By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - IGN Rage Review

mantlepiecek on 04 October 2011
ZaneWane said:
osamanobama said:

seems like ign glossed over a lot a faults in this game that eurogamer wasnt so kind to.
like having to manually save, and a lot of the graphical deficiencies/faults.

"the technology isn't perfect, mind you. There's a noticeable degree of pop-in as you sprint into new locations, alleviated somewhat by installing to your hard disk but disruptive all the same. This isn't a hugely interactive world either - perhaps the price you pay for so much fidelity - and so that in-jokey photo frame of creative director Tim Willits you found on a desk in Dead City isn't going to fall to the ground when you whack it with the butt of your rifle.

The knee-high piles of rubble at the extremities of your path are often invisible walls and rarely obstacles to be vaulted in search of a bonus, too, but then Rage has plenty of other secrets. There are shrines to old id Software games to uncover, collectable bobble-heads and even a trio of goalposts through which to propel your avatar by crashing your buggy and flying through the windscreen."

also unlike the very informitve review on gamereview, ign makes no mention on the difference in qualtiy when you install it on xbox compared to when you dont, gamereview made it seems like its VERY VERY beneficial to instal, ign needs t inform readers more

Still doesnt change the fact that its  open area, 720 native running at 60 frames

According to the devs themselves, rage is supposed to have a dynamic native resolution, changing every time there is a drop in frames. Just like motorstorm apocalypse.



Around the Network
naznatips on 04 October 2011
Seece said:
yo_john117 said:
I trust Vgchartz scores WAY more than I trust IGN's score's.

In fact Vgchartz is the website I agree with most. It's right up there with Gametrailers.

Even Naz's 96 for Halo: Reach?!

OT: I'm surprised though, I did expect high 8's across the board.

I stand by that review 100%. Reach is the best Halo game released to date, with armor powers completely overhauling multiplayer strategy. It also still has more content (game modes + forge world) than any other shooter released to date. With a campaign thankfully twice the length of the Call of Duty 4-Hour-Standard, fully playable in co-op. 



Seece on 04 October 2011
naznatips said:
Seece said:
yo_john117 said:
I trust Vgchartz scores WAY more than I trust IGN's score's.

In fact Vgchartz is the website I agree with most. It's right up there with Gametrailers.

Even Naz's 96 for Halo: Reach?!

OT: I'm surprised though, I did expect high 8's across the board.

I stand by that review 100%. Reach is the best Halo game released to date, with armor powers completely overhauling multiplayer strategy. It also still has more content (game modes + forge world) than any other shooter released to date. With a campaign thankfully twice the length of the Call of Duty 4-Hour-Standard, fully playable in co-op. 

On paper I agree, and Halo rarely lets down in any department, it just doesn't feel like an incredible game to me. Mind no mainline Halo has since the first. I think I rank Halo Wars and ODST above Reach, Halo 2 and 3!



 

naznatips on 04 October 2011
Seece said:
naznatips said:
Seece said:
yo_john117 said:
I trust Vgchartz scores WAY more than I trust IGN's score's.

In fact Vgchartz is the website I agree with most. It's right up there with Gametrailers.

Even Naz's 96 for Halo: Reach?!

OT: I'm surprised though, I did expect high 8's across the board.

I stand by that review 100%. Reach is the best Halo game released to date, with armor powers completely overhauling multiplayer strategy. It also still has more content (game modes + forge world) than any other shooter released to date. With a campaign thankfully twice the length of the Call of Duty 4-Hour-Standard, fully playable in co-op. 

On paper I agree, and Halo rarely lets down in any department, it just doesn't feel like an incredible game to me. Mind no mainline Halo has since the first. I think I rank Halo Wars and ODST above Reach, Halo 2 and 3!

I like ODST a lot. After Reach it's probably my second favorite campaign... mostly because it's a Metroid Prime ripoff and that franchise has brilliant campaigns. Halo Wars had pretty music, nice graphics, and decent controls... but the strategy of it boiled down to what may as well have been an Uibisoft game named "Imagine RTSz." I can't play an RTS that simple in this day and age. It's like going back to Age of Empires 1. Such a shame that Ensemble was reduced to making console RTS games, then shut down. What a waste of talent. They proved they could make the best console RTS ever (and it is fun), but it just doesn't stack up. 



yo_john117 on 04 October 2011
mantlepiecek said:
yo_john117 said:
osamanobama said:
yo_john117 said:
I trust Vgchartz scores WAY more than I trust IGN's score's.

In fact Vgchartz is the website I agree with most. It's right up there with Gametrailers.


i dont know if i agree the most with vgchartz, but they certainly are some of the most informative and well written.

ign is a joke compared to vgchartz, ign seems to fall for hype a lot.

Yeah they really are the best when it comes to informing you about things.

 

BTW first impressions are very good for me! I am really enjoying the game!

Graphics are totally 2 faced though. At a distance (couple feet or more) it has the best graphics I have ever seen in a game but close up (about 2 feet away or closer) it looks like absolutely muddy trash...everything.

The bolded doesn't make much sense...

And does the game look better than gears of war 3? They both have similar artstyles, and I thought gears of war 3 looked better.

At a distance it looks absolutely amazing. Close up the textures get all muddy and bad looking. 

Stuff looks life-like at a distance.



Around the Network
yo_john117 on 04 October 2011
Seece said:
yo_john117 said:
I trust Vgchartz scores WAY more than I trust IGN's score's.

In fact Vgchartz is the website I agree with most. It's right up there with Gametrailers.

Even Naz's 96 for Halo: Reach?!

OT: I'm surprised though, I did expect high 8's across the board.

Yes actually that is a great score for it! Not too much, not too little.



smroadkill15 on 04 October 2011

It's only a 10 hour campaign. Why does it use 3 discs for the 360 version!!



mantlepiecek on 04 October 2011
smroadkill15 said:
It's only a 10 hour campaign. Why does it use 3 discs for the 360 version!!

 

One disc is for multiplayer.



yo_john117 on 04 October 2011
smroadkill15 said:
It's only a 10 hour campaign. Why does it use 3 discs for the 360 version!!

Because of the insane graphics.



smroadkill15 on 04 October 2011
mantlepiecek said:
smroadkill15 said:
It's only a 10 hour campaign. Why does it use 3 discs for the 360 version!!

 

One disc is for multiplayer.

I got that, but I don't understand why it needs 3.

@yo_john I understand it's open world and has amazing graphics, but still. Look at game like Gears 3 it has a crap load of content and beautiful graphics and a 10 hour all on one disc. Maybe Epic Games gets better resources because they work with MS. I' not a very technical person so dont hate on me.