backtop

Software id Software Reveals Rage at QuakeCon 2007
Marcus Yam (Blog) - August 6, 2007 9:00 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 59 comment(s) - last by Pwnt Soup.. on Aug 7 at 7:23 PM

Rage's incredibly detailed models and environments  (Source: FileShack HD Video)

Rage will be another first-person-shooter from id Software  (Source: FileShack HD Video)

Dirt buggy driving gameplay to be a part of Rage  (Source: FileShack HD Video)

Outdoor environments to be expansive  (Source: FileShack HD Video)
"Rage" to be first game powered by id Software's next-generation 3D engine

At Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference in June, id Software’s John Carmack took the stage during Steve Jobs’ keynote to unveil the game developer’s next-generation 3D engine, called id Tech 5. The new game engine aims to bring highly detailed and elaborate textures to future games.

“What we've got here is the entire world with unique textures, 20GB of textures covering this track,” said Carmack. “They can go in and look at the world and, say, change the color of the mountaintop, or carve their name into the rock. They can change as much as they want on surfaces with no impact on the game.”

At this year’s QuakeCon – an event dedicated mostly to id Software games and technology – id Software revealed that its new intellectual property based on its upcoming game engine is named Rage.

id Software is world-famous for its first-person shooter games, and Rage won’t stray too far from the developer’s core sensibilities. Carmack described the upcoming game as having the company’s trademark “run-and-gun action” theme, but Rage will also feature driving gameplay elements as well – which will be new territory for id Software.

Interestingly enough, id Software has managed to make its id Tech 5 game engine run fairly equally across all intended platforms. Carmack said that the engine will run Rage at 60 frames-per-second on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and the recommended specification of PC and Mac.

Although Rage will run at 60 frames-per-second, future uses of the id Tech 5 engine and licensees will have the option to run at 30 frames-per-second with greater graphical effects and fidelity.

Rage will also be id Software’s biggest game to date. The 20-plus hours game will span across two DVDs on all platforms but the PS3, where the game will fit on a single Blu-ray Disc.

No release date or publisher agreement was announced. Visit FileShack to download high-definition video from id Software’s Rage presentation to QuakeCon attendees.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Been a while since ID has put out a good game.
By ZimZum on 8/6/2007 9:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully Rage and will be a return to form for ID. 20 Hours of game play will be a welcome move away from the trend that we have seen in the past few years with shooters. The Single player campaign modes have become so short these days they almost seem like Demos. I don't know how many hours Return to Castle Wolfenstein was. But that was the last game I played that felt like the single player mode actually gave me my money's worth.




RE: Been a while since ID has put out a good game.
By Regs on 8/6/2007 9:42:47 AM , Rating: 4
I agree with you.

Though 20 hours on these complex engines can take a lot of time in development. Not unless you have a 1,000 man staff.

Also I would like to see Doom 3 revisited with less labs and more open areas.

And enough with the dark! No more dark. I want to see where im going.


By retrospooty on 8/6/2007 9:58:02 AM , Rating: 1
"And enough with the dark! No more dark. I want to see where im going."

LOL agreed. After I would guess 10 to 15 x walking into an apparently empty room in Doom 3 and then getting jumped by a monster lurking in a dark corner I just started shooting whatever gun I had into the dark corners without looking. Of course it always exposed a hiding monster... It became extremely boring and monotonous at that point.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 9:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
> "Though 20 hours on these complex engines can take a lot of time in development. Not unless you have a 1,000 man staff."

Which is why I feel the current overpowering focus on graphics at all cost is hurting the industry. Once you've completed work on all those cutting-edge graphics, you rarely have neither time nor budget left over to work on outstanding gameplay.


By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 11:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
Hence why you license an engine capable of those that comes with good tool sets to streamline the production of said graphics.


RE: Been a while since ID has put out a good game.
By augiem on 8/6/2007 12:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. All you're doing by buying a top-notch 3D engine is replacing some of the engineering and programming staff. An engine does not make art. People do. And the same effect results. All your budget and time go to art and we have what we have today.


RE: Been a while since ID has put out a good game.
By augiem on 8/6/2007 12:34:22 PM , Rating: 4
Er, don't think my thought came across completely...

You would think that when one saves some time on one part of a game, you'd have enough resources to put into improving the game experience. The problem is, you now have the choice to A) Improve the gaming experience or B) Spend your extra chash and time MAKING EVEN COOLER GRAPHICS! (Which, as we can see from all the A+++ titles in the works, is still priority #1)

Plus, there's another issue that is hard to really understand unless you've actually gone through the complex development of a modern 3D game:

As the technology bar goes up, magazine, companies, and the public's expectations keep going up. You as a developer are all but forced to include every technical and graphical "innovation" that has been developed before you, and then push the bar further by developing an _even more_ impressive level of technical and graphical achievement. It's like building a skyscraper -- each story you go up costs more and more.

And when your game's technical structure starts getting SOOOO complex to deal with and design for, you can easily end up with a mess of a game trying to create something fun in the middle of all this spider web of technical mumbo jumbo. Joe public may think all this technology makes it easier to make cool games, but it's actually the opposite -- each layer of technical complexity you're forced to design into your game actually places LIMITS on your ability to do a LOT of things you want to, simply because they're SOOOO complex and difficult to achieve to a degree that passes the scrutiny of a jaded public and press.

What is the final result of this? Blockbuster gaming. HUGE teams piling together a game. Kind of like a big construction job. And we all know how many wonderfully creative blockbusters there are out there. It just makes it all that much easier to say "screw the game, we just need to blow their minds away and they'll come in droves!" Hollywood learned that lesson, gaming is learning it now.

Unless the game director is absolutely in control (NEVER! Management won't allow this!), and he is a purist gaming ARTIST, the forecast for a monsoon of bigger, bloated, boring games is bleak.


By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 2:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but by licensing the technology you cut out things that would have had to be done.

You want a great graphics engine. Do you a) write one from scratch? or b) license an existing one?

You want tools to help streamline creating your levels, objects, and applying textures to everything. Do you a) write them from scratch? or b) license an existing one?

Yes. You still have to actually do all that art and actual game development. But by licensing existing engines, you're taking years off of development time (and millions of dollars) to devote to other things. Having existing tools allows you to hire fewer programmers and more artists to do all these graphics. Then your programmers can also focus more on developing your game than working out bugs in self-written tools and engines. The support you do need can come from true experts in the engine from the company licensing it to you.


By Moishe on 8/6/2007 10:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
understandable, but they're just trying to make the game connect with you emotionally. I've wondered whether they can figure out how to do that without going to the "thriller" emotions. Could they get an affectionate response from you instead?


By Ascanius on 8/6/2007 9:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
Far Cry was also a good one with lots of houers of gameplay.

But what else that has come from either Valve or ID has been big demoes regarding gamplay, not worth the monye they cost.

here in Denmark it is around 400 kr for a brand spanking new game, that becomes 50-100 kr pr. gameplay houer and is way to much, going to the cinema becomes a very cheap thing to do instead.


By Griswold on 8/6/2007 9:56:18 AM , Rating: 1
I dont agree. I found D3 to be in id's best tradition: mindlessly mowing down monsters and hellspawn with good splatter and shock effect. Probably because the original Doom was the last shooter that managed to surprise, and at some points scare, me - until D3 did the same, albeit on a limited basis.

Dont mention RTCW please. Its in the same ballpark as FarCry, which was visually stunning but boring to hell, gameplay wise.

Btw, I dont meassure fun in hours, it's the experience that counts. If its good, more is always better, but its not the yardstick.


RE: Been a while since ID has put out a good game.
By Araxen on 8/6/2007 10:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
I got well worth my money from RTCW. I've logged many hours playing it online.


By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 11:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
Online it was a fun game. The game itself though...not so much. Best flamethrower ever though.


By ioKain on 8/6/2007 10:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dont mention RTCW please. Its in the same ballpark as FarCry, which was visually stunning but boring to hell, gameplay wise.


Did you really just say rtcw was boring?!?!? Seriously?


By Pwnt Soup on 8/7/2007 7:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
HL2 was a good game in SP mode, took long nuff too play and had varied gameplay, i think that was the last good SP FPS i have played. other than that you are rite on point.


Shaders?
By DingieM on 8/6/2007 9:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
Does this new game or engine support shaders?
I couldn't see any shader effects in Doom 3 for example. Is it due to OpenGL or something?

I want many shader effects in a game, that way it looks more realistic to me.




RE: Shaders?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Shaders?
By wien on 8/6/2007 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
Care to explain? OpenGL can do anything DirectX9 can, and then some. In fact, it's currently the only API on XP to provide features like Geometry Shaders (on supporting hardware).


RE: Shaders?
By smitty3268 on 8/6/2007 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Unless the XBox becomes the dominant console OGL will never die out because Sony and Nintendo don't want to have to license D3D from their competition.


RE: Shaders?
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/2007 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
OpenGL has had extensions for shaders (both pixel and vertex) for absolutely ages. Doom III was full of them (e.g., heat effects over lava), so go to an optician :p

I don't know if iD have ported OpenGL over to the XBox360 and PS3 (indeed maybe Sony have provided an OpenGL implementation for the PS3 already, anyone know?) or use DirectX on the former or custom middleware instead. I think we can assume that as long as your PC has a couple of cores and a GPU equal or better than the PS3's that the game will run nice and smoothly, the overhead of Windows notwithstanding.


RE: Shaders?
By smitty3268 on 8/6/2007 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
The PS3 uses a modified version of OGL by default, basically standard OGL + some Sony extensions.


RE: Shaders?
By noirsoft on 8/6/2007 1:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
The PS3 used to use OpenGL ES (a lightweight OpenGL for mobile games and consoles) as the main API, but Sony has since developed its own API which is more streamlined and "close to the metal" for performance reasons. It is my understanding that most PS3 developers have switched over to the new API and left OpenGL ES behind.

Stioll no matter to the original poster. OpenGL can indeed do shaders (glsl is nearly the same language as cg and hlsl) but is generally more cumbersome (IMO) to do so in OpenGL, since the extension mechanism is horrible (and OpenGL state is bad bad bad)


RE: Shaders?
By smitty3268 on 8/6/2007 2:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but is generally more cumbersome (IMO) to do so in OpenGL, since the extension mechanism is horrible

Yes. I think OpenGL was recently bought by some company and there were hopes that the whole mess would soon be fixed in OpenGL 3.

quote:
but Sony has since developed its own API which is more streamlined and "close to the metal" for performance reasons

Any links to back that up? Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just like to see more info about it.


RE: Shaders?
By DingieM on 8/6/2007 10:47:53 AM , Rating: 1
While I was talking about shaders, I had the UE3.0 technology demo in my head, the part that they rotated a cube with all kinds of very neatly looking pixel shader effects that were based on SM3.0 with very long shader isntructions.
I compared that with the all-around plastic looking models in Doom 3, and the game Prey that is based on Carmack's engine.
I always wandered why games using Id's engine looked so plastic.
And a few "fire" shader effects are not enough at all.

Although OpenGL has shader extentions for very long time, they are not mandatory and I suspect a lot of game engines are not using them or only barely.

Anyhow, the graphics that UE3.0 showed did look multiple times better than Doom 3, Prey and Quake 4.

I admit i've never played Doom 3 but didn't want to because the game was very dull by itself and not innovative at all. I did try out Quake 4 on the Xbox360 and the PC but the graphics all appeared very plastic and the gameplay was horribly boring and not innovative.

So I hope Id software have improved a lot.


RE: Shaders?
By smitty3268 on 8/6/2007 11:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
That's kind of a ridiculous comparison to make. Of course the UE3 tech demo looks better, it's a next generation game engine. You might as well compare Doom 3 to Quake 3 and conclude that D3 had a lot more shaders and looked better.

quote:
Although OpenGL has shader extentions for very long time, they are not mandatory and I suspect a lot of game engines are not using them or only barely.

That's completely false. OGL games use tons of shaders all over the place just like D3D games do.

I would agree that Doom 3 gameplay was pretty dull.


RE: Shaders?
By augiem on 8/6/2007 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
One thing people forget to often: (SO STOP IT! :P)

ARTISTS are responsible for the art, not the engine!

If everything was too plastic bump-mappy in Doom 3, it's because the art director chose to do it. TONE DOWN the height of those normal maps and toss on a roughed-up specular map. Just take 3D Studio Max or Maya and put it in the hands of an amateur and everything will look plastic. It's not the fault of the engine.


RE: Shaders?
By ajfink on 8/6/2007 5:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
Of all the games based off of the Doom 3 engine, Doom 3 was in fact the best, by far. It was a really good game, if you would have bothered to play it. The expansion pack is fairly weak in comparison, though. Doom 3 itself is a fun play, though the storyline could have been a tad better.


Runs on Macs, why?
By The Boston Dangler on 8/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By DandDAddict on 8/6/2007 10:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness the new macs have 8400 and 8600 cards in them, but considering how hot they are and the power draw I'm betting on those skinny laptops of theirs, they are fairly underpowered to make them remotely feasible. Also I think I recall mention of hd2900 cards finding thier way into the xeon based desktop macs, but if the ones with 7300gts were what ~3k I would hate to think of what a hd2900 equiped one would run.

No clue why he keeps trying to push gaming on macs its pointless. Was rather shocked to see WoW crawling on one of the x1600 enabled ones considering even a x1100igp can push out a respectable frame rate and a 950 can put out a uh "playable" frame rate.


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By Quake on 8/6/2007 1:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that they are PowerMacs where you can have a good PCI-Express card and if you're not happy with it, you'll be to exchange it.


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By Gul Westfale on 8/6/2007 2:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
but it's $50 extra for a mouse with more than 1 button on it.

:)


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By DandDAddict on 8/6/2007 3:26:06 PM , Rating: 1
"You do know that they are PowerMacs where you can have a good PCI-Express card and if you're not happy with it, you'll be to exchange it. "

With what? Ati has downloadable mac drivers for a few cards and nvidia doesnt even seem to list any that I can find and you can be pretty sure that the card you buy isnt going to come with drivers for a mac.

Out of the Ati list they even call them "Mac Edition" cards so I doubt you could just buy a random x1900xt or whatever and throw it in. Prehaps you could flash the video card with the mac edition bios and it would work , dunno as all my macs and the ones I work with are laptops so cant say I've had a chance to try.

So that leaves us with what you can get from them so you know it works.

Mac Books range from intel 900 to nvidia m8600gt. Everything but the 900/950 intel stuff is underclocked to hell so it fits the thermal profile of that tiny chassis so you arnt going to get much out of those cards regardless, not to mention that the drivers are ussualy weaker than thier linux/windows counter parts or prehaps its something in OSX itself that weakens the graphics capacity, dont know never cared enough to check into it.

So now we have the mac mini which has a 950 intel in it and no expansion so no hope there either.

Then there is the imac where we have 950 , x1600, 7300gt, and 7600gt. If I recall they use laptop parts inside these so chances are these also are cut down for the whole thermal thing too. Regardless you have a 7600gt as your best option. Which why the 7600gt is not a bad card by any means its just old and underpowered at this point. Even full blown and overclocked a 7600gt cant hold a candle to a 8600 or 2600 card and people are already whining about those being underpowered so that pretty much kills any hope a 7600gt could hope to have outside of sli.

That leaves us with the mac pro. The mac pro gives you 3 options 7300 (single, dual, tri, and quad avalible not sli im pretty sure, would be worthless anyway), x1900xt, and a quadro 4500. Pretty much all of these besides the x1900xt are piss poor choices and you dont even have the option to crossfire them to make them last abit.

So out of thier entire lineup you only have one card that you could really get anyone to agree on as good and while its a adqaute card thats just it, its adquate, not amazing and easily outclassed by a great many other options. As for swaping it out with a whatever random card you buy, as mentioned earlier, the drivers dont seem to exist for them. Even googling for 3rd party drivers brings up nothing for me but there might be something and my capacity to use a search engine just might suck balls. So that pretty much kills your whole exchange it idea if you arnt happy with it, unless you want to lets say go from a x1900xt mac edition to a x800 mac edition card assuming you can even find one.

So anyway im not really seeing the whole I can swap it out if dont like it bit working to well since my choices are well barely better than intergrated or highend from like a year ago. Nor can i see gaming on a mac taken seriously on any level until they get something besides yesteryears cards in thier machines or atleast offer drivers so you can go get your own.


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By DandDAddict on 8/6/2007 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmm apprently I clicked the wrong reply, anyway, supposed to be one level up. Also yessss indeed having more than one button rocks.


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By phideo on 8/6/2007 11:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty much all of these besides the x1900xt are piss poor choices and you dont even have the option to crossfire them to make them last abit.

And Mac Pros will never have any expanded graphics options in the future. In 2010, they'll still be stuck with X1900s! Oh dear!

Apple does update their products, as surprising as that may seem. NVIDIA has hinted at expanding the 8800 series into the Mac realm, and I believe id knows this (not to mention EA). We Macheads are expecting Mac Pro updates as early as tomorrow, so this may come to fruition before you go to lunch tomorrow.


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By The Boston Dangler on 8/7/2007 12:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
and that would cost how much? $6000? more?


RE: Runs on Macs, why?
By sxr7171 on 8/7/2007 1:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah sure. Give me a call when that happens. In the meantime I'll be playing games on my 8800GTS equipped PC.


Id Engine
By rqle on 8/6/2007 9:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
ID engine has this very distinct look. Very easily recognizable when compare to different engine. Would prefer ID Engine going away from that look, human skin model doesn’t look too convincing on these engine.




RE: Id Engine
By Gul Westfale on 8/6/2007 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
true, in doom 3 all the characters looked like plastic mannequins.


RE: Id Engine
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2007 11:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah from those screenshots, this engine looks almost exactly like the Vanguard: Saga of Heroes engine (I don't know what thats built off, if anything).

Not really next gen looking to me. UE3 looks far better than this. Maybe its just an early screenshot though. They better hope so.


RE: Id Engine
By phideo on 8/6/2007 11:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
The engine itself has practically zero impact on how a game ends up looking. You could duplicate the way Doom 3 looks with practically any engine, and you could make an id Tech 4-based game that looks nothing like Doom 3. It's pure choice.


RE: Id Engine
By sxr7171 on 8/7/2007 1:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well then what's the point of creating new engines then?

Anyhow, I get your point that the game developers have control over some key factors regardless of engine.


RE: Id Engine
By augiem on 8/6/2007 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
The shaders are fully customizable. If the company licensing Id's engine doesn't bother to make their own skin shaders, it's their fault -- Not Id's. Try some shader programming. It's really not that hard if you spend a little time. Though you do need an artist's eye.


Nice tech but...
By thartist on 8/6/2007 1:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
id' games will always be more "dooms" and "quakes" (whether carrying those titles or not) which for today is no longer enough, in fact it is terrible stucking. Only better graphs, a new lame story and some other gimmick like mindless driving scenes and such... id HAS once been a revolutionary company but that tag remains only in deep memories.

id is the flag carrier of the biggest actual conflict in the gaming industry: too much graphics, poor gameplay.

flame me.




RE: Nice tech but...
By Silver2k7 on 8/6/2007 5:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Quake 3 Arena was fun.. but i didn't like the new ones.. Doom I & II was IMHO more fun than Doom 3. Also there need to be new Heretic and Hexen games.


RE: Nice tech but...
By sxr7171 on 8/7/2007 1:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
Alright. You suck?


Faces
By 3kliksphilip on 8/6/2007 12:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nice scenery, but the people still look... computer game like. Half Life 2 hit the nail on the head and in my opinion, the characters are still more believable than these people. This could be to do with real faces being used to create the characters. How many DVDs is this game going to fill up? 20 GB of textures and it doesn't look that much better than the other games coming out. It would help if the video wasn't from a camera, but as of yet I'm unimpressed.




RE: Faces
By sxr7171 on 8/7/2007 1:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah Half-Life 2 has great faces and so did Shenmue before it on Sega Dreamcast!


RE: Faces
By Flunk on 8/7/2007 10:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
The games industry needs to give up this more polygons are better type of attitiude. We don't care how many pixel shader effects they can do or how complex they can be. You can make a good looking game with good art and middling hardware. Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess is a great example. It looks great and runs fluidly on a Gamecube (which was never powerful).

Give me games that are fun, immersive and dare I say it origional. Doom 3 was boring, give me more Psychonauts.


Not Impressed
By Fnoob on 8/6/2007 7:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or do all of the images seem very soft with limited dynamic range? Even the last one... its replete with details but seems overall soft. The range of color and contrast is very constricted. Looks like we will all be using those multi-cores shortly for something afterall...




RE: Not Impressed
By phideo on 8/6/2007 11:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
They're from a low-quality HD cam pointed at a large (seemingly low-quality) projection screen. The lack of dynamic range isn't surprising.


Hertz not FPS
By Hakuryu on 8/6/2007 3:11:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Although Rage will run at 60 frames-per-second, future uses of the id Tech 5 engine and licensees will have the option to run at 30 frames-per-second with greater graphical effects and fidelity.


That should be "60 Hertz" and "30 Hertz" respectively. The whole point of Carmack mentioning this is clock cycles, not frames per second. The game runs at 60 Hertz, and if a developer wanted to use 30 Hertz they could, and get the ability to push more polygons/etc at a lower clock cycle; ie use more clock cycles to update the game more frequently, or use this power in another place.




RE: Hertz not FPS
By Black69ta on 8/7/2007 11:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
What are you smoking? Hertz not FPS? If what you think is true then they are either genius's or complete morons. first of all a "Game" or software in general does not operate at its own frequency that is what the CPU determines. second even if it could then if they could get "30 Hertz" to spit out more polygons than 60 then why would they even bother with "60Hz". 60FPS has 2x the frames as 30FPS so 30FPS could theoretically handles 2x as much Eye Candy and have the same bandwidth requirements. Think of it like this have you even heard of a CPU with half the Frequency to outperform one double its speed? Pentium IV 1.5GHz Vs. Pentium IV 3.0GHz: the 1.5GHz would never outperform the 3.0GHz even if you took away the minor tweaks to the newer faster 3.0GHz


What a nice surprise!
By Polynikes on 8/6/2007 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
Post-apocalyptic games rawk my sawks.




By euclidean on 8/6/2007 12:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of old id games...anyone seen the new release of the id Pack for Steam? all of their games for 62.95...I wonder if this one will be released on Steam as well...




Will it suck as bad as the last Quake game though?
By Finality on 8/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Will it suck as bad as the last Quake game though?
By iFX on 8/6/2007 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Put the crack pipe down.


By Finality on 8/6/2007 2:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
Quake 4 didn't suck for you?


RE: Will it suck as bad as the last Quake game though?
By iFX on 8/6/2007 3:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was on the level witht the rest of the series. Great engine, great graphics, lots of frags. I wasn't looking for it to me anything more than the other Quake titles were.


By Fnoob on 8/6/2007 7:38:16 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry, poster is correct. Quake 4 sucked. Yes. It did.

Gameplay compared to the other 3 was far inferior. It was even worse than Doom 3 that it was supposedly improving upon.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki