Bethesda To Publish Rage

By Jim Rossignol on December 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm.


Here’s what Bethesda say: “RAGE will be published by Bethesda Softworks, (a) ZeniMax subsidiary. As a result, Electronic Arts Inc will not be involved in the sales and marketing of RAGE. The ongoing development of RAGE is unaffected by this development.” Thoughts on this below.

You’ll recall that Id were bought by ZeniMax earlier in the year, a deal which presumably makes the licensing of Bethesda-publised Brink, which uses the last generation of Id tech, a little cheaper. EA, of course, were signed on to market and sell Rage, but it’s perhaps appropriate to their downsizing that they offload this onto someone else. And it’s fair to say that Rage seems to be in an odd limbo. It’s not one of the Id names, as it’s an attempt to do something new. The fanfare for this game, by one of the most famous development houses in world, seems minimal. People seem unsure whether to be excited, perhaps because of the lack of marketing, but I think more crucially because the lack of a clear concept of why the game is different or exciting. Even Id’s traditional armies of PC gaming fans have been mute, presumably because the console presence in its development casts a long shadow, despite protestations that it will “feel like a true PC game.”

Rage desperately needs to distinguish itself from a bunch of other post-apocalyptic games – currently it looks like Borderlands before the makeover – including Bethesda’s own Fallout games. With this in mind, why bother having to make that distinction? Couldn’t Bethesda relaunch Rage as part of their own Fallout universe? It would seem to make sense. Isn’t there scope for an entire generation of new Fallout games? Or is the creation of a new post-apocalyptic IP really, genuinely valuable to either Id or Bethesda?

__________________

« | »

, , , , .

145 Comments »

  1. Wooly says:

    Oh dear.

  2. Tei says:

    The moment is ready, the good people on Id will tell “The food is on the table”, and everyone will come to eat.

  3. Poindexter says:

    Fallout vs. Rage: RageOut: The Ultimate Post-Apocalyptic Subtitle

  4. Monkeybreadman says:

    A fallout shootery thingy would be a good idea. Who was it who said starting a brand new franchise is the hardest thing to do in gaming?

  5. Hunam says:

    I don’t think it’s likely Bethesda will market this as a Fallout game. The entire point of going with Zenimax was because they were offering freedom, if they started calling the shots for id carmack and the crew would just walk out. They can get jobs anywhere, they are still the cream of the crop in videogames.

    If it did happen though, I’d quit gaming, like, instantly.

  6. pilouuuu says:

    What about calling it Fallout 4: Rage? Then everyone will be happy.

    • bhlaab says:

      I would not be happy.

    • bhlaab says:

      iD is a shallow husk of a company that’s been on a huge downward spiral from Quake 2 on. Without that John Romero magic they are lifeless and boring. Bethesda ruins everything it touches.

      This should be interesting.
      Wait, no, I’m mistaken– this should be entirely uninteresting. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    • Baris says:

      I agree, Oblivion and Fallout 3 were shitty games and all professional criticism of them reflects this.

      Oh wait

    • Tweakd says:

      Not to mention the awful Quake Live.

      Oh hang on…

    • wiper says:

      @Baris: to be fair, both Oblivion and Fallout 3 were husks compared to their predecessors. Shiny, expensive husks, for sure, but husks nonetheless.

    • bhlaab says:

      Glad to see all of you agree with me.

    • Thants says:

      I think Fallout 3 is at least as good as the first two. There, I said it.

    • Baris says:

      @bhlaab: Uh, yeah, ok then.

      @Thants: I agree. While personally I enjoy playing Fallout 2 more , that just means I prefer it, it doesn’t make it better. More people need to realise that… Anyway, Fallout 3 is a very different game to Fallout 2, I’d go as far as saying the difference between them is closer to the difference between say Mario and Sonic than to ordinary sequels.

    • bhlaab says:

      Oblivion and Fallout 3 were shitty games and this reflects on all professional critics.

    • Baris says:

      Would you like to give some examples to prove your claim?

    • Velvet Fist, Iron Glove says:

      @bhlaab & co: Old, great game + nostalgia = unnattainable expectations.
      Unnattainable expectations + different, but good sequel = “this game is shit” opinion.

      Fallout 3 is often undeservedly maligned by fans of Fallout 1 + 2.

      Now here’s my controversial opinion: Fallout 3 > Mass Effect.

    • Vinraith says:

      It’s comparing apples and kumquats, but Thants isn’t wrong. I had at least as much fun playing Fallout 3, and played it for considerably longer, than I did Fallouts 1 and 2. They’re totally different kinds of game, and I think Fallout 3 would have been a better game if it hadn’t been shoehorned into the franchise, but it was still (and will continue to be, once I get the GOTY stuff) a hell of a lot of fun.

      I’ll take an open world game with good atmosphere, like Fallout 3 or Morrowind, over a tightly constrained, linear, story-driven RPG like what Bioware puts out any day. In games, choice is far more important to me than story, and the two are diametrically opposed.

    • dhex says:

      “In games, choice is far more important to me than story, and the two are diametrically opposed.”

      hence why fallout 1 > fallout 3. :)

    • Vinraith says:

      “hence why fallout 1 > fallout 3. :)”

      I don’t see it. Fallout has always been very good about putting choice front and center, it’s one of the few things the original games have in common with the new version. The difference is primarily one of scale and flexibility, and by both those metrics it’s something of a given that the newer game is going to win. I’d say Fallout 1 was certainly a better game by the standards of the time than Fallout 3 is by present standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that I find Fallout 3 far more immersive, and continue to go back to it both for the base game and the mods.

    • bhlaab says:

      I never played Fallout 1 or 2 until july and august of last year — about 2 months before Fallout 3 came out. So no, the “rose tinted glasses” thing doesn’t work.
      My “unrealistic expectation” was that Fallout 3 would be almost as good or at least vaguely similar to the games I had just played and loved. Guess that was wrong of me.

      I agree that Fallout 3 > Mass Effect, but that just goes to show how garbage Mass Effect was.

    • bhlaab says:

      The biggest problem with Fallout 3 is that they spinelessly made their game have “choice & no consequence”

      Blow up a town, Save the town? Either way you get the same reward of a The Sims Lite apartment (just in a different spot) and amazingly Moira, the only person in Megaton with a major questline who also just so happens to be the only shopkeeper, survives.
      The writing isn’t even a quarter good enough to justify the Power of the Atom quest, either.

    • moyogo says:

      @bhlaab

      ID needs to get back to basics with John Romero, pump out some Daikatana 2 ASAP

    • bhlaab says:

      Or maybe a Doom or Quake 1.

      All Daikatana proves is that he’s got a massive ego and is incompetent at management and self control.

    • datoo says:

      I kind of want to agree with bhlaab, because I really dislike the elder scrolls games, and fallout 3 while much better failed to grab me. Despite this and Bethesda’s poor post-release support for the PC platform, saying they ruin everything they touch is ludicrous. If they fuck up Brink I will be the first one to go for the torch and pitchfork, but I’m hopeful that it will be the first Splashdamage game to get proper publisher support.

      Id hasn’t released much in terms of good games in a while, but Carmack continues to do his magic on the technical side of things.

    • dhex says:

      I don’t see it. Fallout has always been very good about putting choice front and center, it’s one of the few things the original games have in common with the new version. The difference is primarily one of scale and flexibility, and by both those metrics it’s something of a given that the newer game is going to win. I’d say Fallout 1 was certainly a better game by the standards of the time than Fallout 3 is by present standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that I find Fallout 3 far more immersive, and continue to go back to it both for the base game and the mods.

      i can definitely see someone finding f3 more immersive, to be sure, but f3 was absolutely abysmal with choices and consequences. it brought nothing new to the table, and much old. it was better than oblivion. it was definitely better than mass effect. but that’s not really saying much if you value what is truly unique about the western (crpg) experience.

  7. Chris R says:

    Hope Rage has even more RPG elements than Borderlands, but retains the great gunplay, or “first person shootery.” I really wish Borderlands had armor (not just shields), helmets, modifiable weapons… basically I wish Borderlands was more like Diablo 2… with guns. That would be awesome.

    Oh, and more room for coop buddies, say… 8?

  8. Gap Gen says:

    I quite like the idea of creating different universes and using them disposably. Part of the reason I liked Dune was because the story took a rich and interesting universe and tore it up in an entertaining way. Using someone else’s universe constrains your story-telling ability because you have to adhere to some stupid canon.

    Conversely, the re-use of universes only makes sense from a commercial perspective, I think – unless you planned to explore a given story in multiple parts in the first place, or have a genuine reason to go back and tie up loose ends. Re-using a universe is like putting on an old coat – it’s soft and familiar and warm, but it’s not as interesting as doing something new and different.

    In this case – eh. I don’t know much about Rage, so maybe it’s different in some way I haven’t seen yet. I don’t know whether thematically it’s quite what Fallout is trying to do, though.

  9. armlesscorps1987 says:

    Still noone mentions the fact that they are doing an MW2 with this and John Carmack has said it probably won’t include dedicated servers. Yet another PC game turned into a console game. Hopefully there is time to change his mind. I started a boycott group here http://steamcommunity.com/groups/ragebee

    its only got a few members but please join and hopefully it can snowball into something id will listen to. After all he is undecided on the issue and there is still plenty of time until launch, its not like with other boycotts where they start a month before launch when the developers have already made up their minds.
    He even said he would see how things went as regarding the fate of MW2 on PC, seen as this was not taken up by a lot of pc gamers due to the dedicated issue and pc sales were hurt badly, maybe a group showing him there is similar resilience to the issue with Rage will change his mind.

    • Hunam says:

      Carmack also said DooM 3 wouldn’t have dedicated servers. Look how that turned out

    • bhlaab says:

      Having never ever even tried to play doom 3 online, can you just tell me how it turned out?

    • Hunam says:

      Not peer to peer.

      I don’t see peoples problem with dedicated servers. It’s cheaper for developers at the end of the day.

    • Starky says:

      Lack of dedicated servers is utterly fine for a game of Rages scope. Anything below 8-10 players is totally acceptable to be handled peer to peer, having them can actually be more of a pain then they are worth.

      Look at L4D, half the time finding a server is a pain, and then you often end up on some stupid custom server with whacky rules, or mods when you just want to play a vanilla game.
      A problem that would have been much improved if the peer to peer code in L4D didn’t suck as much as it did – It may be improved with L4D2, I don’t own it yet, but that is one thing Games for Windows live did substantially better than steam with, small scale peer to peer gaming.

      Of course when you get above 8-10 players then you really begin to need a dedicated server, especially in the UK or US, where our broadband infrastructure is a sodding joke. Thanks to the idiocy that is allowing commercial companies control.
      All the while countries like Sweden laugh at us with their 100mbit connections.

    • Sparvy says:

      At this point we don’t even know what type of multiplayer it has, servers are great but not exactly necessary if its a game with <6 players. So saying you wont have dedicated servers doesn't really mean much unless you also try to come off as a team based shooter, at which point it is slightly harder to swallow.

    • Johnny Law says:

      I would guess that some reasons more people aren’t flipping out about Carmack’s “probably no dedicated server” comment include:

      - It’s not a last-minute surprise

      - Older and smaller fanbase compared to Modern Warfare’s

      - id is not a multiplayer-game powerhouse anymore, and Rage does not appear to be a multiplayer-focussed game. I’m still an id fanboy, but I expect to mainly be getting Rage for the singleplayer stuff.

    • Starky says:

      @Sparvy
      Carmack said in an interview ages ago that it wouldn’t have dedicated servers, because it wasn’t needed due to the low player number of the game. Going on to mention that he’s glad MW2 did the same thing first as he didn’t want to be the first one to do it.

      Pretty sure it was in this series of video interviews

    • EvaUnit02 says:

      @Starky

      Rage’s MP gimmick will probably be Deathmatch with sand buggies? Wow fun, it’s still boring old DM. There will probably also be a pure racing MP mode, why would I choose to play that over an actual racing game?

      The SP campaign is clearly the focus of the project, just like it was with Doom 3, but they actually seem to be putting far more effort into it this time.

  10. rocketman71 says:

    id, id… Yeah, I think there was a company called id that released great games like 10 years ago. What happened to them?

    • kafka7 says:

      I think a company called ‘Valve’ came along and everything changed.

    • Vinraith says:

      Was that 10 years ago? I could have sworn it was longer. I remember playing shareware versions of Doom, Doom 2, and Quake 1, then I pretty much lost interest.

    • Senethro says:

      Vinraith, is it just me or do you post a lot of comments which are essentially “The content of the article I am commenting on does not interest me.”? Its just a bit Grumpy Old Man Who Thinks Everything Is Shit.

    • Vinraith says:

      It’s just you. For example, I didn’t comment on Rage at all, I just commented that I hadn’t played an id game I cared about for quite a long time. The reason I’m here at all is because I was reading the article, and the reason I’m reading the article is because Rage looks like it might actually be interesting. If I’ve got no interest in a game, either as something I’d potentially like to play or something I think it important to shaping the future of the industry, I generally don’t read the article and consequently don’t comment.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Senethro

      No I’d say you’re onto something there. My advice is to just tune him out.

  11. Martin Coxall says:

    ZeniMax is a horrible name. It’s one of the worst names in gaming, and there’s a great deal of competition in this field.

  12. Max says:

    I remain hopeful even though the past few id releases have been disappointing. Honestly I’m glad they’ve dropped EA at least.

  13. Bogie says:

    Is this the ID game that Carmack said is going to have shitty listen servers? If it is then i’m not interested.

    Dedicated servers and I may be interested.

  14. Jeremy says:

    I’m not sure if a “probably not” constitutes as boycott worthy.

    At this point I have almost no interest in the game, mainly because the information has been sparse. I didn’t even remember it being in the works until seeing this again here on RPS. It does seem like an unnecessary distinction to have a separate game set in yet another apocalyptic/old west/mutant infested world. I mean, ZeniMax must have known that Id was working on Rage before acquiring them, so maybe they had the plan all along to absorb it into their own Fallout franchise, which… while unpopular here, is rather successful in the modern world and in my heart. But that’s neither here nor there, and Fallout 3 has been discussed to the ends of itself, so I dare not step down that path.

    Either way, regardless of what happens, I do hope it’s awesome. Of course, my hope is that any game in development will be awesome, just because, you know, good games are fun.

  15. hoff says:

    I have to say, I don’t really get the conclusions of this article. Bethesda rebranding Rage as a Fallout game? Really?

    “Post-apocalyptic” is “out” after 2 or 3 games? WW2 shat out at least 50 games or so in the past decade, many of which where hailed long after the setting became stale. Oh and fantasy games with wizards and dwarfs? How boring is that? We have at least three games like that already.

    Rage has a brilliant style and brings the rejuvenation id so desperately needed after a decade of sequels and unsuccessful engine prototypes. The racing parts, the creepy clowns, the fantastic technology (used perfectly for a stylistically more consistent design than Fallout 3 and Borderlands combined)… I don’t really see why we should belittle it compared to two RPG-style games that just so happen to take place in a dystopic desert landscape as well…

  16. ChampionHyena says:

    @bhlaab (in case Reply decides not to work)

    Yes, because nothing bad has ever happened when Romero’s been given free reign.

    • bhlaab says:

      I never said it didn’t. I’m saying nothing bad ever happened when romero worked at id and nothing good has happened for either side since he left

    • Rinox says:

      @ blaahb

      To be fair, Id had a sales hit in Doom³. But yeah, the rest of their record doesn’t look all that amazing either ever since the ‘good old days’. Romero’s recent chops are even worse.

      But I wouldn’t look at their seperation as the reason for their lack of success. More likely it’s that their formula that worked so well during the early years of the FPS – Carmack’s tech savvy mixed with Romero’s idiosyncratic design – just doesn’t cut it anymore. They’ve become an anachronism in the gaming community.

  17. Shalrath says:

    Awwww, no terrible EA adds for them? Damnit. I was looking forward to the hilarity of Dragon Age-like advertisements for Rage :(

  18. M.P. says:

    What Gap Gen said: we have no idea what id are planning to do with the Rage setting. Plus, think of the rage (pun, such as it is, intended) from the Fallout fanbase about turning it into a shooter.

    • Ben L. says:

      They did that already.

      Anyway, Beth publishing it is the freaking Kiss of Death.

      Every game from an external dev Beth has published so far has stunk to high heaven. 5 to 1 this will too, despite id.

    • Forscythe says:

      attempting to reply to Ben L

      I can’t really argue that bethesda’s publishing record is exactly stellar, but I did think Sea Dogs and Call of Cthulhu were both quite good

    • archonsod says:

      Call of Cthulhu is probably one of, if not the, best horror games in years.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Until you get a gun.

    • bhlaab says:

      This is unsubstantiated but I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that Bethesda really did a number on Call of Cthulu to make it more marketable for the Xbox audience.

      Fun fact: The PC port of the Cthulu was literally made by one person. Working without pay.

  19. Razz says:

    There was a frickin’ huge 12-something page article in Edge a couple months ago about Rage, but other than that I honestly haven’t heard much about it at all. Which is kind of a shame, because even though it has similarities with Fallout and pre-makeover Borderlands it seems to have more style than both. I thought the art direction (in its characters and lighting especially) was pretty remarkable. Although throughout the article I was in fact wondering “well, what else?” They have generic questing in with a very big focus on handholding (they never want players to get lost and lose focus, apparently), seemingly been-there-done-that gunplay, some racing which will undoubtedly not be as fun as the shooting (and it’s not like it’s never been done before) and that’s about it.

    The only hook for me was its setting: post-apoc really isn’t boring yet after 2 or 3 games, especially if it’s executed with as much panache as Rage seems to be. It was only made worse by – and this is probably one of those things which totally turns pc gamers off of supporting the game – the fact that they said (and I quote) “you can play it with keyboard and mouse, but it’s been a company-wide dictum that Tim will whack you if you’re playing with the mouse.” If ever a developer wanted to make clear they’re making a console game first and foremost, this is a clearcut case. I just don’t see how playing FPSs built with a controller in mind as its primary control scheme can EVER be as fun as the ones with keyboard and mouse.

  20. Tei says:

    What this strange talk about refurbishing Rage into Fallout. Is the imagination of the people soo small that can’t imagine two different worlds with same post-apocalypse settings? Borderlands and Fallout occur on different worlds, you know. A publisher is just that, a publisher, who care if he release one, 3, or 30 games about WW2, zombies or postnuclear worlds?

    • Jeremy says:

      My imagination is painfully small. The color gray and perfect squares are my interests :) No, it’s just more of a question really, not that we think it should necessarily be combined or not or lack the capacity to imagine 2 co existing apocalyptic worlds. Although, it would be strange for a company to create a similar game, of similar style and have it be of a different brand. Can you imagine Blizzard acquiring a company making SpaceWart or OrcCraft and not rebranding it into their already existing IPs? It just seems curious is all.

    • bhlaab says:

      I don’t know if it’s coincidence or not, but flavor-of-the-month game design doesn’t do much for anybody except the marketing department. Take a look at the new Medal of Honor game, for example.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Although I’m hopeful for the new Medal of Honor, yes, you finally said something that wasn’t completely infused with the belief that your opinion=reality.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Future own both PC Gamer and PC Zone, but haven’t merged the two into one GamerZone property.

  21. TheApologist says:

    Not so completely awful it’s brilliant, then?

    It sounds exactly like every evil corporation in every sci-fi world of the last 30 years.

    • TheApologist says:

      That was a reply to Martin Coxall – sorry I still don’t get this system despite Kieron shouting at me… :(

    • D says:

      I find your name in combination with your post amusing. I don’t understand peoples problem with the system, I just click reply once and it works. And I use Opera the most unsupported of browsers, and I’ve never had any problems.

  22. Crush says:

    Isn’t Rage a racer though people keep comparing to other types like Borderlands (loot) or Fallout (RPG), I think people are expecting it to be an FPS with side dabbles of racing but it could be the opposite given how little we’ve seen and what we have has been mostly vehicle based.

    One things for sure Bethesda will becomes the post-apocalyptic studio what with Brink, Fallout and Rage all under its belt.

  23. Hunam says:

    The press have seen a lot of shooting. It’s not a racer. It’s STALKER meets mad max with some racing.

  24. Nny says:

    I actually thought for a while Rage and Borderlands were the same game…

  25. bitkari says:

    Well Id and Bethesda joined forces some time ago. It’s not such a shock for them to switch publishing deals to their parent company is it?

  26. Senethro says:

    Stop being boycotting babies! Theres a difference between not providing dedicated servers for a 9v9 game like MW2 and for a mostly co-op/small DM game like Rage!

  27. Petërkopf says:

    I’m kinda sad about that last paragraph. I realize that Rage is probably gonna be closer to a true Fallout 3 than Fallout 3 was (Yes yes, I’m on the Oblivion with guns train) but the halfassed cashing in on the splendour of two old top-down RPGs is just pretty disgusting to me.

    What made the real Fallout awesome, at least to me, was the fact that it was truly edgy and offensive, raw as hell as you’d expect a post-apocalyptic world, and amazingly detailed in it’s gallery of characters, who were all marked (read: depressed or downright crazy) from the fact that the world had fallen completely apart, instead of the bumbeling happy-go-lucky nuclear tourists and “brave knights” of Fallout 3. I just haven’t seen any attempts to go near that feeling, either in Fallout 3 or any of the other apocalyptico FPS. At least Stalker did it’s own thing without trying to emulate. It wasn’t perfect, but I could respect that game for it’s effort.

    I don’t really understand why these selfproclaimed “deep” FPS/RPG abominations completely disregard storytelling or sincere character composition, because that’s exactly what made games like the original Fallouts, not to mention Deus Ex (arguably the game these guys have been claiming they matched for ages now) so precious to everybody. It just seems like some sad circle jerk over who can put as many common-as-dirt elements into their “new” shooter these days. Like all the creative decisions are being made in a fricken boardroom. You’re not designing a toaster, here, it doesn’t have to match the previous toaster – In fact, it should be different in as many ways as possible.

    Either way, I have a feeling that Rage is still gonna tickle my balls when it gets there. I just hope they don’t slap that Fallout logo on it like a bunch of soulless suits.

  28. Lilliput King says:

    “People seem unsure whether to be excited, perhaps because of the lack of marketing, but I think more crucially because the lack of a clear concept of why the game is different or exciting.”

    Agreed, I haven’t a clue what it’s all about, except that it’s post apocalyptic and has some kind of new texture technology.

    Doesn’t really get me interested, to be honest.

  29. Gpig says:

    @bhlaab, spotted a little typo in your post where you put a ’2′ where you meant to put a ’3′ after quake.

    I’m content with id having sucked since 99. They popularized the genre that ended up dominating the 90s, but the 90s are done. John Carmack’s a genius, but not a game design one, and some people don’t want to admit that.

    • bhlaab says:

      I’ve never been one for multiplayer and the Quake 2 single player campaign is a travesty.

      As for multiplayer (and by extension, quake 3) iD will always be at least servicable at it if they ever get around to actually making a new truly multiplayer game ever again. That’s not to say that Quake 3 doesn’t have a completely sterile personality or that it brings anything new to the table, mind.
      But I won’t disagree that Q3 did polish Quake 1/2 mutplayer to near perfection and that it’s better than all the UT games combined

    • Psychopomp says:

      There was a little game called Quake Wars that people seem to forget exists.

    • bhlaab says:

      They didn’t make Quake Wars.

      Return to Castle Wolfenstein was fantastic and Wolfenstein 2009 is severely underrated. But again, iD only provided the brand and the tech.

  30. Senethro says:

    People complain about hype but look how difficult it is to have thoughts that other people don’t give you!

  31. TheSombreroKid says:

    i don’t think this is a bad thing, i’m not reading anything into it like the legions of maniacs on the internet, rage is going to be a technical marvel, i wish people would give up on the static prebaked enviroments that id are leaning on heavily for this tech though.

  32. VHATI says:

    Games dont need 25 million dollar ad campaigns to sell loads or be popular.
    Most think the game is low on the radar, but it isnt, it is exactly where it needs to be. Everyone knows what the game is, and who is making it. No reason to tease it for months upon months, it doesnt increase sales at all.

    I know what i want to buy long before it comes out. I then just have to wait for it.

  33. one f jef says:

    Great, another company that built itself on a PC fan base abandons it’s fans in favor for a bunch of tweenie dipsticks with consoles mommy bought them.

  34. Rock Tumbler says:

    @bhlaab “nothing good has happened for either side since he left”
    Yes, Quake II, Quake III, and Doom 3 were all terrible failures that everyone hated.
    Get your head out of your ass and come back to reality. Romero isn’t now and never has been the deity you make him out to be.

    • bhlaab says:

      I apologize.

      Since John Romero left, iD has made several games that went onto make several games like Quake 2 and Doom 3 that sold a lot of copies and got a lot of 9/10s in reviews even though they were both godawful pieces of shit.

      There, happy?

    • Jeremy says:

      That seems unnecessary.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “I don’t like it, therefore it’s shit!”

    • bhlaab says:

      Makes about as much sense as “everyone else seemed to like it so it must be good”

    • Jeremy says:

      That may be true, but having the lion’s share of the consensus certainly lends credibility to their viewpoint.

    • Okami says:

      I don’t think that id started making baf games, it’s just that the industry moved on and id didn’t. And it most certainly wasn’t Romero leaving the company, that led to them making games that weren’t on par with modern shooter design.

      That guy made Daikatana, for heaven’s sake!

  35. Kadayi says:

    Visually RAGE looks great, however this megatexture approach is not without cost in that, there is no day/night cycle possibility which kind of makes the technology limited and naturally will impact upon the game (if anything it’s going to be more Dragon Age in terms of how you navigate the game world than fallout as a result). I can appreciate Carmacks perspective on the advantages from a developer perspective, but he seems out of touch with the direction other studios are going. I can’t see many other developers having much of an interest in licensing Tech 5, because most are either working towards dynamic open worlds or already have their own engines in place. Bioware are probably the company to court, given they use static environments in their games but after a couple of years of using unreal I can’t seem them switching up (what’s the advantage?).

    My suspicion is that RAGE is unfortunately going to underwhelm when it comes to market, in that it isn’t going to be deep enough for the RPG fans it’s probably attempting to court. I suspect EA were probably more than happy to hand over the potato of publishing the thing.

  36. M.P. says:

    @Ben L.: You’ve pretty much proven my point, that’s the sort of rage I was talking about :)

  37. dspair says:

    Wow, the comments are astonishing.

    Quake 3 and Doom 3 are actually among the very best games made by id.

    • Shalrath says:

      Doom 3? Are you serious?

    • dspair says:

      I’m dead serious. It’s the best first person shooter I played in last decade. Artistically and design-wise it’s a flawless masterpiece.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Artistically yes, but design wise? Are you joking? Doom 3 was extremely flawed design wise. Especially the “hur hur, hiddden door behind you releases an imp”, got really overused. Doom3 bored the shit out of me after a few levels.

    • oceanclub says:

      “I’m dead serious. It’s the best first person shooter I played in last decade. Artistically and design-wise it’s a flawless masterpiece.”

      Which bit is the design masterpiece – the bit where a single monster jumps out of a cupboard behind you? Or the bit where a single monster teleports in front of you?

      P.

  38. marxeil says:

    Easy on the emo…

  39. SofS says:

    I’m a bit tired of post-apocalypse myself. I’d like something a bit more pre-apocalyptic or, well, straight-up apocalyptic. I’ve never understood why roleplaying settings, both on computers and in pen-and-paper books, usually set things up so that you’re playing just after something big and exciting and world-changing happened. It’s always twenty years after the biggest war of all time or something like that (at least Fallout set it far enough afterwards that the old world could function like mystical ancient ruins and such instead of telling the players that they just missed out on it and will have to make do with killing radioactive giant rats in science bars for futuregold). Why not wind up a game with civilization’s fall?

    • Heliocentric says:

      Unless the game is linear you need status quo. The areas you visit need to be generally the same every time you visit them. Otherwise not only will the game run out of content faster because of trying to design all the different stages but it will eventually halt changing or loop.

      Apocalypse can be done in games, half life, sacrifice and hell any game with aliens or demons invading is in the stricter sense pretty terrible if you lost.

      My favourite however is hostile waters, your world is utopia but war mongers feel the world has collapsed in the absence of fear, war and hunger.

      So i guess apocalypse is subjective, but i need to offer bonus credit to Evil Genius which not only lets you bring about apocalypse but also choosing which kind.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Pathologic is clearly a “funtime” for all involved.

      In Deus ex a plague is causing a social collapse. In morrowind and oblivion both an evil god is trying to drag himself into the plane.

      Almost every bioware game is set upon a war so important that all known civillisation is threatened by an ancient evil. Its not hard to think up apocalypse games.

    • Jeremy says:

      Final Fantasy 6! You started out pre-apocalypse, failed to stop apocalypse, watched it happen then played post-apocalypse. It wins in all categories.

    • Thants says:

      It’s funny now that the big bad guy in Deus Ex is the head of FEMA.

    • SofS says:

      Heliocentric: I was thinking of linear games (not the best, but a good story makes them worth it). Those examples are good, but mostly about stuff where you’re trying to stop the apocalpyse. I’m thinking more of games where’s it’s essentially inevitable and the relevant question is what you can accomplish in the face of it. Things where you can actually prevent it don’t feel properly apocalyptic to me, as they’re just challenges with extremely high stakes.

      Are you familiar with World of Darkness stuff? I’m thinking of something like that, where there’s definitely going to be an end but there are still things to be decided in what that end actually is. I guess I’m thinking of stuff where there will definitely not be a return to the status quo.

  40. DrGonzo says:

    I was thinking “shut up bhlaab” until that last post and I actually completely agree with that. Well said.

  41. Adventurous Putty says:

    Wow, I guess those Dragon Age trailers really were just THAT bad.

  42. DrGonzo says:

    Oh damn it that was a reply to some posts earlier. **** posting comments.

  43. torchedEARTH says:

    It’s just Fallout 3 with cars.

  44. bill says:

    I love bethesda developed games. (Future Shock being one of my fave FPSes of all time)
    But bethesda PUBLISHED games have all been universally pants.

    So, which does this count as?

    IMHO, making it in the fallout universe would be a great idea… but they’re probably way too far along now to go back and retool every little detail to make fallout purists happy.

  45. ConfederacyOfDunces says:

    But Fallout 3 had cars…

  46. CommentTest0r says:

    This reply will work!

  47. somatic668 says:

    It is what has often happened with id. Their games have served as a tech demo, other companies pick it up and they profited. It may well happen that the new generation of elder scrolls & fallout games will use id tech 5. When you think about the many and oft-heard complaints regarding bugs with Bethesda’s more recent gamebryo games, id were actually a fairly smart acquisition for Bethesda/Zenimax I would think.

    • Kadayi says:

      The problem is that Tech 5 is limited in that it isn’t really open world technology Vs say Gamebryo. If anything people would expect Fallout 4 or the next Elderscrolls to be more open world rather than less. Personally I can’t see Bethesda electing to use it as is, unless they suddenly intended to change direction and attempt to go down the bioware route of story driven RPGs.

  48. Michael says:

    cream of the crop? really? what have you been smoking?

  49. MadMatty says:

    why excactly can´t there be a day/night cycle with the tech 5 technology? put up a night sky, then render every single pixel darker or something?!

  50. l-carnitine says:

    I really like to play Fallout game. I hope this award-winning game is fulblogly loaded with every upgrade, add-on and expansion, including all vehicles, weapons and extra campaigns any time. Thank you so much for specifying this game very briefly.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>