Just because you and your friends steamrolled it, doesn't mean it didn't have a story... even a good one. Having not played Rage, I can't say how similar they really are, but from the short clip there certainly appears to be some similarities, even if it's just that they take place in a wasteland with tons of sidequests, weapons, and some similar looking enemies and logos. I don't completely blame them though, it's hard to come up with new ideas, but it does make for a gaming experience that's a bit "played."
Just because you and your friends steamrolled it, doesn't mean it didn't have a story... even a good one. Having not played Rage, I can't say how similar they really are, but from the short clip there certainly appears to be some similarities, even if it's just that they take place in a wasteland with tons of sidequests, weapons, and some similar looking enemies and logos. I don't completely blame them though, it's hard to come up with new ideas, but it does make for a gaming experience that's a bit "played."
motsm
Golden Member
- Jan 20, 2010
- 1,822
- 2
- 76
I still don't agree from what I've seen. The only Id game it somewhat resembles is Doom 3, and that played nothing like the Quake series, and nothing like the previous Doom titles. Especially so with this game being based off of health regeneration, it will require you to take cover to heal, which almost always negates classic run and gun style shooting. Anyway, we'll see for sure when it comes out.
Last edited:
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
You seem to take the issue of having or not having a "good" story very seriously.
Technically speaking, and "good" or not Borderlands has a story, it's just not well presented and narrated, in my opinion. It is very easy to ignore anything concerning its story due to the little amount of dialog and textual details (or lack thereof) during the course of the game. The "problem" with Borderlands and its story being so easily forgettable or simply ignored (either on purpose or even unconsciously) is its actual game-play mechanics. It is indeed a mixture of a FPS shooter and Diablo-esque leveling and looting for ever better and unique gear, and while the player is immersed in doing so (at least for the first play-through, usually) there's barely anything occurring in terms of story-telling to "remind" the player that there is indeed "something else" going on, other than finding the next best gun. There is at least one thing to consider, however, and that is the fact that Gearbox themselves never pretended that Borderlands ran on a deep and complex story that absolutely had to be meaningful, they themselves often claimed that the story-line of the game was an extra to pay attention to, only if the player "really wanted to", that's not their own words but it's basically what it meant.
With that said, there is a story in Borderlands, whether you like it or not, or whether you like its "quality" or not. As you replied, saying: «Borderlands has a good story?» ... well "good" is subjective, you know some people out there ought to believe that Borderlands' story is actually better than say... DOOM 3's story? Or hey, even better than the original DOOM's story? Being a "good" story is irrelevant anyway, the point is that there is one. Now if that story is "bad", "lacking", "not well presented" or "good" is up to anyone's tastes. I for one don't like the story of Borderlands, but it exists. I especially hated its ending as a side note, one of the worst ending in a game I can easily recall, surely. Additionally, the same applies for RAGE in terms of story, and that's indeed where most of (not all) the discussion concerning the comparisons of Fallout 3, Borderlands and RAGE takes place, it's the comparison of their respective story lines and their post-apocalyptic contexts. In Borderlands' case there is no post-apocalyptic setting, but on a visual standpoint the barren wastelands and industrial trash zones does remind many of us of similar settings from Fallout 3 (and even Fallout, and Fallout 2). There are many legitimate comparisons between all three games at least in its visual presentation and setting, but beyond that they are similar in terms of contexts as well, it cannot be denied. What can be perceived differently is to what extent comparisons can be done, but they can be done, and that's the main point.
SPOILERS (conerning RAGE's story)
I, too, watched the video (as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts in this thread), and RAGE's story consists of the following: 1) A near-Earth asteroid that happens to really exist (99942 Apophis) hits the Earth in the game's universe ... 2) You, the player, happen to be one of several people to be put in some sort of cryogenic stasis pod in an underground "Ark" (I.E Vault, but they had to find another name for obvious reasons, and if you can't understand why then I will take the time to explain, it's obviously related to Fallout) in advance to have a chance to survive the globally catastrophic destruction and consequences of such an impact ... 3) Then, 100 years later (which in my opinion is far too early for the setting of the game to start after the impact, despite being a game where anything is possible while science stays in bed), you happen to be the solve survivor of your own Ark... and, of course for some reason, you "get out" of it (can't wait to see how, but most likely related to some computer operating and maintaining your own condition during the stasis phase that suddenly seemingly goes "oh, damn sorry, almost forgot about you buddy, let's stop your own stasis and re-activate your metabolism before I run out of power so you can get out and change the world around you" kind of reason, but that's just speculation on my part), and while uninformed and your memory going bonkers in your head (or probably not "going" at all) when you do get on the surface you find yourself most likely in awe and shock in front of the devastated world that's crumbling before you... but you're not alone, oh and there's mutants now, and most likely zombies as well but they probably kept those silent in the video as a big surprise for us gamers because we apparently really love zombies in video gaming.
Anyway, I want to reiterate what I said in my previous post in this thread; RAGE does look great, I do sincerely believe it and knowing myself well I'll buy it, most likely on launch day. But I am not holding my breath for a "good" story in RAGE either. I won't point at Borderlands or DOOM 3 or Fallout 3 for having a bad story even if I believe they do have a bad story, if I intend to buy RAGE with the slight back-thought that it just might have a "good story" (for my own personal tastes), RAGE won't be the judge of other games for comparison purposes when it comes to a good quality story, I'd bet on it. Now the problem (and it is one I believe, damn spoilers of unreleased games from developers commentaries since the past years seem to be a new trend, even in their official trailers, you heard that one I hope BioWare?) is that the video in question "revealed" us the story that RAGE possess, and now that's done truth be told it's right there with id Software's own standards of a "story-line" in their own developed games. And yes, by that I do mean that id Software never really created a "good story" in any of their own games, from what I've seen revealed in that video it hasn't changed for RAGE, a game that was in development for nearly seven years, according to John Carmark during this year's E3 interview (just Google it, if you're curious and haven't watched it). They had to spend most of that time on the sure-to-be impressive engine anyway, and with reasons (I'm sure it'll be great, I do believe it, don't get me wrong there), but... good story lines, I mean... GOOD ones, from id Software? Really? Nah...
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
You can argue with me all you want, but that is John Carmack's own opinion and he designed all those games. Sure, you can crawl through some of these games at a snail's pace hiding behind the occasional object and sniping if you prefer, but the game is designed for serious tournament competition where how fast you complete a level is what matters. That's Id's specialty and they are the undisputed kings of run-n-gun corridor shooters.
As for having health regenerate, that makes getting hit a penalty in a tournament that might slow you down and cause you to loose the match.
motsm
Golden Member
- Jan 20, 2010
- 1,822
- 2
- 76
I'll take game play footage over Carmack's word. Regardless, I already said we'll see what the game is like once it's released. Neither you or I know what it plays like for sure.
Yeah? Don't really see what your point is here. All I said was health regeneration makes shooters based more around cover, which is near opposite of what the classic Id shooters were about.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
You can already see game play footage of Rage. You drive, you shoot. You run, you shoot. Endless monsters charge you in a room, you shoot. Reach the end of a level, fight a boss monster. Same old same old. I certainly don't claim to know exactly how the game plays, but everything I do know suggests it is still the basic Id run-n-gun shooter and I see little reason if any to suspect otherwise.
Do you always have this much trouble understanding people?
For an experienced player regenerative health is an advantage because it means they can just keep right on running and gunning without pausing. For noobs it means they have to take cover and take that much longer to figure out how to beat the level. No different really then having to learn how to run right up to a monster and blow its head off with a single shotgun blast rather then firing half a dozen shots from a distance. It forces the player to learn to take chances and try more aggressive approaches which is exactly what run-n-gun is all about.
motsm
Golden Member
- Jan 20, 2010
- 1,822
- 2
- 76
Yeah, I've seen plenty of game play footage, none of it looks like a classic Id run and gun shooter to me. Your welcome to your opinion, I just don't see it.
paperfist
Diamond Member
What else is there to do then?
It would be neat if you had to retrieve some parts from dangerous places to build a weapons array or research lab to fend off some natives. Or piece some equipment together to restore some of the wasteland back to its former glory. FPS games are cool, but they could do so much more by really making a puzzle/adventure out of it.
Jeez Zenoth, the only reason I brought up how good or bad Borderlands story may be is simply out of utter disbelief that people were actually comparing stories between a run-n-gun FPS, a large world RPG and a hack-n-slash RPG as justification for why the run-n-gun FPS will suck. It was an absolutely retardedly stupid discussion, that was my point! Now you've spent several paragraphs attempting to justify Borderlands story which I really don't care about because it simply isn't a story driven game. You might think Diablo has a good story, but it isn't story driven either, and if another game was based around Satan trying to escape I wouldn't slam it for being similar to Diablo because frankly the games aren't that fucking unique! When someone rips off an actual unique and generally interesting story, I may actually get infuriated and agree with some of these ridiculous posts.
Frankly, I don't give a shit if Borderlands' story is better than Doom's story either because Doom's story didn't matter! It could have been to catch a rolling donut that keeps falling down various levels of hell. Whether Borderlands had a better story than Doom does not equate whether either game was better or similar to the other because NEITHER GAME WAS STORY DRIVEN. Neither game was like Prince of Persia, Planescape Torment, every Japaneese RPG ever made, etc.
Really, your 2nd paragraph simply agrees with me, that comparisons between Rage and Borderlands are visual and not story based. So you basically just agreed with my original post. Thanks!
You said: "There are many legitimate comparisons between all three games at least in its visual presentation and setting, but beyond that they are similar in terms of contexts as well, it cannot be denied. What can be perceived differently is to what extent comparisons can be done, but they can be done, and that's the main point."
I said: "I understand the Borderlands comparison slightly more, both these games have buggies you drive around in, both have potentially similar hubs, both have similar mad max style bandits and the town demoed in the Rage trailer has the same theme as the main hub in Borderlands. The thematic similarities are present."
So what are you arguing exactly?
Your big comparison between Fallout and Rage.... drum roll... they both contain fallout shelters. HOLY SHIT. I don't honestly know if Rage contains similar fallout shelters as the vaults in Fallout, I'm simply taking your word on that. However, you realize Fallout didn't invent fallout shelters right? You realize they actually existed? You sound so silly using this as some sort of example. This is like saying the games are similar because they both contain refrigerators. Seriously?
And finally your big nail in the coffin is that Id Software never really creates good stories. Wow. Slow down captain obvious. So if Id Software makes good and bad games and none of them ever really have good stories. Then I think the important thing to remember is that story really doesn't matter for a good run-n-gun game. Ultimately, gameplay is the king of whether this game succeeds. Which is why I can't stop wondering WHY YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT STORY WITH ME ON AN ID SOFTWARE GAME.
Frankly, I don't give a shit if Borderlands' story is better than Doom's story either because Doom's story didn't matter! It could have been to catch a rolling donut that keeps falling down various levels of hell. Whether Borderlands had a better story than Doom does not equate whether either game was better or similar to the other because NEITHER GAME WAS STORY DRIVEN. Neither game was like Prince of Persia, Planescape Torment, every Japaneese RPG ever made, etc.
Really, your 2nd paragraph simply agrees with me, that comparisons between Rage and Borderlands are visual and not story based. So you basically just agreed with my original post. Thanks!
You said: "There are many legitimate comparisons between all three games at least in its visual presentation and setting, but beyond that they are similar in terms of contexts as well, it cannot be denied. What can be perceived differently is to what extent comparisons can be done, but they can be done, and that's the main point."
I said: "I understand the Borderlands comparison slightly more, both these games have buggies you drive around in, both have potentially similar hubs, both have similar mad max style bandits and the town demoed in the Rage trailer has the same theme as the main hub in Borderlands. The thematic similarities are present."
So what are you arguing exactly?
Your big comparison between Fallout and Rage.... drum roll... they both contain fallout shelters. HOLY SHIT. I don't honestly know if Rage contains similar fallout shelters as the vaults in Fallout, I'm simply taking your word on that. However, you realize Fallout didn't invent fallout shelters right? You realize they actually existed? You sound so silly using this as some sort of example. This is like saying the games are similar because they both contain refrigerators. Seriously?
And finally your big nail in the coffin is that Id Software never really creates good stories. Wow. Slow down captain obvious. So if Id Software makes good and bad games and none of them ever really have good stories. Then I think the important thing to remember is that story really doesn't matter for a good run-n-gun game. Ultimately, gameplay is the king of whether this game succeeds. Which is why I can't stop wondering WHY YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT STORY WITH ME ON AN ID SOFTWARE GAME.
Wuliheron, I agree with most of your points on this topic. However, if Rage actually has regenerative health then it is a negative against a run-n-gun game. It really doesn't matter how good the player is, regenerative health slows down pacing significantly. Hell, I'm not even sure you can do things like Speed Runs on regenerative health.
However, I've never had the illusion that Rage will compete with Quake. I simply think it is an interesting product from one of the best programmers and best software houses in the industry.
However, I've never had the illusion that Rage will compete with Quake. I simply think it is an interesting product from one of the best programmers and best software houses in the industry.
gorcorps
aka Brandon
- Jul 18, 2004
- 30,741
- 456
- 126
I would be interested in this game if it wasn't yet another FPS with monsters. Seriously, is it too much to ask for a good singleplayer shooter that doesn't involve monsters and/or aliens?
I remember FEAR having mostly human enemies, even though there was the subtext of horror and there were a few monsters near the end. Not sure how the 3rd one is.
Dankk
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2008
- 5,558
- 25
- 91
Seriously, is it too much to ask for a good singleplayer shooter that doesn't involve monsters and/or aliens?
Looking at my Steam library... I see FEAR and Half Life 2. Granted, those are 6-7 years old though.
Red Storm
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2005
- 14,233
- 234
- 106
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
I'll try to understand you better, then, and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm starting to find this discussion quite interesting although I'll try to avoid using Shift or Caps Lock too much.
I see, but I do hope that you didn't believed that I as well was trying to "justify" it that way because I thought that RAGE would "suck" exactly for those reasons. I'm just saying, you know. I for one do not believe that RAGE will suck, I'm just saying that it is comparable to the Fallout series (not just Fallout 3) and Borderlands.
I think that you've missed some of my own points. I can't do anything about it really if you perceived my reply as a "justification" for Borderlands' story, but I can assure you that I did not "attempt to justify" its story, as if it didn't have one, nor had the right to have one. It's not "justification" or defense of its story, it's merely affirming that it is present, but that beyond its existence that if it ends up being good or bad is simply a matter of personal tastes, which is why I mentioned that some people ought to believe that other games even those made by id Software have "better stories", even though we know that their games are never story-driven (although they do, on paper, have one).
And, I'm sorry if you believe so (and please let me know, because I'm legitimately unsure of it, hence why I'm wondering), but if you do believe that RAGE will be "story-driven" then I hope you've prepared some air-bags, because it's going to hit some really tick and stubborn wall really, really fast when you'll be playing it. Or, will it? Let's presume for a moment that "story-driven" simply means that the game's scripted events that can open up the next maps so that you can progress until the game's credits runs on a story, then that would mean that the game is story-driven even though the story in question can be eluding, right? If that is the case then *drum rolls* ...Borderlands is story-driven, and so was many others that you would surely assume aren't story-driven.
I said above that RAGE won't be story-driven, well, yes, it will on a technical point of view, since it has a story, and its story "drives" the events of the game to trigger, but the same happens in Borderlands, and thousands of other games out there, as you surely know. Now I'm wondering if we actually have to define what "story-driven" means, either to you, to me, or if there's a universal definition for all gamers...
Hence why I'm wondering... so I'll just reiterate, and actually ask as a proper question; do you actually believe that the story in RAGE will matter?
I do not believe that games "have" to be story-driven to be compared. Now, you're telling me here quite clearly that it doesn't matter if whether Borderlands had a better story then DOOM's, because even if similarities are technically found once compared that it still doesn't matter since in the end they both aren't story-driven, whatever their respective stories are. Which means that in such a case the comparisons had to be related to their stories to start with, but for all we could care about we could always end up comparing their respective soundtracks. Frankly, I don't see the link between being able to compare games, and the games being compared being story-driven or not, now that doesn't matter.
Slow down... slow down, you must have missed the part that you quoted yourself, as seen below:
Ok, first, I'd like to see where in that paragraph I typed myself and you happened to quote (and most likely read as well) that I've mentioned that I believe that the comparisons actually do stop at the visuals and never touch their actual stories? Word by word, do you see any of that? I said at least in its visual presentation and setting, but BEYOND that (there, I think that's the part that you must have tripped on) they ARE similar in terms of contexts as well (I'll explain more of that in a moment).
Then, you quoted yourself, which I'm quoting below:
You've read my wall of text, right? I was arguing (mainly) about the fact that Borderlands has a story, that's it, and that it being good or not was subjective, simply because you replied to someone else, asking in astonishment basically where was the "good story" in Borderlands, because you happened to play with other players and that you steam-rolled the game and most likely skipped everything and anything concerning its existing but eluding story-line. But then yes I went beyond that point and attempted to explain that RAGE has more similarities than meets the eye from that video, which I do believe you're not aware of for the moment, because I do assume (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that you haven't played, or perhaps never completed Fallout 3, is that correct? If not for Fallout 3, then perhaps not the original or its sequel, yes? No?
You're taking my word on that for what reason? Is it because you indeed never played any of the Fallout games for some time? Or completed any of them? And, secondo, I could go on and on when it comes to comparisons, you have listed more than just the vaults yourself, and I myself just stopped there, it doesn't mean that it indeed stops there, yet you seem to assume right here that it looks like both games can't be compared beyond the fact that they both have vaults (and piles of rubble, too).
Yes? Are you taking me for an imbecile? Because I feel some palpable tension right there, so let me pop-up some of mine as well from this point, I like being on equal grounds, if you don't mind...
Now you do look quite silly yourself here. First of all, you think that the Fallout series would have had to actually invent the fucking principle itself of sheltering people in vaults before a nuclear fallout for people like me to actually have the right to fucking compare games? I don't give a rat's ass if Fallout didn't "invent" it or if a bunch of freaking 6,000 years-old Neolithic farmers constructed one before I could play the damn game. I'm just trying to make that part clear. So, my apologies if I do use that as "some sort of an example", because IT IS A FUCKING EXAMPLE... ok, just one, out of a couple of others. And, no, it is not like saying that if both games contained refrigerators that they would automatically be similar, you made that one yourself but ended up looking silly in the process, although that's perhaps my own perception, others may agree with you (good if that can make you feel better).
I don't know why I'm arguing about story with you on an id Software game... perhaps because YOU REPLIED TO gorcops, and I quote:
First, if you didn't care about its story you wouldn't make such a point about it, but above all, you wouldn't have said that whatever story was there was cursory at best and ONLY THERE TO DRIVE THE GAME-PLAY, when in fact your own arguing relates to Borderlands' story being irrelevant exactly because it's NOT story-driven, even though you claimed that if there was one that it IS DRIVING THE GAME-PLAY which in the end kinda - just kinda - happens to be a FUCKING STORY-DRIVEN game! And I'm NOT the one saying that!
For crying out loud, without a story, there's no triggered events and that stupid Claptrap at the start wouldn't open up the gate in a scripted scene because the fucking story freaking drives the damn game. Do we actually have to come up with our own self-satisfactory definitions of what story-driven is now? Really? If for whatever reason you come up and reply to this one telling me that it wasn't what you meant and that I misunderstand you to an incomprehensible extent then PLEASE let me know, tell me what I'm not getting right (you, or anyone else here actually caring about this "debate", just leave your pop-corn for a moment and actually intervene because I'm pretty sure that he'll come back telling me that I completely lost it and that I don't understand him).
In the end, you know what? What really doesn't matter is whether or not RAGE ends up being story-driven or not. In the end we DO... yes WE DO agree on ONE thing here, impressed? You should be, if you read to this point. Is the fact that game-play is king. Hence why I'm wondering why you replied to that guy in astonishment that he thought that Borderlands had a good story, because if you really don't care about stories especially when it comes to that game and for RAGE then I believe that you wouldn't have replied to him in the first place, at least not to tell him that.
------
But... one last thing, before I'm done here, I'm going back to your own original post and I'm quoting:
I'll take a bit more time and actually list "some of the similarities", and they do go beyond piles or rubble, vaults and bandits. What RAGE has that Borderlands and Fallout/Fallout 2/Fallout 3 have (but did not necessarily "invent", as if it mattered to start with for the mere purpose of comparisons to find similarities that do matter beyond rubble and refrigerators...)
º Arks / Vaults
- Differentiated to an extent by the sizes and functions (Fallout's "Vaults" originally served as experiments, while being able to contain a much larger number of inhabitants than for RAGE's Arks, etc). Are they "the same"? Absolutely not.. just saying, in case anyone comes and tells me that I would have pretended that those similarities made them essentially the same, which is not the case, we're talking about similarities here. In fact, as stated in the video, the Ark ITSELF apparently emerges from the ground, when in Fallout the player/inhabitants just "leave" the Vaults by accessing upper levels from various methods, mostly simply by walking up stairs for some time... and ending up having to open up the single vault's blast door, if it can be done at all, to be able to go outdoor. With that said, in RAGE, when you step outside, you're essentially "alone". In Fallout you're also alone (initially), and in Borderlands as well (connected to the wasteland setting).
º Wasteland / General Setting
- Post-apocalyptic event in two of the three games mentioned so far (and others could fit in comfortably as well, but we'll stick with Fallout 3, or the series itself, and RAGE for this, since Borderlands presents no actual post-apocalyptic event per se, even though it does look almost the same as if it was the case) caused a massive depopulation of the area(s) in which the games take place, and beyond. The wasteland setting brings the inevitable unmaintained, uncared for, neglected infrastructure that happened to completely or partially stand still during and for a time following the main catastrophic event. The survivor's society is profoundly changed, and from those changes mostly emerges warring bands/factions, scattered communities and settlers, scavengers, etc. And there's of course reforming pseudo-official/national military power/organization/government that is always seemingly (and technically) more equipped and usually more determined than the "survivors" in doing whatever they want to for a greater purpose or an "ultimate plan", such as Fallout's "Enclave", Borderlands' "Crimson Lance" and "Atlas", or RAGE's "Authority" (as mentioned in the video).
During the first ten seconds of the video that one NPC character says: «[...]hitting the authority where it hurts[...]», which clearly refers to the actual "group" that is being mentioned in the video later on, "The Authority". I would (safely, I'm sure) assume that "hitting them" is the basis of the game's story once more details unfold, the similarities would then fit with Fallout 3's where you basically hit the Enclave where it hurts, too, and in Borderlands where you hit the Crimson Lance where it hurts as well (although a bit as an indirect nuisance that you happened to be able to hurt since they were on your way, while your main goal was to just go in that alien vault, with the rest being part of history thanks to the unbelievably anti-climatic poorly-executed ending). Again, as mentioned in the video concerning "The Authority", they are trying to control the wasteland and set/force the direction of mankind, which happens to be pretty much what the Enclave wants to do in the Fallout universe (not just Fallout 3, the Enclave hates anyone born outside of the Enclave's grasp and controlled regions, they wouldn't hesitate to exterminate them, and if you're very lucky and get captured you end up as a slave), and pretty much happens to be what Atlas wants to do in Borderlands (via the Crimson Lance, if I recall correctly).
Are they "exactly the same" scenarios? No. Are they "similar"? Yes. Are there any other games on the market in which you the player have to take on the guns (or swords, whatever) and your courage to defeat some tyrannic or oppressing faction/government/single antagonist that seemingly wants to "control" something at some point? Of course, plenty, hundreds, probably thousands, the entire gaming industry's story library is roughly composed of that kind of story-telling. The point isn't to figure out whom invented the concepts, however, it is simply to look for similarities.
And, finally (according to what's available from the video only, and I'm sure there will be more once the game comes out), in RAGE, there is the "Resistance" which of course fights against the "Authority". They, the resistance people, find you. They know (according to the video's commentaries, again) that Ark survivors happen to be "special" because like that old man NPC mentions at some point there's all those little computers inside them. Now, that is a nice similarity with what happens in Fallout 3 (and previous ones as well to other extents), when during the course of events (early in) in Operation Anchorage you basically "activate" a virtual reality simulation of the events of the invasion of the Chinese forces of Alaska thanks to... *drum rolls*... your Pip-Boy. And, of course, all across the wasteland (well, in most of the settlements) the wastelanders know that the "Vaulters" are special because most of them do possess that technology.
º Government's Involvement
- In RAGE, as stated in the video, when the government finds out about the asteroid they initiated a program, the "Eden Project". In Fallout's case, the government also initiates a program for their vaults in the alarming possibilities of a nuclear holocaust on the horizon. Is the point about wondering whether or not "others" than governments would have been able to "do it" anyway? No, the point is pointing at similarities, that's it. Here Borderlands can stay in bed, it has no comparisons to make (it's an alien planet, there's a single vault, and it wasn't created by a government).
º Driving / Vehicles
- For once, in this case, Fallout can stay out of the ring, it's about Boderlands this time. In Borderlands you can drive vehicles (basically only one, still, you drive it) for mere transportation purposes, or to use them to help you do your quests faster, or simply "do quests" per se as well for those that do require the vehicle. And since the actual vehicle combat is boring in Borderlands I'd presume that most players did use the vehicle mainly to just transport themselves around faster, rather than to use if for combat outside of its need due to a quest requiring one, and that's certainly where RAGE will be better in comparison, amongst many other aspects (but anyway, beyond that the similarities exist).
º Mutants
- To be completely honest, the only thing that comes to my mind for that one when it comes to RAGE is why? Why mutants for RAGE? Is it because they have to exist in a post-apocalyptic setting? In Fallout, even though yes it's a game (I.E it doesn't have to "make sense", I know that, but still...) the mutants exist for a reason that is directly related to the events of the game's story, and it does make sense on a story-line standpoint from the game's own universe (I.E the actual nuclear fallout and the resulting radiation, and last but not least the FEV virus). But, in RAGE, there's no nuclear war, or radiation fallout, or nuclear winter, there's an asteroid that hits the Earth, and only one hundred years later mutants happen to exist, and they are seemingly organized as well.
Now, I don't know RAGE's whole story, of course, but if they do have an in-game (and explained in the game, of course) reason as to why there are mutants then I do hope that they don't come up with some sort of another virus. Not exactly because it was done in Fallout already and meaning that id Software suddenly wouldn't have the "right" to use such a reason if they really wanted to, that's not the point. But because if mutants exist in RAGE beyond their apparent need to be there simply because it's a post-apocalyptic setting then, at least for me, it would create that sense of déjà-vue, not that it would affect every other gamers out there, of course, especially those who have never played Fallout in the first place to even be aware of such similarities.
------
I'll stop here for the similarities. Is the fact that there's similarities means that suddenly RAGE "sucks"? Not at all, but I never said that anyway (I'm saying, just in case it would have appeared to be as such for some unexplainable reason). I, for one, cannot wait for RAGE and I know I'll enjoy it, but there are similarities and some aspects of its setting and story (being "driven" by it doesn't matter) that just aren't unique, and some of them just won't "matter" since it's an open-ended world in which you basically do whatever you feel like, and the last time I played a game like was I didn't particularly care about its story since I thought it wasn't important, even though it was there to actually drive the game on a technical standpoint (I.E the story and events can't progress if you don't actually follow the "main" quests chain, which also happen to apply to Borderlands, as a short reminder). A
Anyway, now I think that I've had my fare share of typing for now, feel free to care for any of this.
I see, but I do hope that you didn't believed that I as well was trying to "justify" it that way because I thought that RAGE would "suck" exactly for those reasons. I'm just saying, you know. I for one do not believe that RAGE will suck, I'm just saying that it is comparable to the Fallout series (not just Fallout 3) and Borderlands.
I think that you've missed some of my own points. I can't do anything about it really if you perceived my reply as a "justification" for Borderlands' story, but I can assure you that I did not "attempt to justify" its story, as if it didn't have one, nor had the right to have one. It's not "justification" or defense of its story, it's merely affirming that it is present, but that beyond its existence that if it ends up being good or bad is simply a matter of personal tastes, which is why I mentioned that some people ought to believe that other games even those made by id Software have "better stories", even though we know that their games are never story-driven (although they do, on paper, have one).
And, I'm sorry if you believe so (and please let me know, because I'm legitimately unsure of it, hence why I'm wondering), but if you do believe that RAGE will be "story-driven" then I hope you've prepared some air-bags, because it's going to hit some really tick and stubborn wall really, really fast when you'll be playing it. Or, will it? Let's presume for a moment that "story-driven" simply means that the game's scripted events that can open up the next maps so that you can progress until the game's credits runs on a story, then that would mean that the game is story-driven even though the story in question can be eluding, right? If that is the case then *drum rolls* ...Borderlands is story-driven, and so was many others that you would surely assume aren't story-driven.
I said above that RAGE won't be story-driven, well, yes, it will on a technical point of view, since it has a story, and its story "drives" the events of the game to trigger, but the same happens in Borderlands, and thousands of other games out there, as you surely know. Now I'm wondering if we actually have to define what "story-driven" means, either to you, to me, or if there's a universal definition for all gamers...
Hence why I'm wondering... so I'll just reiterate, and actually ask as a proper question; do you actually believe that the story in RAGE will matter?
I do not believe that games "have" to be story-driven to be compared. Now, you're telling me here quite clearly that it doesn't matter if whether Borderlands had a better story then DOOM's, because even if similarities are technically found once compared that it still doesn't matter since in the end they both aren't story-driven, whatever their respective stories are. Which means that in such a case the comparisons had to be related to their stories to start with, but for all we could care about we could always end up comparing their respective soundtracks. Frankly, I don't see the link between being able to compare games, and the games being compared being story-driven or not, now that doesn't matter.
Slow down... slow down, you must have missed the part that you quoted yourself, as seen below:
Ok, first, I'd like to see where in that paragraph I typed myself and you happened to quote (and most likely read as well) that I've mentioned that I believe that the comparisons actually do stop at the visuals and never touch their actual stories? Word by word, do you see any of that? I said at least in its visual presentation and setting, but BEYOND that (there, I think that's the part that you must have tripped on) they ARE similar in terms of contexts as well (I'll explain more of that in a moment).
Then, you quoted yourself, which I'm quoting below:
You've read my wall of text, right? I was arguing (mainly) about the fact that Borderlands has a story, that's it, and that it being good or not was subjective, simply because you replied to someone else, asking in astonishment basically where was the "good story" in Borderlands, because you happened to play with other players and that you steam-rolled the game and most likely skipped everything and anything concerning its existing but eluding story-line. But then yes I went beyond that point and attempted to explain that RAGE has more similarities than meets the eye from that video, which I do believe you're not aware of for the moment, because I do assume (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that you haven't played, or perhaps never completed Fallout 3, is that correct? If not for Fallout 3, then perhaps not the original or its sequel, yes? No?
You're taking my word on that for what reason? Is it because you indeed never played any of the Fallout games for some time? Or completed any of them? And, secondo, I could go on and on when it comes to comparisons, you have listed more than just the vaults yourself, and I myself just stopped there, it doesn't mean that it indeed stops there, yet you seem to assume right here that it looks like both games can't be compared beyond the fact that they both have vaults (and piles of rubble, too).
Yes? Are you taking me for an imbecile? Because I feel some palpable tension right there, so let me pop-up some of mine as well from this point, I like being on equal grounds, if you don't mind...
Now you do look quite silly yourself here. First of all, you think that the Fallout series would have had to actually invent the fucking principle itself of sheltering people in vaults before a nuclear fallout for people like me to actually have the right to fucking compare games? I don't give a rat's ass if Fallout didn't "invent" it or if a bunch of freaking 6,000 years-old Neolithic farmers constructed one before I could play the damn game. I'm just trying to make that part clear. So, my apologies if I do use that as "some sort of an example", because IT IS A FUCKING EXAMPLE... ok, just one, out of a couple of others. And, no, it is not like saying that if both games contained refrigerators that they would automatically be similar, you made that one yourself but ended up looking silly in the process, although that's perhaps my own perception, others may agree with you (good if that can make you feel better).
I don't know why I'm arguing about story with you on an id Software game... perhaps because YOU REPLIED TO gorcops, and I quote:
First, if you didn't care about its story you wouldn't make such a point about it, but above all, you wouldn't have said that whatever story was there was cursory at best and ONLY THERE TO DRIVE THE GAME-PLAY, when in fact your own arguing relates to Borderlands' story being irrelevant exactly because it's NOT story-driven, even though you claimed that if there was one that it IS DRIVING THE GAME-PLAY which in the end kinda - just kinda - happens to be a FUCKING STORY-DRIVEN game! And I'm NOT the one saying that!
For crying out loud, without a story, there's no triggered events and that stupid Claptrap at the start wouldn't open up the gate in a scripted scene because the fucking story freaking drives the damn game. Do we actually have to come up with our own self-satisfactory definitions of what story-driven is now? Really? If for whatever reason you come up and reply to this one telling me that it wasn't what you meant and that I misunderstand you to an incomprehensible extent then PLEASE let me know, tell me what I'm not getting right (you, or anyone else here actually caring about this "debate", just leave your pop-corn for a moment and actually intervene because I'm pretty sure that he'll come back telling me that I completely lost it and that I don't understand him).
In the end, you know what? What really doesn't matter is whether or not RAGE ends up being story-driven or not. In the end we DO... yes WE DO agree on ONE thing here, impressed? You should be, if you read to this point. Is the fact that game-play is king. Hence why I'm wondering why you replied to that guy in astonishment that he thought that Borderlands had a good story, because if you really don't care about stories especially when it comes to that game and for RAGE then I believe that you wouldn't have replied to him in the first place, at least not to tell him that.
------
But... one last thing, before I'm done here, I'm going back to your own original post and I'm quoting:
I'll take a bit more time and actually list "some of the similarities", and they do go beyond piles or rubble, vaults and bandits. What RAGE has that Borderlands and Fallout/Fallout 2/Fallout 3 have (but did not necessarily "invent", as if it mattered to start with for the mere purpose of comparisons to find similarities that do matter beyond rubble and refrigerators...)
º Arks / Vaults
- Differentiated to an extent by the sizes and functions (Fallout's "Vaults" originally served as experiments, while being able to contain a much larger number of inhabitants than for RAGE's Arks, etc). Are they "the same"? Absolutely not.. just saying, in case anyone comes and tells me that I would have pretended that those similarities made them essentially the same, which is not the case, we're talking about similarities here. In fact, as stated in the video, the Ark ITSELF apparently emerges from the ground, when in Fallout the player/inhabitants just "leave" the Vaults by accessing upper levels from various methods, mostly simply by walking up stairs for some time... and ending up having to open up the single vault's blast door, if it can be done at all, to be able to go outdoor. With that said, in RAGE, when you step outside, you're essentially "alone". In Fallout you're also alone (initially), and in Borderlands as well (connected to the wasteland setting).
º Wasteland / General Setting
- Post-apocalyptic event in two of the three games mentioned so far (and others could fit in comfortably as well, but we'll stick with Fallout 3, or the series itself, and RAGE for this, since Borderlands presents no actual post-apocalyptic event per se, even though it does look almost the same as if it was the case) caused a massive depopulation of the area(s) in which the games take place, and beyond. The wasteland setting brings the inevitable unmaintained, uncared for, neglected infrastructure that happened to completely or partially stand still during and for a time following the main catastrophic event. The survivor's society is profoundly changed, and from those changes mostly emerges warring bands/factions, scattered communities and settlers, scavengers, etc. And there's of course reforming pseudo-official/national military power/organization/government that is always seemingly (and technically) more equipped and usually more determined than the "survivors" in doing whatever they want to for a greater purpose or an "ultimate plan", such as Fallout's "Enclave", Borderlands' "Crimson Lance" and "Atlas", or RAGE's "Authority" (as mentioned in the video).
During the first ten seconds of the video that one NPC character says: «[...]hitting the authority where it hurts[...]», which clearly refers to the actual "group" that is being mentioned in the video later on, "The Authority". I would (safely, I'm sure) assume that "hitting them" is the basis of the game's story once more details unfold, the similarities would then fit with Fallout 3's where you basically hit the Enclave where it hurts, too, and in Borderlands where you hit the Crimson Lance where it hurts as well (although a bit as an indirect nuisance that you happened to be able to hurt since they were on your way, while your main goal was to just go in that alien vault, with the rest being part of history thanks to the unbelievably anti-climatic poorly-executed ending). Again, as mentioned in the video concerning "The Authority", they are trying to control the wasteland and set/force the direction of mankind, which happens to be pretty much what the Enclave wants to do in the Fallout universe (not just Fallout 3, the Enclave hates anyone born outside of the Enclave's grasp and controlled regions, they wouldn't hesitate to exterminate them, and if you're very lucky and get captured you end up as a slave), and pretty much happens to be what Atlas wants to do in Borderlands (via the Crimson Lance, if I recall correctly).
Are they "exactly the same" scenarios? No. Are they "similar"? Yes. Are there any other games on the market in which you the player have to take on the guns (or swords, whatever) and your courage to defeat some tyrannic or oppressing faction/government/single antagonist that seemingly wants to "control" something at some point? Of course, plenty, hundreds, probably thousands, the entire gaming industry's story library is roughly composed of that kind of story-telling. The point isn't to figure out whom invented the concepts, however, it is simply to look for similarities.
And, finally (according to what's available from the video only, and I'm sure there will be more once the game comes out), in RAGE, there is the "Resistance" which of course fights against the "Authority". They, the resistance people, find you. They know (according to the video's commentaries, again) that Ark survivors happen to be "special" because like that old man NPC mentions at some point there's all those little computers inside them. Now, that is a nice similarity with what happens in Fallout 3 (and previous ones as well to other extents), when during the course of events (early in) in Operation Anchorage you basically "activate" a virtual reality simulation of the events of the invasion of the Chinese forces of Alaska thanks to... *drum rolls*... your Pip-Boy. And, of course, all across the wasteland (well, in most of the settlements) the wastelanders know that the "Vaulters" are special because most of them do possess that technology.
º Government's Involvement
- In RAGE, as stated in the video, when the government finds out about the asteroid they initiated a program, the "Eden Project". In Fallout's case, the government also initiates a program for their vaults in the alarming possibilities of a nuclear holocaust on the horizon. Is the point about wondering whether or not "others" than governments would have been able to "do it" anyway? No, the point is pointing at similarities, that's it. Here Borderlands can stay in bed, it has no comparisons to make (it's an alien planet, there's a single vault, and it wasn't created by a government).
º Driving / Vehicles
- For once, in this case, Fallout can stay out of the ring, it's about Boderlands this time. In Borderlands you can drive vehicles (basically only one, still, you drive it) for mere transportation purposes, or to use them to help you do your quests faster, or simply "do quests" per se as well for those that do require the vehicle. And since the actual vehicle combat is boring in Borderlands I'd presume that most players did use the vehicle mainly to just transport themselves around faster, rather than to use if for combat outside of its need due to a quest requiring one, and that's certainly where RAGE will be better in comparison, amongst many other aspects (but anyway, beyond that the similarities exist).
º Mutants
- To be completely honest, the only thing that comes to my mind for that one when it comes to RAGE is why? Why mutants for RAGE? Is it because they have to exist in a post-apocalyptic setting? In Fallout, even though yes it's a game (I.E it doesn't have to "make sense", I know that, but still...) the mutants exist for a reason that is directly related to the events of the game's story, and it does make sense on a story-line standpoint from the game's own universe (I.E the actual nuclear fallout and the resulting radiation, and last but not least the FEV virus). But, in RAGE, there's no nuclear war, or radiation fallout, or nuclear winter, there's an asteroid that hits the Earth, and only one hundred years later mutants happen to exist, and they are seemingly organized as well.
Now, I don't know RAGE's whole story, of course, but if they do have an in-game (and explained in the game, of course) reason as to why there are mutants then I do hope that they don't come up with some sort of another virus. Not exactly because it was done in Fallout already and meaning that id Software suddenly wouldn't have the "right" to use such a reason if they really wanted to, that's not the point. But because if mutants exist in RAGE beyond their apparent need to be there simply because it's a post-apocalyptic setting then, at least for me, it would create that sense of déjà-vue, not that it would affect every other gamers out there, of course, especially those who have never played Fallout in the first place to even be aware of such similarities.
------
I'll stop here for the similarities. Is the fact that there's similarities means that suddenly RAGE "sucks"? Not at all, but I never said that anyway (I'm saying, just in case it would have appeared to be as such for some unexplainable reason). I, for one, cannot wait for RAGE and I know I'll enjoy it, but there are similarities and some aspects of its setting and story (being "driven" by it doesn't matter) that just aren't unique, and some of them just won't "matter" since it's an open-ended world in which you basically do whatever you feel like, and the last time I played a game like was I didn't particularly care about its story since I thought it wasn't important, even though it was there to actually drive the game on a technical standpoint (I.E the story and events can't progress if you don't actually follow the "main" quests chain, which also happen to apply to Borderlands, as a short reminder). A
Anyway, now I think that I've had my fare share of typing for now, feel free to care for any of this.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
I agree it isn't likely to be as fast paced as Quake, but that's an extreme example of a run-n-gun. If I had to guess it is more like Half Life 2 brought up to date with a somewhat less linear path and a few RPG elements thrown in for good measure. Not exactly a pure run-n-gun, but with all the driving and the 60 fps its enough to still classify it as a run-n-gun.
Dankk
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2008
- 5,558
- 25
- 91
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
They aren't outdated, but certainly nonlinear shooters are more a more modern development.
Zenoth I can't reply to all that, mainly because it would be a circular argument. 90% of your argument seems to be with my very short follow up post to someone else stating all the criticism between Rage and Fallout/Borderlands is based on story (which I still don't believe). Where my main criticisms were in a much more well thought out previous post.
If you are curious of what I believe a story driven game is: Any game where game play, skill and general game difficulty take a back seat to the story. This was a very core principal in many Japaneese RPGs where the game play was mediocre and practically copy and paste from a previous game but the story itself was the most enjoyable aspect. Often a story driven game could be spoiled with spoilers. There is nothing you could ruin in Borderlands for me with spoilers. The object of a story driven game is to play the game to learn the story, usually these games are linear and the closest things to movies, usually containing cut scenes, in-depth characters, sacrifice and other plot mechanics.
You could tell me Shub Niggurath spawns at the end of Quake and it really does not spoil any part of the game for me, because it isn't story driven. You are right that I said the story was cursory in borderlands and only there to drive the game. My mistake for misusing the same phrase, story doesn't drive Borderlands, quests do. And if it wasn't for the quests, loot would be the driving force in any reason to move forward because ultimately Borderlands is a Monty-haul style hack-n-slash RPG.
As to your confusion about whether I think Rage has a good story. First off, I don't believe anyone here can say one way or the other, which is what makes this whole argument so goddamn silly. But secondly and most importantly, I simply do not care about Rage's story.
And as for your absolutely ridiculous Fallout comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-apocalyptic_video_games
Rage shares similarities with all those games. Because the setting is similar. Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_(video_game)
This one from 1988 has like, everything you just talked about, oh no!
If you are curious of what I believe a story driven game is: Any game where game play, skill and general game difficulty take a back seat to the story. This was a very core principal in many Japaneese RPGs where the game play was mediocre and practically copy and paste from a previous game but the story itself was the most enjoyable aspect. Often a story driven game could be spoiled with spoilers. There is nothing you could ruin in Borderlands for me with spoilers. The object of a story driven game is to play the game to learn the story, usually these games are linear and the closest things to movies, usually containing cut scenes, in-depth characters, sacrifice and other plot mechanics.
You could tell me Shub Niggurath spawns at the end of Quake and it really does not spoil any part of the game for me, because it isn't story driven. You are right that I said the story was cursory in borderlands and only there to drive the game. My mistake for misusing the same phrase, story doesn't drive Borderlands, quests do. And if it wasn't for the quests, loot would be the driving force in any reason to move forward because ultimately Borderlands is a Monty-haul style hack-n-slash RPG.
As to your confusion about whether I think Rage has a good story. First off, I don't believe anyone here can say one way or the other, which is what makes this whole argument so goddamn silly. But secondly and most importantly, I simply do not care about Rage's story.
And as for your absolutely ridiculous Fallout comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-apocalyptic_video_games
Rage shares similarities with all those games. Because the setting is similar. Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_(video_game)
This one from 1988 has like, everything you just talked about, oh no!
Last edited:
And for comparison:
Fallout Vaults were large self sufficient bomb shelters where people could live several generations until the earth was safe for habitation again. However, most of the vaults ended up being government control tests of various kinds with very few being actual legitimate colonies.
Rage Arks appear to be small 12 man cryogenic pods. Each person in the cryogenic chamber is given a skill that would help the group survive on the surface after a world ending destructive force. They are not meant to be self-sufficient but are more like space pods where life is frozen for a set period of time until it can be brought back at it's destination.
Neither fallout shelters nor cryogenic chambers are unique concepts, however it is important to note that since you've been comparing them, they aren't actually similar. Both of these concepts are very obvious to explain how people would survive a cataclysmic event. Similar to using a space ship to explain how people get into space.
Fallout Vaults were large self sufficient bomb shelters where people could live several generations until the earth was safe for habitation again. However, most of the vaults ended up being government control tests of various kinds with very few being actual legitimate colonies.
Rage Arks appear to be small 12 man cryogenic pods. Each person in the cryogenic chamber is given a skill that would help the group survive on the surface after a world ending destructive force. They are not meant to be self-sufficient but are more like space pods where life is frozen for a set period of time until it can be brought back at it's destination.
Neither fallout shelters nor cryogenic chambers are unique concepts, however it is important to note that since you've been comparing them, they aren't actually similar. Both of these concepts are very obvious to explain how people would survive a cataclysmic event. Similar to using a space ship to explain how people get into space.
Last edited:
wuliheron
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 3,536
- 0
- 0
The cryogenic chambers are nothing more then a plot device to encourage the player to identify with the lead character and his situation. Its an excuse for why someone civilized (ie- YOU) suddenly finds themselves in a devastated land filled with monsters. They could just as easily use amnesia or time travel or any other excuse as other games have.
Its an action shooter, not some elaborate RPG or sim or whatever. Simple plot, a few simple characters, some one liners, maybe some humor, and lots of action. If you want something more cerebral or with complex game play dynamics you'll just have to look elsewhere.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter