PS3 version at 30fps, PC and 360 60fps, id reveals The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.... read more
I'd rather have the smoother version and install all the 4 dvd's to hard drive
For 360 owners with smaller hd's, then it'll cause a few more headaches.
Has it been confirmed on four discs then? I thought it was only the two? _________________ "Legends are fiction, kid. Someone tells it, someone else remembers, everyone passes it on"
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! _________________ I HATE fanboys, fanboy - "Fanboys are noted for a very emotional attachment to their chosen subject, often taking negative remarks about it as a personal attack."
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On what? Up there it says 60fps for the PC _________________ "Legends are fiction, kid. Someone tells it, someone else remembers, everyone passes it on"
Don't worry my little PS3, I'm sure they'll be something worth switching you on for soon....erm...oh yeah! Uncharted 2, that's not multi-format so can't run better on my xbox 360.
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also 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.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, 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. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also 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.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, 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. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in
I'm sorry but did you just call John Carmack a lazy programmer? Erm...that seems a little unfair given that he is one of very few people in the world who can ask for a new Gfx card feature and nVidia and ATi will bend over backwards to incorporate it into their next iteration!
The way I interpret what he says here is that Sony made the same mistake with the PS3 that they made with the PS2. The learning curve for the PS2 was unlike any console that came before it. It might be more powerful, but what company has the time and money to spend on researching something that should be handed to you with the development kits. Now, if the PS2 learning curve was steep...I can only imagine what the PS3 must be like. And if id are having trouble then that does not bode well for ANY other company.
Of course, this is not the first report of problems developing for the PS3 - wasn't it GTAIV that was delayed due to problems getting it running smoothly?
I am not going to argue that the PS3 might be the technically superior hardware - but that doesn't count for anything if you don't make that power easily accessible to the developer.
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also 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.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, 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. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
The only idiot here is you. If you bothered to read the entire article from Edge you would note that id pointed out issues developing for both the PS3 and 360. Instead, like a rabid fanboy, you jump on one particular issue and moan at the developer even though the game is nowhere near completion.
Go read the article, cause at this moment your mad ramblings are kind of embaressing.
being a pc programmer doesnt automatically translate into a console developer.
if he's reporting that ps3 is only running at that speed and gets it up to par for release, hes an idiot. if he doesnt hes lazy.
the ps3 isnt on par as its being developed as a pc game - and the 360 requires hardly any changes in technique. the ps3 will need more adjustments due to it being more of a 'port'.
this game wont look better than some other games on ps3 running at 60 frames, CoD4 for one.
Last edited by svd_grasshopper on 30 Jul 09 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
, waits for the bu bu buh teh 4 disssssks
