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.