Rage (2010) - Archived Review
Originally published February 2015.Rage. It’s a word that can say a lot in a single syllable, mostly concerning anger or violence in some way, be it nature or otherwise. Not to mention, it can also sound pretty cool with a well-done metal growl. Yet, it is not a word I would use to describe the video game of that name.
Before you go any further, if you don't want to take the time to read my entire review, you can watch my video review, in which I cover many of the same points.
Developed by id Software, the godfathers of first-person shooters, Rage came out about 3 years ago after a lengthy development cycle to the applause of critics and a “moderate” financial success. For some audiences, however, it was rewarded with little more than a resounding “meh”; this is where I fit in. Despite the awards it received and the praise it garnered from critics, the game was something of a disappointment for myself, and likely Bethesda, the publisher that owns id. The game was in development for a long time, cost a lot of money to make as a result, and its sales have not made up for the investment, thus far. People were expecting a lot from this game for quite a while and it ended up falling flat for a number of different reasons.
Since I actually didn't bother to finish the game like I normally do for video game reviews, I’m going to do things differently and simply analyze why I chose not to finish it. In other words, I’m going to analyze why Rage fell short of my expectations and managed to be a very forgettable game several years after its initial release.
Timing
Before I get into the game and its mechanics, I’m going to start this review off with the factor that probably would make everything else that lowers my grade of this game moot, to a certain extent. We as consumers tend to forget the importance of a well-timed release when it comes to products, but it can truly make a huge difference, especially if you consider how your competition (or even your allies) makes the market a little more stagnant for you.
What I’m getting at is considering the fact that both Fallout 3 and Borderlands, two hugely successful first-person shooters that have RPG elements and take place in barren deserts/wastelands, came out well before Rage hit shelves. Both of those games were massive in their scope, both games had an extensive amount of content, and both games were a lot more mysterious leading up to their release, in that they had significantly less press coverage during the development cycle.
Rage was a game that I can vividly remember seeing on the covers of video game magazines and having extensive coverage and previews in each issue in which it was featured. It was a big deal. This was id’s next big game and it was going to be bigger than Doom or Quake, at least, that’s what they wanted you to think. Part of the reason for the hype was that, as with most id games, they were building an engine for it and they wanted to showcase the technology involved. From what I saw in magazines and screenshots, it certainly seemed like id was going to blow everyone away with the next big engine again.
Yet years came and went and the game still didn't come out. Meanwhile, Fallout 3 was announced and came out well within Rage’s development cycle, as did Borderlands. Hell, the follow-up to Fallout 3, New Vegas, came out before Rage did. By the time Rage hit the scene, the market was saturated with shooters just like it that did everything it did, better, even if they didn't look as good as Rage. We’ll discuss how it did things like the other games mentioned later, but the point is that had Rage come out within a couple of years as opposed to the standard lengthy cycle of id, it might have had a chance in the market and actually stood out.
In my personal experience of playing Rage, the timing meant a little less, obviously, as I played Fallout 3 years ago, and have only just now touched Rage. I also didn't care much for Borderlands and found it just as boring (especially considering the fact that I didn't even finish the first 10 missions after the tutorial). Nonetheless, I still think of those two franchises before Rage when someone mentions “post-apocalyptic shooter RPG in a wasteland,” because I hear that particular phrase on a regular basis.
Rip-offs
Now to get to the actual gameplay issues I had. The main idea that I’m going to focus on is what I've already mentioned: everything in Rage has been done before and is done better in different games.
First of all, it’s a first-person shooter, the most popular genre in video games. It would be pretty tough to be able to catch everyone’s attention as the most satisfying shooter out there, especially when it had so much competition outside the post-apocalyptic wasteland class of FPS. But let’s go beyond what it is as a genre--ironically, what the game itself attempts and fails to do--and look at the particular things that Rage attempts in order to stand out in its saturated market.
Crafting
Crafting is one of those features that has only become more and more mandatory. It’s become a checkmark on the list of things players must be able to do in the video game, whether it’s really necessary or not. It doesn't make sense to me why it’s become so important to developers that it be included in games, but someone out there sees it as a method of enhancing the gameplay by giving gamers the chance to create their own materials.
Except there’s typically no creativity involved on the player’s side. Ideally and conceptually, it’s supposed to appeal to the inner MacGyver and to the time when the player was a kid and thought he or she could be a scientist by simply putting a bunch of leaves, bugs, and vinegar into a tube and shaking; or appeal to the kid who taped a mini-telescope to a Nerf gun. The point of the system is to draw out the “craftiness” of the player in the same way.
In reality, it’s just clicking two or more objects on the screen and then clicking a box that says a synonym of the words “combine” or “craft” and suddenly you have a different item that does things that the others couldn't do on their own. Essentially, crafting is a system that is never any different in video games, it is only the facade that changes from game to game.
Rage’s crafting problem is that its facade is very shallow:
You go to your supplies screen and select the recipe you have available. If you don’t have the recipe for the items you want to make, you can’t make it, even with the necessary supplies.
If you have the recipe, but are missing ingredients you can’t make the item.
If you have both, you can make the item by pressing the button to combine them all together and there you have it.
It’s just as exciting as reading that list, because it all happens on a menu screen. There is nothing dramatic or interesting about it, nor is there any creativity or experimentation to it. It just comes across as an afterthought, like someone put the check box for crafting at the bottom of the list after all the other pieces of development were finished.
Lastly, I’ll say that nothing makes an afterthought of a crafting system seem more apparently shallow and pointless than this example that I experienced:
I had a recipe for bandages, an item that can be found everywhere. The recipe consists of 2 items: gauze and cleanser. While wandering the Dead City--where my wandering was very limited and linear--I came upon both items, sitting right next to each other. I didn't wander the room and find them scattered about, they were literally on the same decrepit rolling shelf. This forced me to craft the bandages in the boring menu instead of just giving me the stupid item in the first place. Games I like, such as Witcher, do similar things, but the variations of inputs, outputs, and experimentation to the algebra problem do a better job of covering up the obvious system, which helps me ignore my inconvenience.
Quests
“Role-Playing Games have quests. You go to a character, talk to him or her for a bit and find out they want or need something from you. Then you go help them, because video games.”
I’m not actually quoting anyone, I’m merely guessing that what I just said is about the level of thought and interest that went into the process of creating Rage’s concept of quests. Quests in RPGs usually give you some incentive to help, be it a weapon or some experience and it creates a real sense that you are the one that needs to do it because the quest-giver is typically incapable of doing it, or clearly thinks they’re too good to do it. It then usually falls on the player to decide whether to obey or ignore the request. In an open-world sandbox (which is what Rage claims to be in more ways than one) this decision is even more apparent because a player can often choose to go out and explore the world at their own discretion.
Rage’s problem is that it doesn't give you a choice, but it acts like it does. There are some side quests here and there that you can completely ignore, but it’s the fact that many of the story quests--especially the first ones, which you have to complete to continue--act like you have a choice in the matter. If I have to do it, just make me do it, don’t lead me along and pretend like I do, it’s insulting. Great games like Saints Row the Third have required missions before you are able to do your own thing and explore the world as you please; there is nothing wrong with that.
So you’re forced (but not really, but yes really) to do the quests. What’s your reward? In rare instances it’s a weapon, but most of the time it’s nothing, or money which is almost as worthless to a certain degree. Since Rage is a shooter at its heart, it doesn't have the plethora of weapons to give you to further improve your character, which is exactly what Borderlands did to make you feel like each quest, and its possible reward, was important. Fallout had far fewer weapons, but each quest you completed gave you experience in the process as well as other boosts to your character like Perks or upgrades that further enhanced the experience. Rage wanted to do the RPG thing with quests without giving you a reason to do them.
In Giantbomb’s overview of Rage it says:
id Software's Rage combines first-person shooting, vehicular action, and "open but directed" exploration to tell the story of Earth's wretched civilization after a cataclysmic meteor strike.
Open but directed is the problem. My suggestion would have been to choose one or the other.
The Wasteland
I already mentioned how the market was saturated, not only by shooters but by shooters that had the same exact environment as their backdrop. So not only is their environment uninspired, it’s also empty and boring. The world is huge, but it has few specific places of interest that hold very little interest in and of themselves. It just basically feels very empty and restrictive despite the expansive boundaries of the map. What good is a massive sandbox if you can’t play in most of it, or, most of what you can play, isn't all that interesting?
Driving
As I said, the map is huge, thus you need a method to get around this huge map. Enter the main focus of Rage. Yes, you’ll be surprised to know, Rage does not actually focus on shooting as much as driving. I know, I was surprised too. But you will likely spend much more time in the car than dungeon crawling with a shotgun in your hands. Even the multiplayer is much more focused on the driving with some clear MarioKart influences as players are required to race or battle in their vehicles as they drive around with mounted guns and rockets trying to blow each other up.
The driving is competent, but comes across as flat and boring, considering the fact that the environment in which you’re driving in is, well, a barren wasteland, devoid of interest or content. It’s just a downward spiral of boredom id managed to send themselves down in this situation.
Enemies/Plot
I’m lumping the two together because they coincide with one another. I’ll be brief, but if you want to know what you’re fighting and against whom you’re fighting in Rage, look no further than Fallout 3. In the same sort of order, your initial enemies will be bandits with scavenged weapons, then you’ll have to fight mutants that either fight with their own deformed abilities or some weird combination of weapons and flesh, and then you’ll have to fight some authoritative group of individuals who have all the advanced gear from the world that was destroyed long ago--by the way, in Rage, the authoritative group is called: The Authority.
The lack of inspiration for their plot and list of antagonists is only matched by the name they chose for the resistance group that is fighting against the Authority--go ahead and guess because I don’t need to tell you what it is. I chose to stop playing shortly after I encountered the real antagonists as by that point it seemed like I had seen all Rage had to offer me. And what I’ll say about the plot is that not a whole lot happens other than you helping the petty public of various communities deal with some enemy threats. Or sometimes you’re just the delivery boy. Then you join the resistance group.
Final thoughts
I know I was a bit harsh on Rage. In all honesty, the game is perfectly competent in what it does. In terms of presentation, it was consistently at 60 frames a second with only a few performance issues. It’s just a game that comes across as boring and heartless. It felt like there were a series of extra check boxes that were added to their list of necessities in development to try and appease various niches when they should have focused on making a good/creative shooter without all these flat bells and whistles that take away from the core experience. As a result, instead of standing out from the crowd Rage manages to look more bland than its competitors.