Google+

Rage review

Back to Article

58 comments

  • Vulneratus - October 4, 2011 3:55 p.m.

    Matthew "The Beast" Keast playing a game on normal!!?? My whole world view is unravelling... I just don't know what to believe anymore... brain hurting... I AM ERROR
  • Crimmy - October 4, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    REBOOT! REBOOT!
  • GamesRadarMatthewKeast - October 5, 2011 12:07 p.m.

    Whenever I review a game I play on Normal because I need to assess how difficult it is on the default setting. If I played Hard mode on a review I'd be playing the game in a way most players won't play it.
  • Vulneratus - October 5, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    Thats cool... I was only joking anyway dude, I love your reviews. They are always both informative and pertinent. I wouldn't take the majority of my comments seriously, or anyone else's for that matter.
  • GamesRadarMatthewKeast - October 6, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    Thanks! I know you were joking, but figured I'd explain myself anyway.
  • volnaiskra - October 5, 2011 8:05 p.m.

    Is that based on market research, or just an assumption? Because I don't know many gamers who actually play anything on normal, except in rare circumstances. I mean, it's not like games are getting any harder, and gameplay from game to game usually only evolves incrementally. Which means that each time you complete a game, you are more likely to feel unchallenged by the next one. So, my guess is that it's mainly newbies, content tourists and reviewers who play on "easy" or "normal", whereas most gamers actually start games on "hard" or "extreme" or similar.
  • GamesRadarMatthewKeast - October 6, 2011 1:55 p.m.

    Pretty much all of the gamers I have known in the past and in the present play games on Normal, and then MAYBE go back and play Hard mode on a second playthrough. You just have some hardcore friends.
  • Jrymanz - October 4, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    I got this last night and been playing for a little. The game itself is really fun and looks great... until you turn and everything pops in. I'm playing on PS3 and it is pretty bad. Every time you turn the textures have to reload, even if you just looked at them. I'm pretty disappointed to see it's only 8 hours long. I thought it would be closer to Fallout in length. Hopefully they will add some cheap DLCs to expand the game some more hours.
  • Yeager1122 - October 4, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    Eight hours sounds to short for $65 dollars but i still am intrested in rage guess ill just wait till next year when the price is lower to guess this and go with Battlefield 3 and Arkham City this month instead.
  • jackthemenace - October 4, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    ... Well, I'm still looking forward to it. Even if I DO trade it in after 2 weeks so I have the money to buy Dark Souls.
  • Mezolitik - October 4, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    Yeah, Fallout 3 and Borderlands really ought to have been mentioned in the comparisons. I gotta say though, I cannot stand Borderlands, so if it's anything like that, I'm staying away. Rage looks gorgeous, and I've had it on my wish-list for a while, but eight hours of gameplay for £40 is pretty awful for a modern RPG/shooter. It's only a few hours more than the first Portal.
  • Claymore65 - October 4, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    Good review, but the words of the review seemed liked mopre of a nine or ten, not an eight. Although I would have liked a comparison to fallout 3/new vegas (I love those games), I thought the comparisons were fine.
  • Syncmaster - October 4, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    yeah, it felt like a ten all the way until the very ending (of the game as well). dint convince me of the bad aspect though
  • kingsmikefan - October 4, 2011 8:57 p.m.

    An 8 is still very positive.
  • taterboob - October 4, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    I got the PS3 version last night, and the texture pop in is out of control. I get pop in literally every time I move the camera.
  • ObliqueZombie - October 4, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    This game never really took my interest from the start. For one, the plotline and environment never caught my eye, and the guns, well... they looked good, to sat the most. But, I'd love to play this game to oogle over the graphics and feel the tight controls. After playing Gears of War 3 since release, I'm itchin' for a new game before Skyrim. But I think I'll go with Dark Souls, for starters.
  • nm1043 - October 4, 2011 7:21 a.m.

    Am I the only one who wanted gr to compare this to borderlands? Im interested in whether the reviewer thinks it surpasses borderlands, or falls short, or what...
  • NightCrawler_358 - October 4, 2011 5:56 a.m.

    Matty Keast is a Revooing machine! I think this looks like a graphical powerhouse, but it sounds a little dry. But it has to be better than Far Cry 2, that game was awful. I doubt I'll pick this up, but I'll definitely grab Dark Souls for PS3!
  • AuthorityFigure - October 4, 2011 4:20 a.m.

    The environments look like what Fallout 3 should have been. Also, it's interesting to see that the PC-Gaming poster boy (and talented programmer, of course) John Carmack is now branching further and further out onto other, more 'inferior' platforms, as a PC standard bearer might say.
  • ObliqueZombie - October 4, 2011 7:20 a.m.

    You might wanna let your high-horses rest. They're looking a bit tired.

Showing 21-40 of 58 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

More Info

Release date: Oct 04 2011 - Xbox 360, PS3, PC (US)
Oct 07 2011 - Xbox 360 (UK)
Available Platforms: Xbox 360, PS3, PC
Genre: Shooter
Published by: Bethesda
Developed by: id Software
ESRB Rating:
Mature: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language