Id Software releases the first two official images of Rage, probably taken from the PC version. Note that the game will be the first one to use John Carmack's new engine, the Id Tech 5.

BlackAngel

Commented on 2008-08-02 13:02:40

console war apart, this will be a masterpiece of software, really can't wait to see megatexture at its finest working

In reply to

Baleur

Commented on 2008-08-02 13:31:24

This is an example of Depth of Field and Bloom and HDR done right :)

In reply to

LEBATO

Commented on 2008-08-02 18:36:43

Carmack is just my most respected developer in the industry. Very smart guy all around who tells it how it is.

In reply to

senators2904

Commented on 2008-08-02 20:39:26 In reply to cma112087

Posted by cma112087

Blu Ray can store high quality textures, but with 256mb of gddr3 ram dedicated to just the GPU, that basically makes Blu-ray obsolete right there. 256mb can't render shit, especially for this game, because you are looking at like 5-10 layers of detailed textures over the entire game. Every character, every object, and the environment. No console can do that right now, guarenteed. But both will come close. And no the PS3 will not be the one to do it better with blu-ray, but that doesn;t mean the 360 will either.

You people are forgetting about the FlexI/O bypass required for the R to be accessed for graphics.

Yeah you have lightning fast R...but it goes straight to the CPU. If the lighting fast R has to travel from one side of the asymmetrical chip to the GPU, and back, it loses bandwidth due to the fact that your data can only be as fast as the smallest pipe it travels through lets it be. Plus on top of that, your weakening the CPU in more areas than you people think. Most developers sacrifice performance using this technique, which is why nobody uses it, and which is why the PS3 is more complicated to program for than the 360.

FlexI/O is more like a bypass that is written on the spec sheet of the PS3, with all the other raw numbers that don't mean anything. Its just there to say that they could do what 360 could do if they REALLY wanted to.

The 360 however, well, we all know. Its one pool of ram dedicated however the developer wants it. So honestly, the system with the most potential in this situation, again is more than likely the 360.

That really is common sense. Now that i made my point with common sense, i will now say that you don't want me getting tech savvy with a bunch of fanboys who think a hard-drive is a sex terminology. I pwn when it comes to this shit.

Like Blim said, stfu...

Game looks good btw.

fuckin tech junkie man all i understood was the first paragraph which comes down to both consoles being equal. lol

In reply to

[quote=cma112087]Blu Ray can store high quality textures, but with 256mb of gddr3 ram dedicated to just the GPU, that basically makes Blu-ray obsolete right there.  256mb can't render shit, especially for this game, because you are looking at like 5-10 layers of detailed textures over the entire game.  Every character, every object, and the environment.  No console can do that right now, guarenteed.  But both will come close.  And no the PS3 will not be the one to do it better with blu-ray, but that doesn;t mean the 360 will either.

You people are forgetting about the FlexI/O bypass required for the XDR to be accessed for graphics.

Yeah you have lightning fast XDR...but it goes straight to the CPU.  If the lighting fast XDR has to travel from one side of the asymmetrical chip to the GPU, and back, it loses bandwidth due to the fact that your data can only be as fast as the smallest pipe it travels through lets it be.  Plus on top of that, your weakening the CPU in more areas than you people think.  Most developers sacrifice performance using this technique, which is why nobody uses it, and which is why the PS3 is more complicated to program for than the 360.

FlexI/O is more like a bypass that is written on the spec sheet of the PS3, with all the other raw numbers that don't mean anything.  Its just there to say that they could do what 360 could do if they REALLY wanted to.

The 360 however, well, we all know.  Its one pool of ram dedicated however the developer wants it.  So honestly, the system with the most potential in this situation, again is more than likely the 360.

That really is common sense.  Now that i made my point with common sense, i will now say that you don't want me getting tech savvy with a bunch of fanboys who think a hard-drive is a sex terminology.  I pwn when it comes to this shit.

Like Blim said, stfu...

Game looks good btw.[/quote] fuckin tech junkie man all i understood was the first paragraph which comes down to both consoles being equal. lol

jackdoe

Commented on 2008-08-02 21:49:00

Nice. Going to get the PC version for mods and developer support (got burned by CoD 4's lack of suport on the consoles).

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2008-08-02 21:50:39

its so funny how the ps3 fanboys have jumped all over such a silly throw away comment and confused Carmack saying the ps3 version COULD look better with it DOES look better. Its especially histerical that ps3 fanboys are now praising this guy when he's been as much against the ps3 hardware as playstation favourites valve....and even followed his throw away comment by stating that he thought the "360 was superior hardware".. this comment ofcourse wasnt included on the ps3 fan sites. Funny that.

In reply to

Corellianrogue

Commented on 2008-08-02 23:15:47

I didn't know that about the royalty on discs. I think that's retarded! Come on Microsoft, drop that extra royalty crap, developers should be able to use as many discs as they need to without having to worry about extra costs other than the tiny extra manufacturing cost per disc. By the way, to the person who said that Microsoft should have used higher definition optical discs for the Xbox360, don't be stupid, no high definition optical disc format was even fully completed when the Xbox360 came out! The reason the PS3 has Blu-Ray has got nothing to do with games, they just used the PS3 as a trojan horse to help win the HD movie format war. (Unfortunately it did win, despite HD DVD being better. If you don't think it's better then just look at the standalone technology (PS3 doesn't count as there's way more hardware in it than just a Blu-Ray player) and you'll see that HD DVD was fully featured from day 1 whereas it took almost 2 years for a Blu-Ray (standalone) player to be produced that could do what HD DVD does.)

In reply to

I didn't know that about the royalty on discs. I think that's retarded! Come on Microsoft, drop that extra royalty crap, developers should be able to use as many discs as they need to without having to worry about extra costs other than the tiny extra manufacturing cost per disc. By the way, to the person who said that Microsoft should have used higher definition optical discs for the Xbox360, don't be stupid, no high definition optical disc format was even fully completed when the Xbox360 came out! The reason the PS3 has Blu-Ray has got nothing to do with games, they just used the PS3 as a trojan horse to help win the HD movie format war. (Unfortunately it did win, despite HD DVD being better. If you don't think it's better then just look at the standalone technology (PS3 doesn't count as there's way more hardware in it than just a Blu-Ray player) and you'll see that HD DVD was fully featured from day 1 whereas it took almost 2 years for a Blu-Ray (standalone) player to be produced that could do what HD DVD does.)

pythxvii

Commented on 2008-08-03 00:12:44 In reply to BlackAngel

Posted by BlackAngel

Watch this interview,lots of dirty secrets,***360 superior hardware*** and
the "real" answer to why he made DVD royalty issue public revealed in first
20 seconds

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169112

Carmack admitted that he wants hardcore id fans to help influence
Microsoft's business practices
***he believes the 360 is the better hardware over all***, because id is
having to put double the work into the PS3 port.

I asked id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead about that this morning, now that
the comment has had time to sink into gaming forums worldwide.

"Carmack has long said he thinks that the architecture of the Xbox 360 is
better"

The problem with Rage is two fold, Hollenshead tells me. First there is the
economics of spreading a game across multiple discs

***even though we feel the 360 has superior hardware***

Let me be clear, this is an open question, we have these tech issues and we
are working with Microsoft to solve them."

And the issue isn't just about the game being too big, Hollenshead says that
developers lose upwards of 2 gigs of space per a disc because of information
Microsoft requires developers to put on the discs

Ironically, early on Carmack was pretty clear on the fact that he felt the
Playstation 3's cell technology was not the boon it was made out to be to
developers.

"I know that John is pretty much brass tacks on these issues and before the
PS3 was ever released he raised the same issues then as now," Hollenshead
said. Sony "had a bunch of hardware engineers talking about theoretical
power, but (Carmack) said 'yeah, this isn't how software people work' and
they said 'yeah, this is how they should work.'"

To date, Carmack still feels the architecture of the Playstation 3 doesn't
deliver the power promised. But Hollenshead points out that there's no use
crying over spilled milk.

"Complaining about that is sort of a worthless exercise at this point," he
said. "The PS3 is what it is and it's not going to change.

http://kotaku.com/5031985/rage-and-ids-lovehate-re...

since the ***royalty charge per disc*** is actually surprisingly high, id
hopes that Microsoft will make a concession for Rage, or else the company
may actually have to sacrifice texture and asset quality to get the game to
fit on fewer than THREE discs. The cost of the 3rd DVD alone would cost
millions of dollars with the current royalty rate, says John Carmack.

When comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS3, the more spacious Blu-ray format is
the only thing Carmack likes more about Sony's console. ***Everything else
is better on the 360, he says.***

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/%5Bprimary-term%5...

The issue with the PS3 architexture is simply that its power is really hard to really harness and access. Its not dev friendly, which is why a lot of devs prefer 360 development, and why a lot of ports to PS3 aren't as well done, the devs don't want to spend extra time just to port a game to PS3.
I always said MS would be in trouble for not going with Blu-Ray. The royalties shit is very MS. Same thing with no mods on 360 UT3, and all that shit.

Posted by Megido

At the moment this is hotsauce, but if i know shit about ID it won't release for another 2 years and at that time...will it still look hot? These pics look shopped to me though.

When will people learn? Its PC, they don't need to touch up much, if at all. Look at Crysis. They didn't have to do anything. PCs these days are capable of running this sort of shit.

In reply to

[quote=BlackAngel]Watch this interview,lots of dirty secrets,***360 superior hardware*** and 
the "real" answer to why he made DVD royalty issue public revealed in first 
20 seconds

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169112

Carmack admitted that he wants hardcore id fans to help influence 
Microsoft's business practices
***he believes the 360 is the better hardware over all***, because id is 
having to put double the work into the PS3 port.

I asked id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead about that this morning, now that 
the comment has had time to sink into gaming forums worldwide.

"Carmack has long said he thinks that the architecture of the Xbox 360 is 
better"

The problem with Rage is two fold, Hollenshead tells me. First there is the 
economics of spreading a game across multiple discs

***even though we feel the 360 has superior hardware***

Let me be clear, this is an open question, we have these tech issues and we 
are working with Microsoft to solve them."

And the issue isn't just about the game being too big, Hollenshead says that 
developers lose upwards of 2 gigs of space per a disc because of information 
Microsoft requires developers to put on the discs

Ironically, early on Carmack was pretty clear on the fact that he felt the 
Playstation 3's cell technology was not the boon it was made out to be to 
developers.

"I know that John is pretty much brass tacks on these issues and before the 
PS3 was ever released he raised the same issues then as now," Hollenshead 
said. Sony "had a bunch of hardware engineers talking about theoretical 
power, but (Carmack) said 'yeah, this isn't how software people work' and 
they said 'yeah, this is how they should work.'"

To date, Carmack still feels the architecture of the Playstation 3 doesn't 
deliver the power promised. But Hollenshead points out that there's no use 
crying over spilled milk.

"Complaining about that is sort of a worthless exercise at this point," he 
said. "The PS3 is what it is and it's not going to change.

http://kotaku.com/5031985/rage-and-ids-lovehate-relationship-with-the-ps3

since the ***royalty charge per disc*** is actually surprisingly high, id 
hopes that Microsoft will make a concession for Rage, or else the company 
may actually have to sacrifice texture and asset quality to get the game to 
fit on fewer than THREE discs. The cost of the 3rd DVD alone would cost 
millions of dollars with the current royalty rate, says John Carmack.

When comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS3, the more spacious Blu-ray format is 
the only thing Carmack likes more about Sony's console. ***Everything else 
is better on the 360, he says.***

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/%5Bprimary-term%5D/quakecon_08_no_digital_distribution_rage_or_doom_4_rage_will_be_multiple_dvds_xbox_360[/quote]
The issue with the PS3 architexture is simply that its power is really hard to really harness and access. Its not dev friendly, which is why a lot of devs prefer 360 development, and why a lot of ports to PS3 aren't as well done, the devs don't want to spend extra time just to port a game to PS3.
I always said MS would be in trouble for not going with Blu-Ray. The royalties shit is very MS. Same thing with no mods on 360 UT3, and all that shit.
[quote=Megido]At the moment this is hotsauce, but if i know shit about ID it won't release for another 2 years and at that time...will it still look hot? These pics look shopped to me though.[/quote]
When will people learn? Its PC, they don't need to touch up much, if at all. Look at Crysis. They didn't have to do anything. PCs these days are capable of running this sort of shit.

pythxvii

Commented on 2008-08-03 00:17:34 In reply to Corellianrogue

Posted by Corellianrogue

I didn't know that about the royalty on discs. I think that's retarded! Come on Microsoft, drop that extra royalty crap, developers should be able to use as many discs as they need to without having to worry about extra costs other than the tiny extra manufacturing cost per disc. By the way, to the person who said that Microsoft should have used higher definition optical discs for the Xbox360, don't be stupid, no high definition optical disc format was even fully completed when the Xbox360 came out! The reason the PS3 has Blu-Ray has got nothing to do with games, they just used the PS3 as a trojan horse to help win the HD movie format war. (Unfortunately it did win, despite HD DVD being better. If you don't think it's better then just look at the standalone technology (PS3 doesn't count as there's way more hardware in it than just a Blu-Ray player) and you'll see that HD DVD was fully featured from day 1 whereas it took almost 2 years for a Blu-Ray (standalone) player to be produced that could do what HD DVD does.)

Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.

In reply to

[quote=Corellianrogue]I didn't know that about the royalty on discs. I think that's retarded! Come on Microsoft, drop that extra royalty crap, developers should be able to use as many discs as they need to without having to worry about extra costs other than the tiny extra manufacturing cost per disc. By the way, to the person who said that Microsoft should have used higher definition optical discs for the Xbox360, don't be stupid, no high definition optical disc format was even fully completed when the Xbox360 came out! The reason the PS3 has Blu-Ray has got nothing to do with games, they just used the PS3 as a trojan horse to help win the HD movie format war. (Unfortunately it did win, despite HD DVD being better. If you don't think it's better then just look at the standalone technology (PS3 doesn't count as there's way more hardware in it than just a Blu-Ray player) and you'll see that HD DVD was fully featured from day 1 whereas it took almost 2 years for a Blu-Ray (standalone) player to be produced that could do what HD DVD does.)[/quote]
Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.

pythxvii

Commented on 2008-08-03 00:20:43 In reply to Baleur

Posted by Baleur

This is an example of Depth of Field and Bloom and HDR done right :)

Been there, done that

In reply to

sarias

Commented on 2008-08-03 01:09:43

@Corellianrogue
Agree with the point about hd-dvd and royalties per disc, they should be reasonable. Blu-ray wasn't ready for market. But that's history now :(

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2008-08-03 01:34:52 In reply to pythxvii

Posted by pythxvii

Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.

The only reason why blue ray won the over HD DVD was due to the ps3 alone. The majority of blue ray owners are ofcourse ps3 owners..standalone blue ray player sales would be but a blimp on the number of those overall blueray owners that are buying the movies on that format. Had the 360 shipped with hd-dvd then ofcourse there would of been more in that format "war" as you would have to take into account that every one of those 360 owners would be investing in hd dvds. Ofcourse it didnt, and they're not...because when given the option people are perfectly happy to settle for dvd rather than rebuild their movie collection again in a format that shows no huge leap in quality like dvd did over vhs.

Also disc swapping is nothing new, it doesnt harm a game.. its abit "unconvienient" like you said.. but no more so than the negatives blue ray has been offering gamers too...such as waiting for game installs, losing hard drive space, and in the case of mgs having to sit through several 5minute loading screens between certain chapters in space of the 20seconds it would take you to place in another disc.

In reply to

[quote=pythxvii]
Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.[/quote]

The only reason why blue ray won the over HD DVD was due to the ps3 alone. The majority of blue ray owners are ofcourse ps3 owners..standalone blue ray player sales would be but a blimp on the number of those overall blueray owners that are buying the movies on that format. Had the 360 shipped with hd-dvd then ofcourse there would of been more in that format "war" as you would have to take into account that every one of those 360 owners would be investing in hd dvds. Ofcourse it didnt, and they're not...because when given the option people are perfectly happy to settle for dvd rather than rebuild their movie collection again in a format that shows no huge leap in quality like dvd did over vhs.

Also disc swapping is nothing new, it doesnt harm a game.. its abit "unconvienient" like you said.. but no more so than the negatives blue ray has been offering gamers too...such as waiting for game installs, losing hard drive space, and in the case of mgs having to sit through several 5minute loading screens between certain chapters in space of the 20seconds it would take you to place in another disc.

BiGBoSSMK23

Commented on 2008-08-03 02:38:12 In reply to Majinme

Posted by Majinme

Doesn't look that good. Textures aren't great and skin/clothes don't come over as such. Probably bullshots too.

A real critic here, ladies and gents. [/sarcasm]

In reply to

Corellianrogue

Commented on 2008-08-03 02:38:38 In reply to pythxvii

Posted by pythxvii

Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.

Actually I do have Blu-Ray now, via a cheap but powerful enough PC (2.4Ghz Quad Core processor and ATI HD 2400 Pro graphics card) and an LG HD DVD/Blu-Ray combo drive that only cost £87 and the whole thing worked out less than buying 2 profile 2.0 Blu-Ray players which you need for region-freeness. (Well, you'd actually need 3 if you wanted Region C but Region C isn't really needed as it's mainly Russia and China not including Hong Kong.) HD DVD was technically superior as it had more interactive features, a secondary video processor and was web enabled with built-in storage from day 1 whereas Blu-Ray didn't get profile 1.1 (standalone) players with secondary video processors until last October and they've only just made profile 2.0 (standalone) players that are web enabled and have built-in storage the last couple of months. Also HD DVD was going to get 51GB discs, they had been finalised, authorised by the HD DVD PRG, put in the HD DVD spec and were probably going to be launched at the CES in January if HD DVD's presentation hadn't been cancelled due to Warner Brothers going Blu-Ray exclusive after being payed off. (Thought to be by Sony.) Also it's funny that you said HD DVD were shit right from the start since until Casino Royale came out in (March I think) 2007 ALL Blu-Rays were only 25GB (because 50GB discs were too hard to make successfully and too expensive, they're still more expensive to make than HD DVDs) and most if not all used MPEG-2 instead of the new advanced codecs VC-1 and AVC and loads of Blu-Rays looked pretty bad from 2006 until early 2007. (Dracula actually looks WORSE than the DVD! Not Blu-Ray's fault of course, although it was Sony's fault just like the poor Blu-Ray of The Fifth Element which Sony had to re-do because of all the complaints from the fans.) Even up until HD DVD was discontinued many HD DVD versions of multi-format movies looked better than the Blu-Ray versions and off the top of my head I can only think of Face/Off looking better on Blu-Ray. Also HD DVDs were consistently held up as reference quality from King Kong (although I hate the fact it isn't the extended edition and has less extras than the DVD version, but then there are many Blu-Rays with the same problems like Die Hard 4 and The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe) to Hot Fuzz to Transformers to one of the final releases Beowulf. (Well, there are still the odd few HD DVD releases left.) The upside of HD DVD being discontinued is that I've now got over 120 HD DVDs thanks to all the firesales! :D (I only had 20 HD DVDs before it was discontinued as I only got 1 or 2 a month previously.)

In reply to

[quote=pythxvii]
Jesus, the only thing HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray was it being SLIGHTLY faster. Blu-Ray holds like 2 times as much, and is far better quality. HD-DVD lost because it was the lesser of the two. Your just upset that you don't get Blu-Ray. It may have takin more time, but that usually means higher quality. I'd rather wait for a DVD to Blu-ray transition, as DVD is new enough that we can live with it a bit longer, then get shit HD-DVD rigth at the start. Blu-Ray won, end of story. And Blu-ray is a godsend for Devs who want to have a massive game. More content. Look at this, this is a perfect example of why Blu-ray works better. 3 disks? Bit unconvienient. I prefer it to compression, but still, I'd much rather have the Blu-ray. And will if they end up gong for compression on the 360 version.[/quote]

Actually I do have Blu-Ray now, via a cheap but powerful enough PC (2.4Ghz Quad Core processor and ATI HD 2400 Pro graphics card) and an LG HD DVD/Blu-Ray combo drive that only cost £87 and the whole thing worked out less than buying 2 profile 2.0 Blu-Ray players which you need for region-freeness. (Well, you'd actually need 3 if you wanted Region C but Region C isn't really needed as it's mainly Russia and China not including Hong Kong.) HD DVD was technically superior as it had more interactive features, a secondary video processor and was web enabled with built-in storage from day 1 whereas Blu-Ray didn't get profile 1.1 (standalone) players with secondary video processors until last October and they've only just made profile 2.0 (standalone) players that are web enabled and have built-in storage the last couple of months. Also HD DVD was going to get 51GB discs, they had been finalised, authorised by the HD DVD PRG, put in the HD DVD spec and were probably going to be launched at the CES in January if HD DVD's presentation hadn't been cancelled due to Warner Brothers going Blu-Ray exclusive after being payed off. (Thought to be by Sony.) Also it's funny that you said HD DVD were shit right from the start since until Casino Royale came out in (March I think) 2007 ALL Blu-Rays were only 25GB (because 50GB discs were too hard to make successfully and too expensive, they're still more expensive to make than HD DVDs) and most if not all used MPEG-2 instead of the new advanced codecs VC-1 and AVC and loads of Blu-Rays looked pretty bad from 2006 until early 2007. (Dracula actually looks WORSE than the DVD! Not Blu-Ray's fault of course, although it was Sony's fault just like the poor Blu-Ray of The Fifth Element which Sony had to re-do because of all the complaints from the fans.) Even up until HD DVD was discontinued many HD DVD versions of multi-format movies looked better than the Blu-Ray versions and off the top of my head I can only think of Face/Off looking better on Blu-Ray. Also HD DVDs were consistently held up as reference quality from King Kong (although I hate the fact it isn't the extended edition and has less extras than the DVD version, but then there are many Blu-Rays with the same problems like Die Hard 4 and The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe) to Hot Fuzz to Transformers to one of the final releases Beowulf. (Well, there are still the odd few HD DVD releases left.) The upside of HD DVD being discontinued is that I've now got over 120 HD DVDs thanks to all the firesales! :D (I only had 20 HD DVDs before it was discontinued as I only got 1 or 2 a month previously.)

Corellianrogue

Commented on 2008-08-03 02:56:01

Anyway, talking about this game, if it's really coming out in 2011 as someone said then it's probably irrelevant how it would look on the Xbox360 as it'll probably come out on the Xbox720, lol!

In reply to

BiGBoSSMK23

Commented on 2008-08-03 03:05:31 In reply to Corellianrogue

Posted by Corellianrogue

Actually I do have Blu-Ray now, via a cheap but powerful enough PC (2.4Ghz Quad Core processor and ATI HD 2400 Pro graphics card) and an LG HD DVD/Blu-Ray combo drive that only cost £87 and the whole thing worked out less than buying 2 profile 2.0 Blu-Ray players which you need for region-freeness. (Well, you'd actually need 3 if you wanted Region C but Region C isn't really needed as it's mainly Russia and China not including Hong Kong.) HD DVD was technically superior as it had more interactive features, a secondary video processor and was web enabled with built-in storage from day 1 whereas Blu-Ray didn't get profile 1.1 (standalone) players with secondary video processors until last October and they've only just made profile 2.0 (standalone) players that are web enabled and have built-in storage the last couple of months. Also HD DVD was going to get 51GB discs, they had been finalised, authorised by the HD DVD PRG, put in the HD DVD spec and were probably going to be launched at the CES in January if HD DVD's presentation hadn't been cancelled due to Warner Brothers going Blu-Ray exclusive after being payed off. (Thought to be by Sony.) Also it's funny that you said HD DVD were shit right from the start since until Casino Royale came out in (March I think) 2007 ALL Blu-Rays were only 25GB (because 50GB discs were too hard to make successfully and too expensive, they're still more expensive to make than HD DVDs) and most if not all used MPEG-2 instead of the new advanced codecs VC-1 and AVC and loads of Blu-Rays looked pretty bad from 2006 until early 2007. (Dracula actually looks WORSE than the DVD! Not Blu-Ray's fault of course, although it was Sony's fault just like the poor Blu-Ray of The Fifth Element which Sony had to re-do because of all the complaints from the fans.) Even up until HD DVD was discontinued many HD DVD versions of multi-format movies looked better than the Blu-Ray versions and off the top of my head I can only think of Face/Off looking better on Blu-Ray. Also HD DVDs were consistently held up as reference quality from King Kong (although I hate the fact it isn't the extended edition and has less extras than the DVD version, but then there are many Blu-Rays with the same problems like Die Hard 4 and The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe) to Hot Fuzz to Transformers to one of the final releases Beowulf. (Well, there are still the odd few HD DVD releases left.) The upside of HD DVD being discontinued is that I've now got over 120 HD DVDs thanks to all the firesales! :D (I only had 20 HD DVDs before it was discontinued as I only got 1 or 2 a month previously.)

Bet you ate your boxers when HDDVD hoisted the white flag. Eh?

All you sore HD DVD hardcores need to suck it up and let it go. Even Michael Bay expressed his preference of BR over HDDVD. And he's a known videophile with years of experience so....

The reality here is that, Blu-Ray opens a lot doors for developers on the PS3 and it IS true that it will amount to better quality games in the near future.

But Carmack seriously needs to STFU already. I'm sick of his bitching about the PS3's architecture. If he hates working on it so much then why the f*ck is he bringing his game over to the PS3? Go sell your engine elsewhere, dammit. It's not like anyone is gonna use it on the PS3 after all his shitalking.

Let him explain why PS3 exclusives are the best looking console games. And then Let's see how this "Rage" stands up against the likes of Killzone 2 and Resistance 2.

In reply to

[quote=Corellianrogue]

Actually I do have Blu-Ray now, via a cheap but powerful enough PC (2.4Ghz Quad Core processor and ATI HD 2400 Pro graphics card) and an LG HD DVD/Blu-Ray combo drive that only cost £87 and the whole thing worked out less than buying 2 profile 2.0 Blu-Ray players which you need for region-freeness. (Well, you'd actually need 3 if you wanted Region C but Region C isn't really needed as it's mainly Russia and China not including Hong Kong.) HD DVD was technically superior as it had more interactive features, a secondary video processor and was web enabled with built-in storage from day 1 whereas Blu-Ray didn't get profile 1.1 (standalone) players with secondary video processors until last October and they've only just made profile 2.0 (standalone) players that are web enabled and have built-in storage the last couple of months. Also HD DVD was going to get 51GB discs, they had been finalised, authorised by the HD DVD PRG, put in the HD DVD spec and were probably going to be launched at the CES in January if HD DVD's presentation hadn't been cancelled due to Warner Brothers going Blu-Ray exclusive after being payed off. (Thought to be by Sony.) Also it's funny that you said HD DVD were shit right from the start since until Casino Royale came out in (March I think) 2007 ALL Blu-Rays were only 25GB (because 50GB discs were too hard to make successfully and too expensive, they're still more expensive to make than HD DVDs) and most if not all used MPEG-2 instead of the new advanced codecs VC-1 and AVC and loads of Blu-Rays looked pretty bad from 2006 until early 2007. (Dracula actually looks WORSE than the DVD! Not Blu-Ray's fault of course, although it was Sony's fault just like the poor Blu-Ray of The Fifth Element which Sony had to re-do because of all the complaints from the fans.) Even up until HD DVD was discontinued many HD DVD versions of multi-format movies looked better than the Blu-Ray versions and off the top of my head I can only think of Face/Off looking better on Blu-Ray. Also HD DVDs were consistently held up as reference quality from King Kong (although I hate the fact it isn't the extended edition and has less extras than the DVD version, but then there are many Blu-Rays with the same problems like Die Hard 4 and The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe) to Hot Fuzz to Transformers to one of the final releases Beowulf. (Well, there are still the odd few HD DVD releases left.) The upside of HD DVD being discontinued is that I've now got over 120 HD DVDs thanks to all the firesales! :D (I only had 20 HD DVDs before it was discontinued as I only got 1 or 2 a month previously.)[/quote]

Bet you ate your boxers when HDDVD hoisted the white flag. Eh?

All you sore HD DVD hardcores need to suck it up and let it go. Even Michael Bay expressed his preference of BR over HDDVD. And he's a known videophile with years of experience so...o_o.

The reality here is that, Blu-Ray opens a lot doors for developers on the PS3 and it IS true that it will amount to better quality games in the near future.

But Carmack seriously needs to STFU already. I'm sick of his bitching about the PS3's architecture. If he hates working on it so much then why the f*ck is he bringing his game over to the PS3? Go sell your engine elsewhere, dammit. It's not like anyone is gonna use it on the PS3 after all his shitalking.

Let him explain why PS3 exclusives are the best looking console games. And then Let's see how this "Rage" stands up against the likes of Killzone 2 and Resistance 2.

Corellianrogue

Commented on 2008-08-03 03:32:49 In reply to BiGBoSSMK23

Posted by BiGBoSSMK23

Bet you ate your boxers when HDDVD hoisted the white flag. Eh?

All you sore HD DVD hardcores need to suck it up and let it go. Even Michael Bay expressed his preference of BR over HDDVD. And he's a known videophile with years of experience so....

The reality here is that, Blu-Ray opens a lot doors for developers on the PS3 and it IS true that it will amount to better quality games in the near future.

But Carmack seriously needs to STFU already. I'm sick of his bitching about the PS3's architecture. If he hates working on it so much then why the f*ck is he bringing his game over to the PS3? Go sell your engine elsewhere, dammit. It's not like anyone is gonna use it on the PS3 after all his shitalking.

Let him explain why PS3 exclusives are the best looking console games. And then Let's see how this "Rage" stands up against the likes of Killzone 2 and Resistance 2.

LMAO! Michael Bay's comments mean absolutely nothing. If you want to use him as an example then you'd have to also accept him saying he drank the "Blu Kool-Aid" and that actually HD DVD is better. :p Blu-Ray has nothing to do with the quality of games. Wonder Boy 3: The Dragon's Trap is one of the best games ever made and that's on a cartridge that's at max 4 megaBITS. (I've forgotten the exact size, it was either 1Mb, 2Mb or 4Mb.) By the way, the future of Blu-Ray as a movie format is looking pretty shakey. If it wasn't then why is Sony selling downloadable HD movies via the PS3 for half the price of Blu-Rays??! (I don't want downloads to take over by the way as I prefer owning something physical. I'm hoping that moviecards will come along soon. Preferably with 3D and future HDTV capabilities! :D)

In reply to

[quote=BiGBoSSMK23]

Bet you ate your boxers when HDDVD hoisted the white flag. Eh?

All you sore HD DVD hardcores need to suck it up and let it go. Even Michael Bay expressed his preference of BR over HDDVD. And he's a known videophile with years of experience so...o_o.

The reality here is that, Blu-Ray opens a lot doors for developers on the PS3 and it IS true that it will amount to better quality games in the near future.

But Carmack seriously needs to STFU already. I'm sick of his bitching about the PS3's architecture. If he hates working on it so much then why the f*ck is he bringing his game over to the PS3? Go sell your engine elsewhere, dammit. It's not like anyone is gonna use it on the PS3 after all his shitalking.

Let him explain why PS3 exclusives are the best looking console games. And then Let's see how this "Rage" stands up against the likes of Killzone 2 and Resistance 2.[/quote]

LMAO! Michael Bay's comments mean absolutely nothing. If you want to use him as an example then you'd have to also accept him saying he drank the "Blu Kool-Aid" and that actually HD DVD is better. :p Blu-Ray has nothing to do with the quality of games. Wonder Boy 3: The Dragon's Trap is one of the best games ever made and that's on a cartridge that's at max 4 megaBITS. (I've forgotten the exact size, it was either 1Mb, 2Mb or 4Mb.) By the way, the future of Blu-Ray as a movie format is looking pretty shakey. If it wasn't then why is Sony selling downloadable HD movies via the PS3 for half the price of Blu-Rays??! (I don't want downloads to take over by the way as I prefer owning something physical. I'm hoping that moviecards will come along soon. Preferably with 3D and future HDTV capabilities! :D)

PlumbDrumb

Commented on 2008-08-03 04:28:58

alright, there is way too much console loving here and too little on topic conversation.

Let's talk about the game.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-08-03 04:38:09 In reply to PlumbDrumb

Posted by PlumbDrumb

alright, there is way too much console loving here and too little on topic conversation.

Let's talk about the game.

b-b-b-but HD-DVD!!!@one

...this game looks awesome. I wonder what the PC performance will be like, considering the promised 60-fps performance across the board on the console version. In theory, the system reqs should be quite reasonable, achieving equal (or better) performance.. and depending on how scalable this game is on older hardware, we might get a good impression of how well id tech 5 will fair in future releases.

I'm excited. Bring on Doom 4!

In reply to