Same as with Ravage ( as its not just vehicles ) though in Ravage vehicles is the main point ( and the similarities continue and i hope you got my point why i believe it looks like rage) . Sure they differ alot but they also have alot of similarities and thats why i said this is what Rage should have been[QUOTE="adamosmaki"][QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]
:lol: It's focus isn't vehicle combat! It was supposed to be id's first attempt at shooter+story+openworld(that order){and a tech demo for megatextures}. They failed at the story and vehicles, and typical of id the shooting is superb.
I can't believe you actually think Rage was supposed to be a vehicle combat game, it's literally there just as a side quest, and you need a vehicle to get to travel (though you're not 'required' to kill them if you just follow the story)
The analysis is there to clairify the review, and the green is to see that I'm getting your perspective right.
Inconsistancy
D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T--G-E-N-R-E (MP)
I'm not sure how hard it is to understand that Rage's MP is a different genre than Ravage's. Beyond the setting, guns, vehicles, polygons, textures, 'n such are just trivial similarities.
Ravage is like Battlefield but post-apocalyptic and w/o a tacked on SP, multiplayer vehicle/fps combat with large maps. Rage is just an SP FPS with tacked on MP.
Instead of defending your point when you're wrong, just admit you're wrong.
Rage was never in anyway intended on being a MP game, what it 'should' have been was a better FPS, with either a good, well connected story, or no story and no vehicles.
Right on point man. By the way - It's called "Ravaged" everyone and if they think that development started after Rage completed they're sorely mistaken.
Log in to comment