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.

This is quite a simple matter. As i've said before, the 360 is the multiplat porting console. It's port friendly and will more than likely have the better versions of multiplats. The PS3 was a problem to port for devs earlier on in the gen because they didn't understand the architecture, so now it should be easier for people to see. The exclusives tell the true story of the PS3's power. As I said, with how Sony had the console developed games it seems games must be tailor made for the PS3. I've been saying this forever.

No what you said was that the 360 was better at ports of PC games and listed 2 console first games as examples.

As for the PS3 power I think Carmack said it best

"What you can say really quite clearly and not get into too much argument about it is that the 360 is much easier to develop for, it's easier to get the performance out of it that it can deliver, and the rasterizer, the GPU side is generally faster than what the PS3 has," Carmack told Eurogamer at QuakeCon.

"You could design a game where the PS3 would be the superior platform, but you'd have to go out of your way to do it. If you're doing a game like people just want to do games now, the 360's the better platform."

"The truth is the PS3 has more peak performance on there and that's what Sony was looking for with the choices that they made with the Cell articheture in particular and to a lesser degree some of their video chip decisions on there. It gives it more theoretical power but what's going to matter is what you wind up delivering on the game. And I do think Sony made a less optimal decision than Microsoft from the prospective of a game developer."

"There’s no doubt that with all of the platforms that we have running here PS3 is the most challenging to develop on. That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning. It’s not that it was a boneheaded decision because they’re a lot closer the fact that they can run like this [points to the 4 different gaming stations running Rage] – they’re a lot closer than they’ve ever been before. It’s a hell of a lot better than PS2 versus Xbox. But given the choice, we’d rather develop on the Xbox 360. The PS3 still does have in theory more power that could be extracted but it’s not smart. We don’t feel it’s smart to head down that rat hole. In fact, the biggest thing we worry about right now is memory. Microsoft extracts 32 megs for their system stuff and Sony takes 96. That’s a big deal because the PS3 is already partitioned memory where the 360 is 512 megs of unified and on the PS3 is 256 of video, 256 of memory minus 96 for their system…stuff. Stuff is not the first thing that came to my mind there. (laughs)"

Oh and I also like this

John Carmack: "You have to take advantage of what’s on the table. Although it’s interesting that almost all of the PS3 launch titles hardly used any Cells at all. We hired one of the best PS3 guys around who did the Edge Acceleration technology for Sony – he’s on our team now so we’ve got some of the best PS3 experience here. In fact when we were doing all of the tech demos, we’d bring in the developers and they’d walk over and say, “it’s running on the PS3!” (laughs) They’d sit there and stare at it for a while. "

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.

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.

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.

mjk45 said: 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.

I see you don't know how I rate my games. At first I thought Rage was amazing so I gave it the 9.5 and after I beat it I edit the score to what I think it deserved. In all likely Rage will probably end up right around a 9 meaning it was awesome and I had very few complaints about it.

well tbh if the tech doesn't work well with current gen hardware then why would the devs even attempt it? Get some pointers from other devs and see what actually worked.

yo_john117 said: mjk45 said: 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. I see you don't know how I rate my games. At first I thought Rage was amazing so I gave it the 9.5 and after I beat it I edit the score to what I think it deserved. In all likely Rage will probably end up right around a 9 meaning it was awesome and I had very few complaints about it.

Fair enough .but still a most unusual way of rating something