Just saw that GS gave Rage on the PC a 7.0 citing graphical bugs and glitches as the main culprit. Guess that makes the 360 the best platform to get Rage on.
Just saw that GS gave Rage on the PC a 7.0 citing graphical bugs and glitches as the main culprit. Guess that makes the 360 the best platform to get Rage on.
PC fanboys AM Cry...>_>
No need to cry when I'm gaming at 1600p with hi-res textures. No glitches so far, with a couple of NVIDIA cards :) Oh apparently the modding community has come up with some fixes for people having problems especially with AMD cards
I heard a patch was coming or already released for pc but I'd be surprised if one came out for the ps3. To me i don't see how a patch will overcome the memory issues in the ps3.
oh no...theres a very small difference on one version....:roll:starwarsjunky
Small or not why would someone pick up the ps3 version if one owns both consoles? :|
....and depending on one's sensitivity/tolerance levels for some the difference might actually be between enjoying the experience to something that might be quite annoying. Especially if it's prevalent throughout the whole game which some ps3 owners are already reporting.
Some PCs are having problems. Others stream faster than the console versions. There are simple fixs to make it run better anyways; http://www.geforce.com/News/articles/how-to-unlock-rages-high-resolution-textures-with-a-few-simple-tweaks
i was watching pc gameplay with gtx 590, core i7 max settings and the graphics were popping in all over the place. looks like megatextures is not all it's cracked up to be, i mean didn't they play the game before it went gold and did they not see these problems:?
as much as i hate to be the fanboy but it'd time to admit that the 360 is just the more powerful console regardless of theoretical power of the ps3. the split VRAM, and dumbed down gpu were always going to fail against 512mb unified ram and superior gpu in the 360, and cell simply can't overcome both. all of these games are superior on 360
I'm really surprised though at how many tech issues the game is having, considering it's id.
Vari3ty
they have been resting on there laurels for too long. overconfident that whatever they put out will be the new standard but it ain't the 90's anymore and developers like epic, crytek, criterion, Dice have overcome them. ID tech 5 doesn't hold a candle to Cryengine2,3, UE3.5, Frostbite. they are going to have to do something speacial for DOOM 4, it should look better since they said it will run at 30 frames instead of 60.
The problem with the PC version of the game is that it has the Auto-Balancer feature that the console versions has.
The Auto-Balancer is the tech id created in order to create a fluent 60 Frames Per Second on any platform. For example, if more action is going on the screen, the AB will automatically lower down other graphical things in order to maintain a near-constant 60 frames per second. Amazing tech that allows for more freedom in game play unlike the traditional, everything is scripted to fit the 30/60 FPS budget.
The problem with the PC version is that, the auto-balancer is not communicating well with some drivers. The Auto-balancer will sometimes lower quality and streaming process on the PC because it thinks there is a weaker set of hardware installed. This is why some PCs are playing the game great while others are not. The auto-balancer is not playing well with some of the API.
The pop in is not bad at all on the 360. I have it installed. The only noticeable thing is some textures take a bit to load when entering a new area or when loading a save, but other than that, virtually flawless. Shame the game is kind of boring, though. I'm about 2 1/2 hours in and really don't feel like playing it anymore.
I've installed the AMD patch and a custom cfg and it's working flawlessly on my HD 6990
anyway, PC gaming experience always been this horrid, so I wasn't too disappointed when I first launched the game only to discover it was unplayable and requires hunting patches and fiddling around with config files.
Well that definitely ain't no graphics king. Sure 60 fps is cool and all but jeez. But yeah 360 version definitely looks like the best version. ALL LIES!!
as much as i hate to be the fanboy but it'd time to admit that the 360 is just the more powerful console regardless of theoretical power of the ps3. the split VRAM, and dumbed down gpu were always going to fail against 512mb unified ram and superior gpu in the 360, and cell simply can't overcome both. all of these games are superior on 360
Battlefield 3
Crysis
Crysis 2
Rage
Bayonetta
etc
GotNugz
But U3, KZ3, GOWIII, look better than anything on that list for consoles, weird huh lol.
as much as i hate to be the fanboy but it'd time to admit that the 360 is just the more powerful console regardless of theoretical power of the ps3. the split VRAM, and dumbed down gpu were always going to fail against 512mb unified ram and superior gpu in the 360, and cell simply can't overcome both. all of these games are superior on 360
Battlefield 3
Crysis
Crysis 2
Rage
Bayonetta
etc
GreyFoXX4
But U3, KZ3, GOWIII, look better than anything on that list for consoles, weird huh lol. Not to mention BF3 and Crysis 2 are not superior on 360 at all. If anything the PS3 version of BF3 is the superior one. And I haven't seen an analysis on Rage or Crysis yet, so that leaves bayonetta and I doubt having the superior version on this game says anything. at all.
Log in to comment