98 replies to this topic

[Wumpus]

UmarOMC1, on 11 February 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

On release day? While we're all busy downloading it!?

Well sure...why not read about the game while its downloading? It's 13 gigabytes after all...

[Stevex]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here, but Rage runs OK with MacOSX 10.6.8 on my 2011 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 at 1920x1200.  Just right click ->show package contents, navigate to Contents/MacOS, and double-click RAGE.

[UmarOMC1]

Stevex, on 18 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here, but Rage runs OK with MacOSX 10.6.8 on my 2011 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 at 1920x1200.  Just right click ->show package contents, navigate to Contents/MacOS, and double-click RAGE.

OK or runs well? It flies on my setup—well, its really smooth. Good news for 10.6.8 hold-outs, though.

[Eric5h5]

Stevex, on 18 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Rage runs OK with MacOSX 10.6.8 on my 2011 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 at 1920x1200.

Really?  Wonder what the issues are...seems like they wouldn't require 10.7 unless there's some reason.  (Like graphics drivers...would be nice to have updated OpenGL stuff on 10.6.)

--Eric

[iRolley]

Eric5h5, on 19 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Really?  Wonder what the issues are...seems like they wouldn't require 10.7 unless there's some reason.  (Like graphics drivers...would be nice to have updated OpenGL stuff on 10.6.)

--Eric

Could also be the overhead of quality assurance. Each OS supported requires a full QA pass. This can be quite costly.

[ltcommander.data]

Stevex, on 18 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here, but Rage runs OK with MacOSX 10.6.8 on my 2011 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 at 1920x1200.  Just right click ->show package contents, navigate to Contents/MacOS, and double-click RAGE.

Really? That's surprising. RAGE requires OpenGL 3.2 on Windows and OpenGL 3.2 support was only introduced on Mac in Lion. If it does indeed run on Snow Leopard, it's curious that Aspyr spent all that effort to backport everything to OpenGL 2.1 and then decided not to support Snow Leopard. I guess it was a late decision since if Lion was the target platform to begin with they could have saved themselves the trouble by just sticking with the existing OpenGL 3.2 codepath from Windows.

And if RAGE is running on OpenGL 2.1 even in Lion hopefully no graphics effects were sacrificed. Certainly if some effects are toned down or missing that would explain the observations that the Mac version seems to be running smoother than the Windows version.

[Wumpus]

ltcommander.data, on 19 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

And if RAGE is running on OpenGL 2.1 even in Lion hopefully no graphics effects were sacrificed. Certainly if some effects are toned down or missing that would explain the observations that the Mac version seems to be running smoother than the Windows version.

I spent a lot of time with the PC version before running it on the Mac. I have a pretty good eye for graphics and can't say I noticed any differences between the two as far as effects are concerned. I would have to do a true side by side comparison to probably say with 100% accuracy, but offhand that's my opinion.

[the Battle Cat]

Stevex, on 18 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here, but Rage runs OK with MacOSX 10.6.8 on my 2011 Mac Pro with ATI 5870 at 1920x1200.  Just right click ->show package contents, navigate to Contents/MacOS, and double-click RAGE.

Oh really now?  By your post I'm assuming this method of launching Rage is the only way to start Rage in 10.6.8.  Why won't it start by double clicking the app icon?  And can you drag the file you double click on down into your dock for easy launching?

[teflon]

They impose a minimum bar of entry using Info.plist, don't they? (Right click on Rage.app - Show Package Contents - then go /Contents and it should be there)

Just go into that, and change the various strings that are currently beyond your system. I think you'll just want to modify the "Minimum system version" string to read 10.6.8, and you should be good to go after that for launching from the finder as though it were allowed for 10.6.8.

[jeannot]

ltcommander.data, on 19 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Really? That's surprising. RAGE requires OpenGL 3.2 on Windows and OpenGL 3.2 support was only introduced on Mac in Lion. If it does indeed run on Snow Leopard, it's curious that Aspyr spent all that effort to backport everything to OpenGL 2.1 and then decided not to support Snow Leopard. I guess it was a late decision since if Lion was the target platform to begin with they could have saved themselves the trouble by just sticking with the existing OpenGL 3.2 codepath from Windows.

And if RAGE is running on OpenGL 2.1 even in Lion hopefully no graphics effects were sacrificed. Certainly if some effects are toned down or missing that would explain the observations that the Mac version seems to be running smoother than the Windows version.

Snow Leopard supports many openGL 3.x features.
Apsyr probably didn't use the "core" openGL 3 profile. It makes sense since ID began working in the Mac version way before Lion was available.

[bismilah]

teflon, on 19 February 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

They impose a minimum bar of entry using Info.plist, don't they? (Right click on Rage.app - Show Package Contents - then go /Contents and it should be there)

Just go into that, and change the various strings that are currently beyond your system. I think you'll just want to modify the "Minimum system version" string to read 10.6.8, and you should be good to go after that for launching from the finder as though it were allowed for 10.6.8.

I confirm this trick works. RAGE perfectly working here with 10.6.8

[teflon]

[UmarOMC1]

Sooo... I do wonder how development's going on an update. I don't have an NVIDIA card but I'd like to know my fellow Mac gamers with NVIDIA cards can use the CUDA features... I'd like to fiddle with FSAA, too.

Also, is it me or does RAGE not maintain Gamma/Brightness settings from launch to launch?

[UmarOMC1]

Oh. Wow. That. Was. Short.

[jgwdoc]

UmarOMC1, on 26 February 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Oh. Wow. That. Was. Short.

Not to mention one of the lamest endings of all time. I kept saving my BFG ammo for a serious opponent, and the game was over before I even felt challenged--on maximum difficulty.

[Wumpus]

jgwdoc, on 26 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Not to mention one of the lamest endings of all time. I kept saving my BFG ammo for a serious opponent, and the game was over before I even felt challenged--on maximum difficulty.

I bought 1000 pulse rounds before the last mission and used that gun all the way through. I still had about 300 rounds left by the ending. Difficulty was one of my complaints in the game as well, I think I "died" twice, even on max difficulty. And you can just resurrect with the defib so...no big deal.

[UmarOMC1]

I did the same thing! I was expecting some major resistance to blast that sucker out on but never did... I only needed the AR and shotgun for most of the game... wingsticks helped here and there... I was thinking of re-loading my last save just to see what the BFG blasts look like... sold all my regular rounds of everything... there was an abundance... had all feltrite AR rounds... *sheesh*  Maybe if they spent less time porting the darn game to the PS3 and XBOX... heck, in hindsight alone, if that game was three or four times longer with a storyline a little more tightly written and implemented like Marathon 2: Durandal or Halo I would have sincerely paid about $60! Four times longer? Yeah, I'd pay $65! I paid as much for Dragon Age: Origins Deluxe Edition!  

[jeannot]

That last mission just fails at all levels: action, design, purpose... You're here running around repetitive and boring platforms, pressing random buttons in order to activate something, while some mutants jump at you. Worse ending ever.

[Wumpus]

I think the game succeeded and failed on a number of levels, perhaps even equally. id's core shooting and gameplay are always solid, because that's what they are good at. Creating an "open world" along with attempting to create more of a story or a group you are supposed to care about (The Resistance) is where the game falls apart for me. On one hand I fault the game for being bad in those areas, on the other hand I do applaud id for trying something outside their normal zone. Its good for devs to experiment, even if it doesn't always work out in the game, I think its good in the long run.

[Janichsan]

I'm pretty disappointed by RAGE and not sure whether to label the game "half-finished" or "half-assed". It somehow feels as if id had the vision of a sprawling, semi-open world shooter with RPG elements and numerous branching sidequests but then either lost interest or ran out of time or out of ideas. They have designed a couple of interesting locations and characters and then simply waste them for a single short visit or conversation without the actual need to ever go there again.

The shooting part is okay, but unfortunately the fights against mutants fall into the zombie shooter trap: the enemy behaviour is limited to screaming and simply running (more or less) straight at you into your gunfire or almost always passing the same points. More often than not, you can simply keep your gun aimed at a single point, press the fire button in regular intervals and manage to kill each and every mutant effortlessly.

What I actually hate about RAGE is the egregious amount of invisible walls you run into. I have no idea why they even bothered to implement a jump key when you cannot even jump or climb up a fraking 15 cm high block of concrete that even my 90 year old grandfather with arthrosis would have been able to overcome just because the level designers didn't want you to take that way.

I'm also sceptical about the engine. Yes, I was impressed that the game ran almost constantly smooth on my AMD Mac mini and a couple of locations looked awesomely good, but the almost constant, visible texture streaming was just annoying. (I'm aware that by setting the texture cache to "Large" I could reduce that effect, but this would have slowed down the game to a slide show on my computer.) At times, I felt less like playing a modern game with a top-notch engine but like watching a badly compressed YouTube video taken with a cell phone camera.

RAGE has so many parallels to Borderlands that I can't but compare these two, and Borderlands simply comes far ahead as the much better game.