.

Oh, or how about how about that StarForce DRM which not only degrades your
overall system performance, it's actually been known to damage your
hardware! All in the name of preventing piracy!

And my favorite thing that "superior" PC games do is require the CD to be
in my drive at all times while I play the game, even though it's been
completely copied to the hard drive already! I just love the way it makes
my drive spin, adding that loud obnoxious HUMMMMMMing noise that really
adds to the immersive environment of playing a game.


PCs still have their place in gaming, as do consoles. Only an idiot
fanboy eschews one or the other.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 The alMIGHTY N wrote:
Is anybody even that interested in this game? I was excited when I
first heard that id was coming out with a new game, then when I read
the concept that excitement fizzed out like a can of soda that was
just opened.

I got Deja Vu from when they first started talking about Quake. Remember
when it was just going to have a giant, customizable hammer as a weapon
along with an easy-to-use in-game programming language? Yeah, I think
Rage is that game Ver. 2.0.

I can see where the company would want to focus more on the Xbox 360
and the PC, but could we leave the blatant PS3 bashing out of this?

If the 360 and PS3 have somewhat similar video chips, why is the
performance going to be so radically different between them? PC, sure,
you'll always have the folks spending $5k+ on some whacked out 3-in-1
hyper liquid cooled monostrosity video system just so they can go from
120FPS to 130FPS for only twice the cash...

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

On Aug 5, 3:24*pm, Doug Jacobs wrote:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 The alMIGHTY N wrote:

Is anybody even that interested in this game? I was excited when I
first heard that id was coming out with a new game, then when I read
the concept that excitement fizzed out like a can of soda that was
just opened.

I got Deja Vu from when they first started talking about Quake. *Remember
when it was just going to have a giant, customizable hammer as a weapon
along with an easy-to-use in-game programming language? *Yeah, I think
Rage is that game Ver. 2.0.

I can see where the company would want to focus more on the Xbox 360
and the PC, but could we leave the blatant PS3 bashing out of this?

If the 360 and PS3 have somewhat similar video chips, why is the
performance going to be so radically different between them? *PC, sure,
you'll always have the folks spending $5k+ on some whacked out 3-in-1
hyper liquid cooled monostrosity video system just so they can go from
120FPS to 130FPS for only twice the cash...

The Xbox 360 has a more flexible memory architecture and a higher
graphics memory bandwidth. Both contribute to the better generally
(and so far) graphical performance of the Xbox 360.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:24:57 -0500, Doug Jacobs
wrote:

If the 360 and PS3 have somewhat similar video chips, why is the
performance going to be so radically different between them?

Because a GPU is not a CPU.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:16:51 -0500, Doug Jacobs
wrote:

And my favorite thing that "superior" PC games do is require the CD to be
in my drive at all times while I play the game, even though it's been
completely copied to the hard drive already! I just love the way it makes
my drive spin, adding that loud obnoxious HUMMMMMMing noise that really
adds to the immersive environment of playing a game.

ISn't this the case on consoles ? I know I have to leave the disk in
after installing a game to my Xbox 360s hard drive.

How about the PS3 ?

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:53:28 +0100, Mark Morrison
wrote:

ISn't this the case on consoles ? I know I have to leave the disk in
after installing a game to my Xbox 360s hard drive.

How about the PS3 ?

It is the same with all the consoles.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:49:25 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:53:28 +0100, Mark Morrison
wrote:

ISn't this the case on consoles ? I know I have to leave the disk in
after installing a game to my Xbox 360s hard drive.

How about the PS3 ?

It is the same with all the consoles.

Yep, Doug was scratching around for bullet points at that point I feel.