Rage Review

[SyphonX]

To be fair, you can indeed use console commands and adjust the FOV. There are a pile of console commands, but the list is long and obscure.

That doesn't fix the awful plot, or repetitive play, or the extremely static and linear world, or the awful awful textures. I do like that the technology can put a bunch of unique textures in, instead of copying (thats what 'megatextures' was designed for). But it doesn't stop the fact that nearly every texture looks like ass from 1998, the streaming of which couldn't be any more horrendous.

I'm trying to have fun in this game, and it has it's moments. It's just so.. shallow and uninspired. No character development and no interactive world. I played at least 400 combined hours of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and that scratched 95% of my itch in this setting.

 

[dakkster]

Sorry, lost me at "nucular".

Yeah I heard that and just stopped. When people say it like that it drives me insane.
Listing to people say it like that almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

Same here, I just can't stand it.

As for the game, I think this has some real potential to be a more storydriven and serious Borderlands that's better at pretty much everything. Can't wait to see how Carmack's new magic looks on my TV.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I know I'm not the only one (I am NEVER the only one) who thinks the guy in the review sounds teriffffffffffically bored.
I've been playing RAGE, and I just got past the JK Stiles part. The game is really boring until you get the shotgun. It all goes uphill once you get the shotgun.
However, one thing that REALLY bothers me is how linear it all is. You can't do anything that Id didn't expect you to do, and they made Quake, a game in which people are still figuring out ways to beat it by shooting rockets at their own feet and launching themselves in the air. It's all confined to one single straight line, while Id games used to have maps like this:

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

The difference between World War II and a post-apocalyptic setting is that, in World War II, you're more or less restricted to, well, World War II. On the other hand, the post-apocalypse can take any number of forms, and is restricted only by the imagination. The problem these days is that there doesn't seem to be any room in the imaginations of developers for anything other than dirt brown-coloured shootery settings, with a few notable exceptions. Take, for instance, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. It's set in a post-apocalyptic landscape but, given only a cursory glance at a few screen shots, and the current perception of what defines a post-apocalyptic world, you'd never know it. While not redefining the context, it at least shows a modicum of imagination.

I love the idea of the post-apocalypse in general; what I hate is that they all look exactly the same, when there's absolutely no need. We've already seen this wasteland before, in 30 or so other games; it's just being lazy.

While I had no problems with the brown, dead wastelands of Fallout, I agree with you for Rage because it isn't a nuclear apocalypse like Fallout. It's a relatively natural apocalypse (the meteor strike thing).

Why does the world have to be dead and brown from a meteor strike? Why would that kill off all plants like radiation would? It doesn't make any sense! If they wanted a dead wasteland, why not stick to the nuclear setting?

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Sounds like another Brink judging from other, less generous reviewers.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

What is with the inappropriate suspension of Stall for giving his opinion on the article? there was nothing there that broke any of the forum rules from what I know?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Its pretty decent unless you are playing the PC version which dose not work for most.......

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

The difference between World War II and a post-apocalyptic setting is that, in World War II, you're more or less restricted to, well, World War II. On the other hand, the post-apocalypse can take any number of forms, and is restricted only by the imagination. The problem these days is that there doesn't seem to be any room in the imaginations of developers for anything other than dirt brown-coloured shootery settings, with a few notable exceptions. Take, for instance, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. It's set in a post-apocalyptic landscape but, given only a cursory glance at a few screen shots, and the current perception of what defines a post-apocalyptic world, you'd never know it. While not redefining the context, it at least shows a modicum of imagination.

I love the idea of the post-apocalypse in general; what I hate is that they all look exactly the same, when there's absolutely no need. We've already seen this wasteland before, in 30 or so other games; it's just being lazy.

While I had no problems with the brown, dead wastelands of Fallout, I agree with you for Rage because it isn't a nuclear apocalypse like Fallout. It's a relatively natural apocalypse (the meteor strike thing).

Why does the world have to be dead and brown from a meteor strike? Why would that kill off all plants like radiation would? It doesn't make any sense! If they wanted a dead wasteland, why not stick to the nuclear setting?

Uh... I'm pretty sure an asteroid would do a great deal more damage to the planet than a nuclear weapon of any type would, it would also kick a lot of dust in the air. You know like.... kill all the dinosaurs and make an ice age? Yeah that kind of makes nukes look like a little *****.

You are right that the Yucatan meteor strike killed all the dinosaurs and helped to usher in an ice age.

But let me ask you something: Did it permanently kill off all plant life on the planet? As in forever? As in there are no trees and animal life around us RIGHT NOW, because they all died in the KT impact?

No? Well Logic FAIL on your part buddy....

 

[Still Life]

The difference between World War II and a post-apocalyptic setting is that, in World War II, you're more or less restricted to, well, World War II. On the other hand, the post-apocalypse can take any number of forms, and is restricted only by the imagination. The problem these days is that there doesn't seem to be any room in the imaginations of developers for anything other than dirt brown-coloured shootery settings, with a few notable exceptions. Take, for instance, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. It's set in a post-apocalyptic landscape but, given only a cursory glance at a few screen shots, and the current perception of what defines a post-apocalyptic world, you'd never know it. While not redefining the context, it at least shows a modicum of imagination.

I love the idea of the post-apocalypse in general; what I hate is that they all look exactly the same, when there's absolutely no need. We've already seen this wasteland before, in 30 or so other games; it's just being lazy.

While I had no problems with the brown, dead wastelands of Fallout, I agree with you for Rage because it isn't a nuclear apocalypse like Fallout. It's a relatively natural apocalypse (the meteor strike thing).

Why does the world have to be dead and brown from a meteor strike? Why would that kill off all plants like radiation would? It doesn't make any sense! If they wanted a dead wasteland, why not stick to the nuclear setting?

Uh... I'm pretty sure an asteroid would do a great deal more damage to the planet than a nuclear weapon of any type would, it would also kick a lot of dust in the air. You know like.... kill all the dinosaurs and make an ice age? Yeah that kind of makes nukes look like a little *****.

You are right that the Yucatan meteor strike killed all the dinosaurs and helped to usher in an ice age.

But let me ask you something: Did it permanently kill off all plant life on the planet? As in forever? As in there are no trees and animal life around us RIGHT NOW, because they all died in the KT impact?

No? Well Logic FAIL on your part buddy....

Don't mean to be rude, but there is plant life in rage and the time elapsed between the meteor strike the the beginning of Rage is a bit less than 200 years. Not a lot of time to re-create biodiversity.

 

[honkyjesus]

So many responses with people who haven't played the game, one guy who played the game a half hour but doesn't even know how it starts keeps blowing up my inbox. Just because people enjoy new IP's that they enjoy doesn't mean they work for id. That is like saying a decent review of Gears is basically review work for Epic. You guys can't have it both ways.

Try the game, BUY IT RENT IT STEAL IT.

 

[SnowyGamester]

Just finished the game, took just under 8 hours...was pretty disappointing. Ended up waiting the entire game for it to get good, and it never did. Never really explained much of what's happening, the entire storyline felt like side quests, didn't really care about any of the characters as they didn't do much more than tell you to go kill bandits, mutants and the authority, or fetch them stuff, none of which really entended the story past what you can ascertain once you've finished the first car ride with John Goodman who is nice enough to explain most of the plot right there.

tldr: I didn't really like it.

does it have a level up system?
do you have ability/skill points to spend?
are cars the only thing you can upgrade or are weapons also upgradable?
can you only play as some dude or are there multiple characters?
can I make decisions in the game that affect the story or is it all straight forward?

there's so much I still want to know

fyi:
no
no
no, but there are around 3 kinds of bullets for each
there are obviously multiple characters, only in multiplayer
no