It's not that the PS3 cannot keep up. Gamers still get the Rage experience on the PS3 and on one disc. The problem is that games need to be made specifically for the PS3 for them to truly shine. We've known for the past five years.

Not with the way RAGE works. I gave a short explanation in my last post to you, I'll gladly expand on it if you want to know more.

the fact that ALL three versions have problems and the differences are barely noticable and we getting the ps3 version can't keep up....can't keep up what, loading a texture .002 seconds as fast as 360... I mean if it was like Bayonetta, Fallout where the differences were pretty major you guys would have a point, my point is not that the ps3 doesn't have short commings but the people in here talking as if it's the only platform with problems and that they THAT noticeable is pretty laughable and like I said... typical given the people doing the talking

carry on though

Thats perfectly fine. As long as the game is running and gamers get a good experience out of it, it should be fine. If a gamer like myself owns both consoles we know which console to buy the PC ported shooters on. 

This. If a developer cant get a game to work properly on a PC then i highly doubt they could even get a game like de-blob running properly on the PS3 nevermind Rage. I always thought the game was overated and i have been proven correct

ever stop to think that's the problem, the ps3's cell is designed the offset many of the task usually put on the gpu, and id tech 5 would have to be extremely modified to suit that and they didn't have the time and or capital to make those necessary changes leading to the barely noticeable differences between the 2 games

This. If a developer cant get a game to work properly on a PC then i highly doubt they could even get a game like de-blob running properly on the PS3 nevermind Rage. I always thought the game was overated and i have been proven correct

Thats perfectly fine. let me know more, but the real issue of backlash is coming from the PC gamers, not the console gamers. Carmack is getting backhanded by all of them for not making the game up to par and now Carmack has stated that the consoles don't run with not even 1/10 of a PC's power. He's blaming the PS3 for his troubles when the PS3 owners are not the ones who are complaining. He's also stated that PC is no longer the lead platform and games are made in mind where the larger paying audience is. This is fine....but its not like they wont rip his game for fun out of spite.

The thread is about John Carmack answering a player on why the PS3 version isn't as good as the other versions. And that's because the PS3 isn't as strong as the 360 and PC are in the areas that matter to RAGE. Some people then get mad at him for telling the truth. It's completely silly!

That's not to say the other versions don't have problems, but the PS3 version is notably behind the 360 version in visuals because of the pop-in and having its resolution reduced more often.

That doesnt really make sense anymore. 

I bbelieve most consider Uncharted, Killzone  and GOW as the best of the best as far as exclusives go for PS3. I agree as I do wiith Gears Of War 3 they look amazing.

The truth thoug is you cannot put those engines in the same breath as ID Tech 5 or Frostbite 2.0.

And retrospectively even begin to compre them wit a straight face  against Rage or Battlefield 3. The reason is simple.

Rage runs at double the framerate. That means that double the frames are stored iin the 256mb Ram the PS3 has available for te GPU. Its using double the memory that any exclusive PS3 or 360 game is using other than  Forza 4 and partially GT5 & GOW3 ( GOW3 running at 45 FpS and T5 as low as 48FPS ).

so even when Sony's first party devs have attempted to run games at 60fps they have had games with detail flaws and drops in framerate throught the game or in GOW3's case a very linear small gameplay environment game. 

The fact that ID have made the game look beautiful on PS3 and keep a higher framerate than either first party attempt from Sony all while doing this in a much much much larger gameplay environment proves this whole First party BS is smoke and mirrors now.

Uncharted looks great. But again has small gameplay areas and semi cutscene areas. Hell the devs are quite smart with UC. Take these sand clips being thrown around here on VGC. What are they 3 second GIFs?

Take a look at the actual gameplay segment and you soon realise its an intro to a level. Where when Drake gets over that brow the sand doesnt move like that under his feet anymore and actually doesnt move  at all. He enters te city via a breaking roof and the play area is very small. Clever choices. Because the real meat of the gameplay doesnt have these effects when the game cant handle it. And its all only 30 FPS. Using half of the memory for Frames that Rage does.

After playing FM4 it actually shows up GT5 in terms of engine and so called PS3  power. Admitedlly we need to wait for Digital Foundry for sure, but I'm betting FM4 doesnt dip to  48 FPS like GT5. Both GT5 and Forza 4 aim for 60 FPS, wilst trying to maintain videlity  in visuals. Much bigger test and impessive than a god looking 30 fps Gears 3 or UC3. Technically 60FPS is ALOT harder on the consoles due to the RAM. Because your asking to use double  the amount before youve even added any Graphics. 

I think some of you need to understand just what the difference is between what ID,Turn 10 and Polyphony have tried to do  and what Epic, Naughty Dog and the like attempt to do. IF you asked me what had better textures Gears 3 or Rage, Id say Gears  3. IF you asked me what was more impressive to play its age easily. 60FPS looks better not just plays better. It helps the visuals to.