PS3 Has “Tight memory, Poor IO Performance” – John Carmack

[Daydre@m]

I read similar threads on a bunch of forums and it’s funny how people fight over his one statement without any background knowledge of the issue at hand. I personally think that Rage could have done better; it didn't because of a few design flaws.

 

Firstly, I think choosing 60FPS over 30FPS was a mistake, the game is not a fast paced FPS like some other action shooters. Taking the later path would have given them more headroom for computing power, thus the ability to cram some of those textures that he could not in order to cope with performance. My main point is that every developer knows the balance between performance when they design a game/game engine. It all goes down to their outlook on what want to achieve when they make those decisions. Unfortunately, these choices are made earlier during the pipeline of development and can’t be changed later down the road after the game is released (which is the case with Rage).

 

Rage is a classic mis-mesh that occurs when PC developers try to create a multi-platform engine for the first time. The goal is always to yield a high FPS/quality ratio on every platform but doesn't happen since its always tied down by the lowest common denominator of the performers. With that in mind, I don't deny that his statements are wrong. I also agree that he can’t do much now since the engine and game is already finished, but he could have if he took that problem into account a lot earlier.

 

On the other hand when carmack talks about IO performance, he is referring to the CPU/GPU memory rather than HDD reads/writes. The low amount of Vram allotted to the RSX is the main reason for texture blurring issue (feels like a very slow texture swap out of the memory buffer – like slow occlusion culling for textures – to enhance performance- since they can’t fit everything in the low VRAM space). Sure one can say he can work around, use low res textures, drop load off GPU and use CPU alternates, drop the frame rate but that can’t be done now, this is not the beta version anymore.

 

Still this is no excuse for neglecting the PC users who do have lavish amount of GPU power and can afford super HD textures. It’s sad to see that ID did the same to PC users as other big PC developers who shifted to consoles e.g. Epic and Crytek. Remember Crysis 2 and Gears of War, they both faced a lot of problems and glitches since they were ported from Xbox to PC (xbox being the lead development platform in all cases). Crysis 2 finally looks good after nine patches whereas epic just abandoned PC and no Gears of War iteration in sight after the first one.

 

 

Let’s face the facts; PC developers always have issues with consoles. They are too used to dealing with API and higher level calls. The CPU plays less part where as the GPU is doing more work. The proof is Crysis 2 for PC , it’s the only game that uses Four cores on PC so efficiently, thanks to the console port (http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html). So consoles are a totally different breed, coding depends more on CPU for work which is why Sony bothered making the Cell. Uncharted 3, however they coded it, on low level or high level (I won’t argue on that here), is a perfect example of optimized code for PS3 architecture likewise Gears 3 is for the Xbox.

 

In addition, if anyone has been following Carmack then remember that the man was against mulicore processors from the start. He is right in a way because multicore coding poses a significant challenge for coders and delays the software for no reason. It can be another reason why he is against consoles, PS3 in general since it has 7SPEs versus the regular Tri Core Xbox CPU (more core = more hate from this logic).

 

Anyway, look at the bright side, PC devs attaining maturity in low level coding for consoles is proving fruitful. Gears of War 3 is one of the best looking games on Xbox to date and feels very polished. Similary, Crysis 1 port seems better than Crysis 2 in the beginning. Battlefield 3 is looking impressive even on consoles and they are using HD textures to steam in from HDD similar to what ID was trying to do. MW3, though some might disagree, looks pretty impressive for a 60fps title compared to its predecessor. What’s funny is that MW3 uses a heavily modified Quake 3 engine that was written by Carmack. In the light of all this, I believe ID’s next iteration might be better than Rage if they decide to use an updated version of their engine for another game.

 

Lastly I want to bring a point that a lot of people forget when they buy games. What do you look for when you buy a game? The Graphics? The Gameplay? The Story? The Sound? The hardware it runs on? The answer is ALL! I own the PS3 version of the game and its boring / dull as hell. The game does look good after it loads textures and the AI is pretty well coded but it fails on story. Even if it did look good on PC or Xbox, I won’t buy it. The story development and level of interest is next to none. It is just another overhyped title that failed even as a tech-demo. Somewhat like Crysis 2 but Crysis 2 did manage to deliver the graphical goodies in the end. I wish I could say the same for ID.

 

PS: I typed this pretty fast at work, so ignore the language errors

[spindoctor]

Firstly, I think choosing 60FPS over 30FPS was a mistake, the game is not a fast paced FPS like some other action shooters.

 

that is never a mistake . especially considering the fluid gunplay is the absolute highlight of rage. if you can't appreciate that, then the game is not for you. and if your disappointment with the game centers around the fact that it didn't have a good story, well, i'd say you don't know what to expect from an id software game.

[Karooo]

I'll ask Carmack on Twitter regarding the 60fps thingy.

[Big Boss]

and if your disappointment with the game centers around the fact that it didn't have a good story, well, i'd say you don't know what to expect from an id software game

 

THIS, ID games never had stories or laughable stories. And they deserve credit for atleast trying for 60 fps in a new engine rather than going the COD way.

[WhiteWolf]

This thread has delivered.

 

Thanks Zodak.

 

[Daydre@m]

that is never a mistake . especially considering the fluid gunplay is the absolute highlight of rage. if you can't appreciate that, then the game is not for you. and if your disappointment with the game centers around the fact that it didn't have a good story, well, i'd say you don't know what to expect from an id software game.

 

 

I think I made it clear in what sense I said 30fps would have suited it better versus 60fps. That would have ended alot of bitching that he is getting in the graphics department. I always prefer fast paced games online with 60fps, one of the reasons why I prefer MW3 over BF3 on consoles. For Rage , multiplayer would not have mattered to me so 30Fps should have done fine. Story yes, I like to play games with a good story line , something that is interesting rather than playing tech demos. If you like tech demos like then it's your choice.

 

THIS, ID games never had stories or laughable stories. And they deserve credit for atleast trying for 60 fps in a new engine rather than going the COD way.

 

I am not saying he did a poor job, just reasoning what he could have done to shut the majority of people. The end user does not care about tech, thats where people go wrong. 60Fps or 30Fps, as long as the game looks and feels good.. thats what matters to the average gamer who spends 60 bucks. About Story line.. no ID games never had great stories neither did Doom 3 but Doom3's moody atmosphere kept the game going. Rage just gets boring, with same old missions and racing.