If you haven't noticed though, selnor's style is to post PC version bullshots to hype the 360 version. Off the top of my head he did this for Risen, Metro 2033, Mass Effect 2, and now this game. I'm sure there are other instances as well.

No doubts here. Carmack knows graphics and graphics engines better than anyone else in the world. Every engine has always been the frontrunner when it's released. Consider also that Rage is 60fps and games like KZ2 and Uncharted 2 and ME2 can only boast 30 FPS that is a big thing. Also heres an article from July 2009. Confirming PS3 issues of RSX being a bit slower, but CPU's of PS3 and 360 basically being identical in performance. If anyone would know how to get the PS3 version up to scratch it would be Carmack. 60 FPS is an amzing achievement. Imagine how much worse graphically U2 or KZ2 would have looked with a steady 60 fps. Double the speed of the games that released.

 "CVG details an extensive 10-page feature on id Software's Rage in the latest issue of UK games magazine Edge. The piece includes confirmation by John Carmack that the Xbox 360 version of the game will run at a brisk 60 frames per second, but that he has found PS3 to be at a disadvantage to Microsoft's console in terms of rendering power. "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," he said.

As a result, Edge reports that the game runs at "just 20-30fps" on Sony's console. Carmack places the blame on the PS3's GPU -- the RSX -- saying that, "The rasterizer is just a little bit slower -- no two ways about that...the RSX is slower than what we have in the 360." He sees both consoles as being comparable in terms of raw processing power, however. "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off," he told the magazine. "...that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

Now, before you go making a comment you can't take back, know that the Edge article doesn't clarify whether or not the performance of the PS3 version will be improved prior to release. It's also telling that Carmack states that the PS3 is only "a little bit slower" than 360 in his findings -- if that's the case, we can't imagine that the finished will run at fully half the speed."

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/30/edge-rage-running-at-60fps-on-360-just-20-to-30fps-on-ps3/

That is exactly what i was thinking...

They said at QuakeCon 2009 that they reveal Doom 4 at QuakeCon 2010, so I doubt they will release any screens before that.

You know id has had two dev teams for quite a long time right? So I'd guess Doom 4 has been in development since long before 2008, probably not long after they released Quake 4, whenever that was (in 2006, or even 2005?).

Wait... Quake 4 was developed by Raven right? I wonder what id is doing with their two teams actually!

This is posted in the gaming discussion area not Microsoft....

So why is it when talking about 'best graphics' people throws in a preamble 'only on consoles'? Its like everyones afraid to admit the reality of the situation. Its the same with the Wii, when people can't cope with the sales of the Wii they simply ignore it and its the same here but in terms of graphics. If someone truely cared about visuals and technical excellence in visuals they would own a PC with a powerful graphics card and they would learn how to use it.