Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

John Carmack Explains Why Blu-ray Makes Rage Better on PS3

By - Source: Tom's Guide | B 16 comments

Every year, QuakeCon is John Carmack’s celebration of his technology and the games that the entire id Software team creates within it.

Tom’s Games had the chance to sit down with Carmack for a brief chat regarding Rage, id Software’s upcoming game slated for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Console fanboys will undoubtedly find lots of firepower in what Carmack had to share, who made it clear that designing for the Xbox 360 was more of a joy than arduously optimizing for the more complicated PS3.

Developer friendliness aside, Carmack did acknowledge that the PS3 version will look slightly better due to more storage space for high-resolution textures, thanks to Blu-ray Disc’s 50GB capacity. “All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They’ll get the high quality compression,” said Carmack. “But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3.”

While spanning the game over multiple discs could solve the issue, id Software revealed that the associated royalties to Microsoft for more than two discs would become economically unfavourable. “We’re pretty much resigned to the fact that we’re going to make it fit onto two DVDs on the 360. Plus there would be a lot of disc switching if we went to three DVDs, and since the game is split between two different wasteland environments, two DVDs should work well,” he explained. “That’s the only thing the PS3 has going for it over the 360 - more gigs.”

Read the entire interview here at Tom’s Games.

Display 16 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    daveloft , August 8, 2008 2:38 AM
    Games look better on the PC mainly because of more powerful graphics hardware and way more RAM. The Xbox360 and PS3 have similiar performing GPUs and 512MB of RAM between it and the CPU so I'm not entirely buying this, it sounds too much like a sales pitch for Blu-Ray.
  • 0 Hide
    fulle , August 8, 2008 3:04 AM
    ^not really. Storage capacity has always limited how many high resolution textures can be used. The N64 is probably the most blatantly obvious example.
  • 1 Hide
    graviongr , August 8, 2008 3:39 AM
    daveloftGames look better on the PC mainly because of more powerful graphics hardware and way more RAM. The Xbox360http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360 and PS3 have similiar performing GPUs and 512MB of RAM between it and the CPU so I'm not entirely buying this, it sounds too much like a sales pitch for Blu-Rayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc .


    Hmm, well in the article it pretty much says that they will be identical in the main game that most people will see. He said the only time Blu-Ray will come into effect is when you leave the normal bounds of gameplay, where they still have the disc space to use high-res textures. He's basically saying, since the 360 is limited to only a couple of DVD 9's, you won't get to see as many high-res textures overall.

    It also sounds like it won't really affect any main area's of gameplay. He's not really endorsing the PS3 for Blu-Ray, he's just stating a simple advantage that it has, which is more gigs of storage due to blu-ray.
  • 0 Hide
    daveloft , August 8, 2008 4:12 AM
    fulle^not really. Storage capacity has always limited how many high resolution textures can be used. The N64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64 is probably the most blatantly obvious example.


    Well I remember the RAM upgrade significantly improved textures in games on the N64. More storage just typically allows longer games, more voice and video. Its amazing what you can do when limited by storage with a well written game.

    My installation of Diablo II takes the same 2GB as my installation of Doom III and the graphics are a bit better in Doom III. Also Crysis has a smaller install directory than most of my other recent games, but it definitely looks better.

    I agree it can be a factor, I'm just saying its not nearly as important as the lack of RAM both of those systems come with. Each console has it advantages I suppose.
  • 0 Hide
    nukemaster , August 8, 2008 5:40 AM
    fulle^not really. Storage capacity has always limited how many high resolution textures can be used. The N64 is probably the most blatantly obvious example.

    Extremely impressive for a system with most games being only 64-256megabits(8-32MB) in size. To be honest I thought it look far better then PS1(ran better too) even though it has a capacity of 650MB(or did they make it to 700) per CD(most of it was used for music) vs 64MB(512megabit) for N64.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 8, 2008 8:26 AM
    "?All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They?ll get the high quality compression,?"

    Why use compression at all on the PS3 version? It's clearly not needed.

    Whilst the official line is "they look the same in most areas", that is to keep both Sony and Microsoft happy, by not offically confirming one over the other. However, I suspect it's like Biosshock or Madden 09, where if you speak to the developers and QA testers on the ground, you hear the actual story, not the "keep them sweet" version. Both of those games are looking far better on PS3 this season...
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 8, 2008 9:20 AM
    Tom goes on about some texture behind a fence where no one will go and out come the strange people who bicker like babies. it might have been an article about the game - but hell no; it is about comparisons. this website and most others are guilty of this embarrassing hysteria. very sad.
  • 0 Hide
    elbert , August 8, 2008 11:42 AM
    Quote:
    associated royalties to Microsoft for more than two discs would become economically unfavourable

    Carmack has a good point that Microsoft is harming there console by charging per disc instead of by game. These fees are why ill be sticking with a license free software on the PC that I can get updates and added content as a bonus.
  • 1 Hide
    kidamnesiac , August 8, 2008 12:18 PM
    @Mark1233
    Hmm...Well Mark, it seems that the statements you make aren't true:

    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/22/bioshocks-ps3-graphics-identical-to-xbox-360/

    And as far as I've seen, the comparison vids of Madden 09 on YouTube show the 360 having more defined, more detailed, and cleaner images, imho.

    "Thou shalt not spread fanboi-ism."
  • 0 Hide
    techguy911 , August 8, 2008 12:51 PM
    The thing is the pc has by far the best graphics out there with a gtx 280 the thing is there are no games out there that even use a quarter of its capabilities the card is capable of real time ray tracing and many other features that games just don't touch.

    Most games are not even 20% dx10 they only use a few features on the pc.

    Besides the amount of rpg/rts on consoles is almost non-existent, i have a ps3 collecting dust because they don't make the kind of games i like rpg/rts so it will continue to collect dust till final fantasy is out for the ps3 or an rts is released.


  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 8, 2008 3:49 PM
    Carmack hasn't made a good game in years, DOOM 3 is pretty but sucks as a game, the Quake series has gone way down hill. I'm sure RAGE will look good but will probably suck. Carmack has lost it.
  • -3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 8, 2008 5:23 PM
    daveloft = idiot. do some reading on game development and -maybe- you will begin to understand how more storage space can affect games visual and audio quality.
  • 0 Hide
    daveloft , August 8, 2008 11:02 PM
    daveloft_an_idiotdaveloft = idiot. do some reading on game development and -maybe- you will begin to understand how more storage space can affect games visual and audio quality.


    As I said I agree storage capacity plays a factor but not as much as gpu power and RAM. No need to be an jerk about it. I got off track and my main point was this felt like a sales bit for PS3 and Blu_ray. We all know the PC version will look the best and that's because the game will have access to more power and more memory.
  • 0 Hide
    daveloft , August 8, 2008 11:13 PM
    Mark1233"?All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They?ll get the high quality compression,?"Why use compression at all on the PS3 version? It's clearly not needed.Whilst the official line is "they look the same in most areas", that is to keep both Sony and Microsoft happy, by not offically confirming one over the other. However, I suspect it's like Biosshock or Madden 09, where if you speak to the developers and QA testers on the ground, you hear the actual story, not the "keep them sweet" version. Both of those games are looking far better on PS3 this season...


    They may be able to fit uncompressed textures on the disc, but any texture you see will have to be compression to fit in the limited amount of RAM the consoles offer.
  • 0 Hide
    StriderRyu , August 20, 2008 10:03 PM
    Quote:
    That's the only thing the PS3 has going for it over the 360 - more gigs.


    Yay more fodder for the 360 fanboys.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 21, 2008 9:12 PM
    The only thing pc's have over anything is expandability!! thats it!
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter