[PC|360|PS3] Rage Review

[DoctorFinger]

Rage Review

Title - Rage
Platform - PC. Also on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3
Developer - Id Software
Publisher - Bethesda
ESRB Rating - M (Mature)
MSRP - $59.95
Editor - Michael "DoctorFinger" Chauvet

What's Hot: Some fun and interesting weapons. Some of the best character animations ever. Great sound design

What's Not: Huge graphical glitches. Bland level design. Mediocre multiplayer. Lackluster driving system. Derivative story and visual design. Too many invisible walls. Archaic save system.

August 2004. That was the release date for Doom 3, the last full-fledged retail product from one of the giants of gaming, Id Software. After more than seven years on the sidelines, Id has returned with Rage, a post-apocalyptic shooter-driving hybrid. Was it worth the wait? In a word: no.

The story of Rage is pretty generic. A century before the start of the game the rogue asteroid Apophis struck the Earth. You were one of several hundred candidates put into stasis and secured in underground Arks, which were scheduled to periodically emerge and help repopulate and re-civilize a devastated surface. You’re the lone survivor of your Ark, and emerge into a world straight out of Mad Max. And I mean straight out of it. Early bandits have (bad) Australian accents, you soon get a razor boomerang weapon and everyone is running around the desert environment in armed and armored vehicles. Unlike Mad Mel, your character never speaks, and you never make any decisions in the story. NPCs move you from mission to mission, faction to faction, all with little sense of an overarching goal. There’s a generically oppressive Authority doing many evil things to the good people who just want to eke out a living in the various Wastelands. Things like humor, subtlety or nuance are conspicuously absent from Rage’s story and presentation.

Punk isn't dead, it just wants to bash your skull in.

From the day it was announced, Rage was supposed to be a graphical wonder. But the PC version I played included a ton of problems. First among them is an absolutely brutal texture pop-in issue. Anytime you move the environment around you turns into a blurry mess. If you stand still for a moment you can see the textures slowly build in around you. And not just when you first load up a level (as with some other games), but every time you move you have texture issues. A patch came out which helped this situation a little, but it’s still a major issue. I don’t have a super-powered gaming rig, but I exceed the recommended specs in every category but processor speed, and even there I’m over the minimum and just a hair under the recommended specs. Even with all that power I had massive issues with the textures, both before and after the patch. Normally I’d just scale back the graphical settings and proceed. Except there are almost no graphical settings to adjust, only toggles for anti-aliasing and GPU Transcode. I also encountered screen tearing and the occasional stutter. Not a great start for the Next Great Graphics Engine. But it’s not all bad. When the textures fill in the environments are pretty, and the character animations - both for NPCs and enemies - are some of the best I’ve ever seen. Enemies leap, crawl and surge across the screen, with each enemy type having their own distinct movements.

About half of the gameplay is what you’d expect from an Id title: point, shoot & ‘splode. The shooting side of the game is solid but rarely exceptional. As you progress you build up a collection of nine weapons, each of which has up to 3 alternate ammo types. This gives you a functionally huge arsenal, ranging from mind-controlling crossbow bolts, to EMP-emitting shotgun shells to the mass-obliterating BFG. You also have gadgets, like healing bandages, decapitating Wingsticks and grenades. Also on the menu are more advanced items like exploding RC cars, remote turrets and sentry bots. All in all you have a zillion ways to dispatch the enemy and you’ll find proper occasions to use all of them. The rest of the game is split between RPG-like town interactions and driving. The driving is, all told, pretty dull. You earn better vehicles as the game progresses, and the vehicles themselves can be upgraded with Race Tickets to make them more powerful. But the driving portion of the game is just bland. Combat is all done, by necessity, with auto-targeting so if the enemy is anywhere in front of you, they’re almost certainly going to get hit. Vehicles have their own gadgets, things like shields, hover turrets and mines, but most of them are pretty useless. The vehicles are just a bit too loose to make the racing all that much fun, and outside of the few I had to do, I didn’t go back for the optional races very often.

"You could say they're [puts on shades] riding dirty!"

While the driving is forgettable, the on-foot combat is mostly satisfying. Unfortunately you’re doing that combat in some pretty underwhelming levels. Dungeons are almost all completely linear, with the few exceptions providing the best experiences. At first the levels seem like they should be chock full of secret passages and alternate paths, but then you encounter one of my pet peeves: invisible walls. What in other games would be an alternate route or hidden cache is instead just a bit of impassible decor; the low wall which you can easily clear earlier in the level may as well be a mile high wall of steel. I hate this. With a passion. If a route looks like it’s navigable, it should be navigable. If it’s blocked it should look blocked. Showing you a path which you cannot take is just poor design. As is the antiquated save system, which only auto-saves when entering or exiting a dungeon or town, requiring you to constantly save manually. In 2011 there’s no excuse for such a stupid save system.

Rage has a decent amount of length - my final playthrough clocked in at about 13 hours - but too many of the optional missions were just reverse replays of previous dungeons. There are a handful of mini games to keep you occupied, but they’re minor distractions at best. It bosses are also few in number and mostly forgettable. There's a fun battle against a giant mutant near the mid point of the game, but really nothing after that. The game actually ends without a real boss battle, just a long wave of moderately tough enemies whom you'd already dispatched in droves. No boss battles is fine in a modern combat shooter like Call of Duty or Battlefield, but in something as outlandish as Rage I want big, complex boss battles.

Boss fight against a Kraken

It’s an Id game, so maybe I’m being too tough on the single player, when we all know multiplayer is where it’s at. Sorry, no dice. There are two multiplayer modes: a 2 person co-op mode where you replay missions from the campaign, and a competitive race mode. The races can include battle races, so there is an element of (potentially) shooting your friends, but it’s the mediocre race mode I already mentioned, so why bother? Co-op is essentially the same levels you get in the campaign, just with a partner. Having a second player adds a little bit of strategy to the mix, but the levels are so linear you rarely ever get to do things like flanking maneuvers.

The one element where Rage shines without reservation is the audio. Great voice acting, rich environmental sound and powerful weapon reports make for a great auditory experience.

Sights to be seen in the city

As much as Id may not want it, Rage has to be compared to some of it’s peers in the post-apocalyptic shooter genre. Games like Fallout, Borderlands, Metro 2033 and STALKER all do a better job of bringing the fictional world to life while also giving the player interesting game mechanics.

Score: (3 out of 5 Cogs)


Michael says, “After playing through Rage I feel...nothing. I don’t love it, I don’t hate it. It’s just...there. Id tries nothing particularly new or innovative, and the resulting game is about as interesting as dry white toast. The graphical issues are completely unacceptable for a game touted as much for it’s shiny new engine as for anything else. Outside of those graphical issues - which are apparently not present in any significant form on the console versions - there’s nothing terrible about Rage, but at the same time there’s nothing particularly great about it either.”

[Entropy]

Granted I haven't beaten the game but giving it a 60% is a travesty.

Based off of my current progress I would give the game an 80%.

[DoctorFinger]

What does it do to make it anything above average?

[KidCactus]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

I feel...nothing. I don’t love it, I don’t hate it. It’s just...there.

This is more or less exactly how I feel too. It's a solid game, but it doesn't really do anything for me. You want me to do this mission? Sure, I'll do it, what do I get in return? Oh, nothing really, I just get to continue playing the next mission? Ok, fine. And so on.

And why the hell am I picking up random paint buckets? Yeah I know I can sell it, but picking up loot that is just waiting to be converted to money and can't be used, why not just give me the cash instead?

[bapenguin]

I feel...nothing. I don’t love it, I don’t hate it. It’s just...there.

You nailed it Doc. I wanted to like this game so much but it just kept falling short.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Granted I haven't beaten the game but giving it a 60% is a travesty.

Hah. Just you wait, you might consider 60% too high.

6/10 is exactly what I'd give it. I returned it to Gamefly a couple days ago, and I've already forgotten large swaths of it. I'll remember how much the ending pissed me off for a very long time though.

[Uatu]

I didn't even bother with it. There was nothing in any of the previews that caught my attention on any level. I also like how Carmack tried to say the reason it sucked was because of parallel development over multiple platforms.

No dude, it sucks because you traded imaginative gameplay and design to put resources into another uber-engine no one will use.

[Entropy]

Where did Carmack go on record as saying the game "sucked"?

[Ghostbear]

I believe Carmack was referring to why the PC version had (has) so many problems.

[Entropy]

Consider my post as less of a question and more of a snare for trollish hyperbole.

[Deadend]

Originally Posted by Ghostbear

I believe Carmack was referring to why the PC version had (has) so many problems.

It kinda made go BULLSHIT when I heard that, as it doesn't feel like a 360 first game either. The way everything moves and aiming works do not feel "designed for your sticks" like Call of Duty/Gears/Halo/Uncharted/Space Marine do. The crosshairs are jumpy and don't like to stick to targets. So if the PC version isn't great because of the consoles, then why aren't the console versions feeling optimized either.

I think 3 Cogs is fine, as I don't like to do the whole percentile scale. As I think of 3 as a C grade game.

Rage in a nutshell to me is "Yeah, that is a game, it involves shooting things and driving." At best it's a pretty game, at worst the textures don't load and the graphics match the somewhat competent but dated gameplay. Most of the time, it's grey and brown and plays fairly bland aside from having to unload a full magazine from an assault rifle into a guy to kill him later on in the game.

If not for the Id name and tech attached to Rage, no one would be paying attention to it.

[Sense Field]

I must say...I was surprised when I got to the end of the review and saw 3 cogs...sounded like 2 cogs to me as I was reading. I was going to go out and get this but I'm glad that I read both your and BA's review. I'll stick with Gears3 for now.

[SonofSeth]

I don't know, 60 does feel kinda low, because when it works, it really works. True it won't change any paradigm, but when did we start to take against a game if it doesn't revolutionize the genre.

Shooting is competent, world is beautiful despite it's browness and grayness, sound design is sublime and characters for what they are, are great fun. AI is most fun I ever had with shooting guys.

Level design does get kind of tedious and textures are beyond ugly up close, but 60, it doesn't feel like a 60.

Despite it's problems, this engines has enormous potential and I can't wait for Rage 2 to see what they do with it.

Originally Posted by Deadend

If not for the Id name and tech attached to Rage, no one would be paying attention to it.

Same works the other way around, if it wasn't id, but some plucky upstart, everyone would be falling over themselves praising what they acomplished on the consoles at 60 frames per second, how finally there is shooter that stayed true to the spirit of the original shooter and yet managed to infuse it with RPG elements that add to gameplay without taking away from the fun of shooting guys, that is not making you gimped in first person, just because you didn't put enough points into dexterity.

It will be fun to see how this game is remembered when enough time passes and everyone gets over themselves and their expectations.

But 60, that's just hating.


(also, Crazy Joe)

[Ghostbear]

I'm confused, is 3 out of 5 bad? Doesn't sound bad to me.

[itchyeyes]

Maybe it's because I'm only about 3-4 hours into it, but I'm really enjoying it so far. Sure it's not quite as open as something like Fallout or Borderlands, but the shooting mechanics are significantly better, and I'm loving the 60fps. I'd practically forgotten what a frame rate like that felt like.

For me, I think it walks a nice middle ground between a pure A to B shooter like GoW or Call of Duty, and something like Borderlands that compromises the mechanics for a more open world.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Ghostbear

I'm confused, is 3 out of 5 bad? Doesn't sound bad to me.

That's a 60%...imagine you're in school and the teacher gives you a D on your test...are you gonna be happy or upset? I for one would be on the verge of tears.

For me that's far below average...borderline F which might as well stand for failure.

Rage for me is a good game...not exceptional...not crap....kind of in the middle...I'd give it a 75-80%. For me that says "Good".

It's possible that your scoring is simply skewed lower...what would help is to see a cross section of your reviews.

Originally Posted by SonofSeth

I don't know, 60 does feel kinda low, because when it works, it really works. True it won't change any paradigm, but when did we start to take against a game if it doesn't revolutionize the genre.

Shooting is competent, world is beautiful despite it's browness and grayness, sound design is sublime and characters for what they are, are great fun. AI is most fun I ever had with shooting guys.

Level design does get kind of tedious and textures are beyond ugly up close, but 60, it doesn't feel like a 60.

Despite it's problems, this engines has enormous potential and I can't wait for Rage 2 to see what they do with it.



Same works the other way around, if it wasn't id, but some plucky upstart, everyone would be falling over themselves praising what they acomplished on the consoles at 60 frames per second, how finally there is shooter that stayed true to the spirit of the original shooter and yet managed to infuse it with RPG elements that add to gameplay without taking away from the fun of shooting guys, that is not making you gimped in first person, just because you didn't put enough points into dexterity.

It will be fun to see how this game is remembered when enough time passes and everyone gets over themselves and their expectations.

But 60, that's just hating.


(also, Crazy Joe)

I agree with 100% of what you're saying...I'll use you as my posting proxy

[Ghostbear]

By your logic, we should just disregard a large portion of our scoring system. Which would in turn make just about everything a 4/5.

kind of in the middle

You mean like how 3/5 would be over the middle? This isn't a school paper.

We need to be able to utilize the entire spectrum of our review numbers or they quickly become meaningless. Nowhere does Doc caution against the game. In fact he echoes your not exceptional/not crap ideas.

The problem is that too many people think that anything below an 80% is bad. That is fundamentally not the case.

Look at it this way, with a 5 point system :
1=terrible, scorch the very earth it resides on
2=substandard, there may be niche fans that will enjoy this
3=average, not great, not terrible, but a lot to enjoy
4=pretty great, a fine example of the genre
5=amazing, this game should be used as a benchmark for further genre examples.

[biosc1]

Originally Posted by Ghostbear

Look at it this way, with a 5 point system :
1=terrible, scorch the very earth it resides on
2=substandard, there may be niche fans that will enjoy this
3=average, not great, not terrible, but a lot to enjoy
4=pretty great, a fine example of the genre
5=amazing, this game should be used as a benchmark for further genre examples.

To further help, here are examples of games and their appropriate ratings:

5 - TF2
4 - Not TF2
3 - Not TF2
2 - Not TF2
1 - Not TF2

[NotJeff]

Boardgamegeek uses this scale to encourage users to use the whole ranking space when reviewing or rating boardgames. I like this scale:

10 - Outstanding. Always want to play and expect this will never change.
9 - Excellent game. Always want to play it.
8 - Very good game. I like to play. Probably I'll suggest it and will never turn down a game.
7 - Good game, usually willing to play.
6 - Ok game, some fun or challenge at least, will play sporadically if in the right mood.
5 - Average game, slightly boring, take it or leave it.
4 - Not so good, it doesn't get me but could be talked into it on occasion.
3 - Likely won't play this again although could be convinced. Bad.
2 - Extremely annoying game, won't play this ever again.
1 - Defies description of a game. You won't catch me dead playing this. Clearly broken.

I imagine a 3/5 in videogames to mean something to the tune of "This isn't a great game but I'm willing to complete a playthrough of it if I'm in the mood for the genre."

[SonofSeth]

Originally Posted by Ghostbear

3=average, not great, not terrible, but a lot to enjoy
4=pretty great, a fine example of the genre
5=amazing, this game should be used as a benchmark for further genre examples.

OK, so we can all agree it isn't a 5 on this scale for reasons discussed. 4 and 3 though, it get's really unclear.

Average, not great, not terrible, but a lot to enjoy is, well you can say that about any game without saying anything about it really. This to me sounds like a game, it has mechanics and they function, graphics are average, no art style, just graphics and it comes in a box. If you enjoy this genre, you can find enjoyment in this game. I strongly disagree this description is suitable for Rage.

Pretty great, fine example of the genre is an OK game, isn't it. It does what it does well, it's not revolutionary, but gets the job done. Has some diversity to it's mechanics to make it more than a one trick pony, it's easy on the eyes and has at least one or two areas it does above average. To me this sounds like Rage.


Only truly average part of Rage is the driving game, it works, has some physics but nothing deep, even some customization and shooting. Not for a driving fan, not for a shooting fan, but it's fun for a while.

Everything else has an extra layer of effort, an extra touch to it. It is one of the better shooters, guns feel good and variety in ammo ads a lot, a lot more than many shooters available. Even though guns are as seen before, ammo and items add few layers of depth that many great shooters lack. Also, sound work is amazing, maybe it's just my setup, but when I use my shotgun, or put a fatboy in my revolver and let it rip, it's something else.

Levels may be average in their design, but level of detail and tiny touches put into every little corner of the world is just staggering.

AI is unlike any AI I have ever encountered in any other shooter I have played, the way they move and react, going from melee to ranged and acting accordingly is some great work on AI and on scripting.

NPCs all have a distinct style and character (at least the story ones), also very noticeable custom animations that coupled with very distinct visual style go far and beyond what your random flavor of the month shooter offers. Even the little touches, like random townsfolk stopping when they pass you on the street to comment on something you'we done, or a race you'we won. You can't with a straight face tell me, all of that is just average.


So yeah, I'm very comfortable in my claim that this score does not reflect the value of this game.