Originally Posted by cmsmith
I do want to stress that I have not played the game. And I have no intentions of playing it either. Having said that...
I'm not so sure all the visual issues can be blamed on the game. Carmack and Comp still use OpenGL for games. I bet the video drivers just aren't there when it comes to OpenGL for games and a healthy amount of blame lies with them. Outside of Carmack/Id and the one or two companies that license their engine(s), who still uses OpenGL?
Still, after looking at gameplay videos, I think it's safe to say that Carmack is behind the times. All his games basically have pretty graphics. However, outside of being able to point a weapon at a crate or something and blow it up, there really isn't much interaction between the players and the environments. Here comes a baddy, just aim and shoot. Look for ammo and the occasional weapon you can pick up to add to your arsenal. The same ol' @#$% over and over. Does Rage have any places where wind blows grass or dust around? Do you ever see trees sway with the wind? How about weather effects? Are there any physics in the game? I'm betting the answer to most of those is a 'no'.
This is where a game such as the upcomming Battlefield 3 is going to leave Rage behind. I don't know which has the best graphics (I'm betting BF3 does...) but that isn't the issue. Carmack isn't creating game engines that create an interact, immersive environment and draw you into it like the other games comming out do.
As I said, his stuff is just more of the same.
It's not the fault of the graphics API, that should be transparent. OpenGL drivers are good, they need to be because most game developers use it for workstations. OpenGL has actually progress faster than DX in recent years.