yo_john117 said: ethomaz said: yo_john117 said: ethomaz said: A meh game runing meh... the problem is the hardware? So the others developers are magical . It's not a meh game and it is most certainly not running "meh" either. If they would have made the game 30 FPS instead of 60 it would have easily had Uncharted 3 like visual both close up and far away (right now it already has almost perfect graphics when you don't look at stuff to closely) Did you like Rage??? For me it is a meh game . It's not as good as it could have been but it's a very solid fun game. One of the better FPS games I've played.

he gave it 9. 5 and now he says it's not as good as it could have been  but it's a very solid fun game ,damn I want to se what a great game gets.

Lol am I back in 2006-2007? Come on Id what a joke you are for saying this! PS3 had been getting equal quality games since late 2007 (CoD4, GTA4, Dead Space, etc) and consistently equal quality games by later 2008.

By now I can only assume a developer that puts out a worse game on PS3, and then insults the PS3 as a result, is a lazy punk who is making excuses to cover his ass.

Poster makes generalized statements against gossip in the industry and fanboyism -- foolproof.

All Crysis and Rage have proven is that the 360 can port PC games better because of its hardware, not that its more powerful. The PS3 demands games be made specifically for its hardware. Second of all Crysis and Rage are open world games where as Killzone is more of a corridor shooter. Now if Sony makes Killzone 3 an open world shooter we can talk. Killzone is STILL the best exclusive that harnesses the power of a console which is tailor made for it. Crysis 2 is the best port a console can get at the moment on the 360. The PS3's port looks nearly identical. The 360's version of Rage allows you to see more textures...thats about it. I've seen both versions on lens of truth and this is all its spelling out. 

If the console versions are ports of PC games I wonder what they did with the PC versions? Because they both released obvious console ports on PC.

The PC version stomps the console versions. It's just a fact. I played Rage on PC at my friends house, but I am borrowing it to finish on my PS3. No comparison if you are looking for graphics. Obviously it doesn't matter to me because I just want to play the game. My only argument is that its a known fact that the 360 is a more dev friendly console. People can rejoice to the heavens that the 360 is the graphics king because of a port, but in truth it isn't. It's the port king. Thats the fact.

yea but that's just because of hardware that is many times more powerful, they are clearly ports of the console version, especially RAGE Carmack himself has said serveral times that RAGE was tailored 100% to consoles, that is why the PC version launched in the sorry state it did because it's an after thought. And in the words of Cevat Yerli head of Crytek "elements which work on the PC version but aren’t able to scale down to the consoles, simply don’t go in." that is not the attitude of a PC game that was down ported to consoles that is the attitude of a developer deving for consoles first. And Cryengine 3 was designed with consoles in mind so you can't argue that it was a PC first engine. And what is your excuse for games like bayonetta developed by a Japanese developer that has never made a PC game?

Even games like like darksiders which they wipped up the PC version in a couple months with no additions or extra work on graphics looks better on PC.

uncharted 3, god of war 3, killzone 3, crysis... if all of them can do it why can't rage? just because a dev doesnt have as much talent as another dev doesn't mean that he/she should blame the hardware for their struggles.

not denying that sony has made some bad decisions with the ps3 hardware but in this gen the best graphics for a console game is still on the PS3

Preach on prophet.

There is one and only serious explanation to this. The Carmack guy recently underwent surgery to directly connect his rectum to his skull.

The PS3 is a bitch to develop for. If this guy didn't put up and didn't do his job he just has been bitched. Looks to me he simply made the most effort in the platform he thought he would make the most money off. If he didn't have the money and time to develop things properly its his problem, if he can't work properly with the PS3 and tries to talk it down, fuck him.

Someone needs to flush his head.

I didn't know that those games were 60fps and used virtual texturing tech to uniquely texture every inch of the game world, man you would think I would have picked that up after reading/watching all those interviews, post mortems and tech white papers.