In case you missed yesterday’s news, John Carmack recently announced that the current build of Rage, a game is still in production and won’t be coming out for at least another year, runs at only 20-30 fps on the PS3 while the PC and 360 versions are running at 60. Despite the fact that this game is IN DEVELOPMENT, people still flipped out.
How much did they flip out?
A number of forum threads were started on a variety of popular boards, and they all seemed to follow the same pattern — concern/disappointment, attacking id & Carmack, and then final degeneration into name calling and insults.
Hit the jump.
[Thanks again to Tim]
We start off with some reasonable disappointment and hopes that the game will be better by retail.
Well that sucks. Yeah won’t be buying it if it goes into the twenties. It can’t be that hard to make it work right? Just make the resolution 600p.
I hope they sort it out as I was planning on getting Rage for PS3, however it’s not the end of the world. If it stays that way, I will just get it for 360 or PC (if I get my new rig by then)
Gah. Oh well. It probably won’t be a total game killer (if memory serves me correctly, LittleBigPlanet only runs at 30 fps). Still, that’s a shame. I seem to remember the game developers saying that the 360 was the easier console to develop on, but that they liked the content the Blu-Ray disc could hold. Sounds like they couldn’t figure out the PS3 as well as they/we would’ve hoped.
A lot of games have not-so-good framerates until the latter parts of their development when they get to optimisation – it’s not that unusual. I wouldn’t be OVERLY concerned at this stage if it’s still their intent to be 60fps on all platforms. Now if they were suddenly turning around and saying the PS3 version WILL BE 20-30fps, that’s another matter, but I think they’re talking about the current state of play rather than the final product.
This, of course, is the boring part. Almost immediately, some PS3 fans begin assuming that this is actually going to be how retail is, and start making up justifications for why it will still be better even if the framerate is bad, and why the PS3 is better.
20 fps is a nice trade off to have it on a Blu Ray.
The PS3 has much more powerful OpenGL capabilities then the Xbox 360, not to mention a much better processor.
one problem is the ‘mega textures’ used. it could take up 4 dvd -roms and on a positive note for ps3 version it might get a higher quality data set with less compression if they choose.
yup and if ID chooses when the game is finally finished in 2010 the ps3 might look better due to less compressing of the tech 5 mega textures
Considering the PS3s ability to showcase more on screen and more effects, the Cell in the PS3 is well beyond the capabilities of the 360 CPU by a significant amount when you consider there is yet a single game on the 360 that has matched the physics and effects of even the first generation PS3 game, Resistance Fall of Man.
I bet the ps3 ends up better.
So then the 360 fans have to fire back about why their console choice is superior.
I’m not surprised. That’s why I also have the 360. There’s only what, 5% of multiplats that run & look better on PS3, while there’s like, 85% that run & look better on 360
sure they will get the PS3 version running better, but it will be due to visual sacrifices with the games which has become the norm due to the PS3’s weaknesses as a console compared to the Xbox 360 and PC.
I’d rather have a good running version on 2 DVDs rather than a janky version on 1 BRD
Ouch. Not only is the PS3 more expensive then the 360, but it’s also substantially weaker too.
LOL, I love this. Game development costs money. If John Carmack is joining the rest of the developers who have been saying it’s going to take them longer to get the same performance out of the PS3 than they can get from the 360 right now, then John Carmack is basically saying that the PS3 version of Rage is going to cost more to develop than the 360 version.
And then we get to my favorite part. People accusing John Carmack, who is basically the godfather of many of the graphics techniques and engines in use today, of being a ‘lazy developer’ who ‘doesn’t know what he’s doing’. SERIOUSLY?
This article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacle. Yes, ID may rectify the fps issue by launch and here’s hoping, but to openly come out with that comment on how slow it is on PS3 compared to his other format versions (of which the 360 was likely the easiest to port, as explained later on), is just stupid and fanboy baiting. If this is seen as a fanboy comment, I couldn’t god-damn care less. I’m just tired of developers moaning about this-or-that on whatver console. You CHOSE to release it on that format,therefore you are OBLIGED to make do, and make the best of it you can. The quote “only a shoddy workman blames his tools” comes to mind, though… only a tool, blames other tools.
What? I’m sorry, Carmack needs to rephrase that: “We still don’t have a fucking clue how to properly code for Ps3, and basically, we’re just just through loops to workaround it. we suck”
Seriously? This pisses me off. LAZINESS. That’s all this is. I’ve seen MANY games running 60 FPS so don’t try and blame it on “Hardware limitations”. Ask Sony for help, don’t be a douche like those lame asses over at Valve.(although if the rumors of L4D2 coming to the PS3 are true you might finally make it out of the dog house valve, out of the dog house and onto my shelf)
im very dissapointed with John Carmack and the inability his team has to program on the PS3, i thought id Software had skilled developers, i guess not.
Carmack just isn’t talented enough to understand PS3’s beautifully complex architecture. (Editor’s note: I think this might have been a joke; I’m including it because I’m not sure.)
it has everything to do with lazy devs…Halo 3 (even odst) couldnt even support true 720p, instead it got 640p. But im not even trying to say thats a bad thing, because the game looks fantastic, what im trying to point out is that bungie isnt lazy, they made those awesome visuals possible even though the hardware was limiting them. If you put the right effort forth, anything is possible. in fact, halo 3 looks so good i didnt even know that its just a 640p game upscaled to 1080p. If you arent a lazy dev you can make it look good on both systems, there is no excuse.
Like other lazy developers, they are not taking advantage of parallel processing techniques and instead they are going to be another company whos game engine doesn’t take advantage of the multi-core processors in modern day gaming PCs.
And finally, everyone just starts attacking each other. We also see the ever popular “I’m not a fanboy because I own all consoles” defense employed multiple times. Protip: It doesn’t count when your mom buys it all for you.
i love it when old 90+ year old geezer try to make a come back btw im not a kid so get your crap right before you go around calling people kids just cause of a error sorry im not perfect mate get a life jengo you seriously need it.Im not some geek behind the keyboard like you just give it a break man and stop being a ps3 fanboy and before you even think of calling me a fanboy i own all system plus a gaming pc
Shut the fuck up. We don’t need another tard who can barely type a sentence screaming about how devs who can’t work with the notoriously difficult to code for PS3 are just shitty coders.
I have all consoles, and I buy the game for whatever format has the most optimised and feature-heavy version (mostly PC) but I’d personally rather have a slightly slower (albeit very playable – 30fps is fine you snobs) version than having “INSERT DISC 2”, “INSERT DISC 3”, “INSERT DISC 4” on every so-often.
See you next week!