Is this how Rage looks like on your setup?

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Dread612 (167 posts) -

So I have a Nvidia GTX 260 216. It's about 2-3 year old card. Installed latest Nvidia beta drivers. So far not having any performance issues, solid 60 FPS, everything turned up, added all the customizations to the .cfg files that been going around. The problem I'm having with this game is that some texture's look amazing, and in the same scene you have textures that look like mud. If it was kinda all the same it wouldn't bother me as much, see Bioshock and Bioshock 2, muddy textures all around. But when you have these awesome textures and then you see a wall of mud, its jarring.

For example:

In the beginning of the game you meet Dan Hanger and he looks like this.

Now turn to your right about 90 degrees. And then you will see this, arggg my eyes:

So is this just my setup or does everyone's look like this? This is pretty earlier in the game so if you could give a quick glance and let me know or upload a screen shot. Interested to hear from the xbox/ps3 players as well.

#2 Posted by John1912 (1859 posts) -

All games are like that. Not every single texture is high res. Where the hell is the set up even at? ill have to check the root dir. Only options I see are to change the resolution. So I assume my 465 is running in high settings.

#3 Edited by yorro (558 posts) -

Rage is a obviously a Console Port.

#4 Posted by Commisar123 (1791 posts) -

Yeah I did have that problem, its weird so much in that game looks great and some textures look like shit, I'm not sure if that is still part of the driver issue they have but it still sucks.

#5 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

Wait until this guy sees a vending machine. Oh man, it's like someone took a 20x20 .jpg and blew it up to ten times what it was.

#6 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@Pr1mus said:

Isn't it what megatextures are supposed to be? When i hear iD talk about it what i understand is that instead of using small individual textures for everything they user large textures that cover large parts of the environment at once. Not as detailed but everything is supposed to load faster and allow them the 60 fps on consoles. Thats what i understand of it anyway, might be completely off..

It also allows them to use way more varied textures, which is why landscapes and vistas look so great. It's just that things up close look like shit because there's no option for fast machines to try loading in higher-res textures, because those textures don't exist.

#7 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

Another example:

Looking pretty good, not OMG awesome but pretty good, lets zoom in on that wind turbine:

Oh dear, wtf is that? Click on that picture to enlarge it, seriously wtf is that?

#8 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@Dread612 said:

Oh dear, wtf is that? Click on that picture to enlarge it, seriously wtf is that?

That's what we call a compromise.

The world looks great taken as a whole, any individual part of it looks awful on closer examination. This is why Doom 4 will be a 30fps game.

It really wouldn't surprise me if it were locked to 30 FPS on the PC. That'd be hilarious.

#9 Posted by Sin4profit (2924 posts) -
#10 Posted by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@rebgav:

Maybe.

What is funny is if you look at the blades of the turbine, they look fine, you can see the texture on the tips of the blade, even see the red markings on the blades. Lol I don't know what happened to the turbine's body. I would it expect it to be the other way around.

#11 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

Do people understand not every developer is going to create the next Crysis that no computer today can max? Yeah, Crytek did it and Crysis flopped due to the lack of people willing to go buy a $2000 computer just to play it. RAGE is a beautiful game with genius developers behind it that found a way to stream great visuals without destroying a system. I feel they succeeded in what they did.

#12 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

It's a nice technical achievement, sure, and it's interesting from that same standpoint, but it's still kind of weird that all the reviewers are saying it's a spectacular-looking game without qualifying that with "Unless you want high-res textures." Maybe they'll release an optional patch, who knows? But it's PC gaming, y'all. Gimme some options.

#13 Posted by DrBendo (240 posts) -

While I'm not one to suggest that graphical fidelity doesn't matter, and I could understand disappointment when developers take odd shortcuts, I have to ask: Why do you give a shit? Were you really anticipating zooming in on the back of a turbine or a pair of boots off to the side in perfect detail? The examples you throw out there illustrate only that the developers didn't give their all to shit that doesn't matter in the slightest. If you're looking for poor textures, you can find them, but do they detract in any way from the game itself? Are there other poor textures that actually matter but weren't conveniently available in screenshots?

If character models or major environments look shoddy, then there's a solid complaint. However, if the only things that are sub-par that would only garner attention if someone is looking purely to nitpick, does it matter?

#14 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

@csoup said:

Do people understand not every developer is going to create the next Crysis that no computer today can max? Yeah, Crytek did it and Crysis flopped due to the lack of people willing to go buy a $2000 computer just to play it. RAGE is a beautiful game with genius developers behind it that found a way to stream great visuals without destroying a system. I feel they succeeded in what they did.

1. Crysis didn't flop.

2. Crysis did not need a 2000$ computer to play. At best, it maybe needed a 2000$ computer at the time to max it out completely. I personally played it with a 2 year old 600$ computer on medium just fine at release and it looked amazing.

3. Not being able to be the best is no excuse for being this awful. It's simply lazy in many, many ways. Nothing else.

4. There is no reason they couldn't have great visuals and give graphical options so that people could choose what their system will run best. You know, like every other game in existence.

5. Those are not great visuals. While parts of the game look great, there is no excuse for textures so incredibly low res as to look broken.

6. Speaking of destroying systems..

#15 Edited by jNerd (2011 posts) -

@yorro said:

Rage is a obviously a PC Port. Blame the consoles

Not to contradict you, but you're completely wrong.

An interesting interview with J. Carmack about RAGE messy launch on PC - Quotes:

-"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

-Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."

#16 Posted by bybeach (4790 posts) -

2 570's in sli, running great but yes, noticing this on/off textures and such. The guy who was getting a hard time for pointing out the phones, he was basically right..about the phones. And yes, I was expecting consistency of at least a relative sort. But I am not going to extremes, everywhere I glance, it looks good, or good enough. I'm just tired of running around w/short hair, I guess redneck republican barbers are in great supply after the apocalypse

#17 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@DrBendo said:

While I'm not one to suggest that graphical fidelity doesn't matter, and I could understand disappointment when developers take odd shortcuts, I have to ask: Why do you give a shit? Were you really anticipating zooming in on the back of a turbine or a pair of boots off to the side in perfect detail? The examples you throw out there illustrate only that the developers didn't give their all to shit that doesn't matter in the slightest. If you're looking for poor textures, you can find them, but do they detract in any way from the game itself? Are there other poor textures that actually matter but weren't conveniently available in screenshots?

If character models or major environments look shoddy, then there's a solid complaint. However, if the only things that are sub-par that would only garner attention if someone is looking purely to nitpick, does it matter?

Well, yes, it distracts me. The character textures look so good, when I turn 90degrees and see those boots, it takes me out of the experience. I sit there and wait, maybe the texture has to load in? Or maybe that is the texture? Maybe because my video card only has 896MB of RAM it can't handle all the textures in memory? That's why I'm asking here for other people's experiences.

You're right, take any game and if you hunt hard enough you will find an ugly texture. I play alot of games. But this game just really jumps out at me as having such a contrast in textures within the same area.

I just recently wrapped up Fallout New Vegas, I put about 90 hrs in that game. I think we can all agree New Vegas isn't the most visually stunning game. However only once during that 90 hrs experience did the game present me noticeable ugly textures that took me out of the game experience and say, ugh that's messed up looking.

Look how good the character looks, textures are crisp and everything on her is extremely detailed. Then look at the red circles, those areas just draw my eyes anyway. It makes it look like the character and the environment don't belong in the same world.

#18 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1568 posts) -

Add "high-resolution textures across all polygonal surfaces in-game" to my wishlist for graphical features in the next generation of consoles, along with 60FPS and 1080p native.

#19 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@jNerd said:

@yorro said:

Rage is a obviously a PC Port. Blame the consoles

Not to contradict you, but you're completely wrong.

Carmack, in the marketing run up to the game, I mean interview talks about being able to program to the 'bare metal' of the consoles and that is fucking lie. Neither console SDK allows for that. Both console platforms have a ton of background services running as part of the system all the time and they are both programmed using a whole lot of abstraction via high level languages.

#20 Posted by yorro (558 posts) -

@jNerd said:

@yorro said:

Rage is a obviously a PC Port. Blame the consoles

Not to contradict you, but you're completely wrong.

An interesting interview with J. Carmack about RAGE messy launch on PC - Quotes:

-"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

-Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."

Sorry, I meant "PC Ported". Blame the consoles

#21 Posted by Cake (210 posts) -

No, this is how Rage looks like on my PC.

#22 Posted by Scotto (1178 posts) -

@gladspooky said:

It's a nice technical achievement, sure, and it's interesting from that same standpoint, but it's still kind of weird that all the reviewers are saying it's a spectacular-looking game without qualifying that with "Unless you want high-res textures." Maybe they'll release an optional patch, who knows? But it's PC gaming, y'all. Gimme some options.

It is a spectacular looking game, overall. When you start poking at the visuals up close in certain scenarios, it doesn't look as good.

- Scott

#23 Posted by kyrieee (379 posts) -

@Dread612 said:

Another example:

Looking pretty good, not OMG awesome but pretty good, lets zoom in on that wind turbine:

Oh dear, wtf is that? Click on that picture to enlarge it, seriously wtf is that?

You use a sniper rifle to zoom in a wind turbine that's just there as part of the background and then complain about the texture resolution on it? You're pathetic

#24 Posted by sungahymn (994 posts) -

RAGE

#25 Posted by Koshka (187 posts) -

Eh, wish I could enjoy, but apparently ATI are to blame for not releasing their drivers from the future...that's how it works right?

#26 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@Scotto said:

@gladspooky said:

It's a nice technical achievement, sure, and it's interesting from that same standpoint, but it's still kind of weird that all the reviewers are saying it's a spectacular-looking game without qualifying that with "Unless you want high-res textures." Maybe they'll release an optional patch, who knows? But it's PC gaming, y'all. Gimme some options.

It is a spectacular looking game, overall. When you start poking at the visuals up close in certain scenarios, it doesn't look as good.

- Scott

It's kind of hard not to get up close on stuff when you're in first person. I try not to be a graphics whore, but some of the textures stand out. Especially in towns. Even though you've just gone through a loading screen and the character standing next to it looks amazing. You'd just expect them to be smart about it and keep the textures you see on a regular basis high-res (distant windmills notwithstanding). You know, like in other games.

#27 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1568 posts) -

High res texture pack, please? Please?

#28 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@kyrieee:

Thanks for the insult? Good thing there are people like you that can engage in adult conversations about topics. Your making the world and the internet in general a better place....

As for the wind turbine, it is not part of the background, its on a mesa that you can drive all the way around. Its not part of some back drop. Look at the blades of the turbine, those look fine, you can even see the red markings on them.

#29 Posted by dancingpolkabear (206 posts) -

@Sin4profit said:

i wish my game looked like that.

Your game is beautiful in its own special way

(We just don't want to play yours)

*Creepy Wink*

#30 Posted by laserbolts (5319 posts) -

Rage looks really impressive as long as you don't stop to look at things.

#31 Posted by MikkaQ (10283 posts) -

@Captain_Felafel said:

Add "high-resolution textures across all polygonal surfaces in-game" to my wishlist for graphical features in the next generation of consoles, along with 60FPS and 1080p native.

And I want a flying car.

I just don't think game artists of today have the time or resources to pull off gorgeous textures for every little object in a game. At that point it's less of a performance issue and more of a effort-to-result problem.

#32 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1568 posts) -

@XII_Sniper said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Add "high-resolution textures across all polygonal surfaces in-game" to my wishlist for graphical features in the next generation of consoles, along with 60FPS and 1080p native.

And I want a flying car.

I just don't think game artists of today have the time or resources to pull off gorgeous textures for every little object in a game. At that point it's less of a performance issue and more of a effort-to-result problem.

It's true, but it's less of a fidelity issue I have and more of a consistency issue. It's super jarring to go from super high-resolution textures to muddy, low-res ones in seconds. And with RAGE specifically, a lot of the textures in the game suffer from compression artifacting, not level of detail differences, and on a PC, that's inexcusable.

#33 Posted by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

For a second there, I thought the ps3 version had some awful texture work. But then I saw the pc version, and yep, exactly the same. Extremely muddy textures in spots. I just hope and pray every night that they fix the engine for doom 4. IGN said max payne 3 is running on the rage engine, but I highly doubt that. Must be something else. Isn't it exclusive for bethesda/id software? At least, thats what the last bombcast said. Think about this. Rage is open world, but everything close up is nasty. Doom 4 will probably be mostly close encounters. Think about it. I am in the minority, I loved doom 3. The right hardware, and sound system, its one of the most atmospheric games I've ever played. Xbox version kindof blowed though

http://pc.ign.com/articles/119/1197638p1.html

"Max's signature Bullet Time moves are back, but upgraded with the level of sophistication and detail that we can bring to an action game in 2011. A combination of our RAGE engine, blended animations and Natural Motion's Euphoria system control Max's movements, making him react to the world around him realistically, bracing for impact from a diving shoot-dodge or transferring his weight from foot-to-foot while in Bullet Time – the player has an amazing amount of control over the player when running and targeting."

#34 Posted by eastcoasteric (58 posts) -

@Pinworm45: God that video is painful.

It reminds me of the (needs to be updated big time) Unreal engine. ugh

#35 Posted by translucentfish (127 posts) -

I don't get this thread, everything looks fine to me. Better than most even. Whatevs, I never know when graphics are supposed to be good or not. I think BF3 and COD multi look like garbage, but everyone loves them. What do I know?

#36 Posted by translucentfish (127 posts) -

@Dread612 said:

Look how good the character looks, textures are crisp and everything on her is extremely detailed. Then look at the red circles, those areas just draw my eyes anyway. It makes it look like the character and the environment don't belong in the same world.

I don't... it looks great to me. I literally have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at in those circles. I'm confused...

#37 Posted by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@translucentfish: Loss of detail, lets say this is painting, it looks like those areas are smudges.

#38 Posted by Rhaknar (5939 posts) -

yes the textures look shit up close. Its a compromise of the game looking like it does most of the time (you know, when youre not trying to make it look like shit) and runing at 60fps. Most of the time when youre walking around and whatnot, the game looks amazing.

#39 Posted by Rekt_Hed (848 posts) -
@rebgav

@Dread612 said:

Oh dear, wtf is that? Click on that picture to enlarge it, seriously wtf is that?

That's what we call a compromise.

The world looks great taken as a whole, any individual part of it looks awful on closer examination. This is why Doom 4 will be a 30fps game.

Exactly! @ dread how else did you think this was gonna work when devs ares making a massive game to run at 60 fps on consoles that are really old now by most console life cycle standards?

You might just have to wait for a high res texture pack patch on the PC but ID aren't crytek so I wouldn't hold your breath
#40 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

People pointing out minor stuff in an overall incredibly looking game is just ridiculous. Just play the game, don't look at boots and phones.

#41 Posted by huntad (1931 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

Rage looks really impressive as long as you don't stop to look at things.

So as long as I keep my eyes closed it'll look fine?

#42 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@Rhaknar said:

(you know, when youre not trying to make it look like shit)

Yeah, by looking at stuff on a system where 60 fps isn't some kind of voodoo magic.

#43 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@Rekt_Hed said:

Exactly! @ dread how else did you think this was gonna work when devs ares making a massive game to run at 60 fps on consoles that are really old now by most console life cycle standards? You might just have to wait for a high res texture pack patch on the PC but ID aren't crytek so I wouldn't hold your breath

I know your right, I'm just disappointed with this engine for the PC version, seems like a step backwards. Other game engines run fine on the consoles, (although not at 60FPS) and they scale just fine to the PC.

I'm curious then, if these textures look like this, then what is taking up all that 20GBs?

Yay, it's 2011 and here we are with PS2 era textures?!!?! :(

#44 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

I think we can all agree that Dead Island PC's version is a console port. Go ahead, click to enlarge it. Port or not, I can still see textures. No mud or smudges. You can even see markings on the bricks way off in the left hand corner. You can see the detail on the vase. You can easily count the logs in on the hut. Sigh @ id.

#45 Posted by niamahai (1405 posts) -
@Dread612 said:
oh em gee. fuck that game. a slap to the face to the PC community.
#46 Posted by laserbolts (5319 posts) -
@huntad

@laserbolts said:

Rage looks really impressive as long as you don't stop to look at things.

So as long as I keep my eyes closed it'll look fine?

Nah as long as you keep moving and not get up close to stuff. If it didn't run at 60 this game would be considered average as far as graphics go. IMO of course.
#47 Edited by Dread612 (167 posts) -

@niamahai: Lol :)

If a game like Dead Island can do the basics right, then id's 7 year OMG mega texture piece of modern engineering awesomo engine should definitely be able to.

#48 Posted by Largo6661 (334 posts) -

yeah its kind of ropey for me to and my rig is virtualy brand new. It is a little sucky but i suppose they had to make compromises for the high frame rate, i couldnt say I'm not a programer.

#49 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

@Dread612: You're comparing apples and oranges. Rage looks different, yes. The texture technology puts emphasis on the artist being completely free to "paint" (with "stamps") on the world geometry as much as he wants - the performance stays the same no matter how much stuff you slap on that level because it gets baked at the end. That is why the landscape and the rocks etc look magnitudes more incredible than in any other game. You don't just see rock textures repeated on a wall. It looks fucking "real" - and it was possible because of the megatexture technology. The tradeoff they had to make is not having detail maps on the textures up close.

In the same fashion you guys point out muddy up close texturs in Rage, one could just take any game with a more traditional engine and point out every repeating texture.

I'd take impressive looking vistas over sharp looking telephones any day. So, thank you ID!

#50 Edited by ericdrum (404 posts) -

@Dread612: I LOVE DEAD ISLAND SOOOOO MUCH. But I have played RAGE and DI on the PC with 2 570s, and to me DI takes me out of the experience 1000 times more with the terrible LOD. Objects are always popping into my view out of nowhere. Rage, to my eyes and my tastes looks a lot better. I noticed the muddy textures early on when I was in that mode of trying to see every little thing in the world. But once I started just playing the game, I stopped noticing it and IMO, Rage just looks really awesome. Rage just looks different and has it's own aesthetics.

BTW, that's also what ruined Crysis 1 for me when it came out. I could tweak the settings down in order to play smoothly, but the LOD was always popping in huge rocks and I could not get it right.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.