Talk:Rockstar Advanced Game Engine

Just one game? By no means

Currently RAGE might just be used in one game. But in future it will be used in other R* games as well. Just as one can read in the article (GTA IV).

But it's true: someone could add the information given in the German WP, why R* decided to use RAGE at all. Maybe I will do it by myself, later. –jello ¿? 01:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the trailer for GTA IV and more info on the game are out now, could an admin revert the redirect to the actual article, that "RAGE" was until MIB's edit war initiation, please? –jello ¿? 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Which of those things is a reliable source that mentions this engine at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The redirect gives me no information about the engine(and that's what I want to find out more about), only that it is used in one game. Even a really short stub with "RAGE is a game engine developed by Rockstar Games and is currently only used in Table Tennis", would have been better. And when it is possible to add new information(by opening up the article and remove the damned redirect, new information will be added.

As for now, I have to divide the Table Tennis Article in two, one for the game and one for the engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris33 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

The article "And Grand Theft Auto IV Takes Place In... * UPDATE *" from TeamXbox states:

When we asked Rockstar Games for a clarification, a spokesman told TeamXbox: "We would like to let the trailer speak for itself. However, we can confirm that all footage in the trailer "Things Will Be Different" was captured directly from 720p gameplay running real-time in our RAGE engine on a next-gen gaming console."

This should be plenty to revert the redirect back to the original page. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. Because this page was protected for edit warring, it is not appropriate for changes like this to be made. Please contact User:Khoikhoi, who protected the page, and ask for unprotection. Once the dispute is settled, you will be able to edit the page yourself. CMummert · talk 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection and redirect to Rockstar Games

Although there are several reliable sources which document this engine and its use, the stub has little potential. At best all it can state is: "RAGE is an engine by Rockstar Games used in the making of Table Tennis and GTAIV". I've altered the redirect to allay such potential terseness and point the reader to a far more useful article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not fucking kidding you. I'm also not seeing any reason for this righteous indignation. There is an obvious difference of opinion between editors on the issue of notability and sourcing. Ignoring or angrily dismissing such concerns is not going to help you in any way. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would quite happily redirect it to any related target. As far as I can see, all this game has is one or two passing mentions and nothing close to multiple non-trivial sources, so it doesn't warrant an article at the moment. – Steel 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me say so: A Redirect to Rockstar Games presents Table Tennis or Grand Theft Auto IV makes some sense [not the most, but some]. But no sense at all makes a redirect to Rockstar Games as you cannot find any info on the game engine in the Rockstar Games article. –jello ¿? 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion this article should remain it's own article due to the following points.

• It meets WP:NOTABILITY
• It is equal or better in article quality and notability than those on List of game engines
• The article will grow to provide even more useful information on the topic

So I say hold on and let the article be improved from its current state. Revert wars will only slow the contribution process. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, there was never a consensus to redirect the page in the first place. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect makes no sense. It does not provide any information on the RAGE engine, and the last stub was much more helpful. Remove the redirection or put up a vote for this. Jo9100 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't provide any information on the RAGE engine, save that it's used in two games. The second paragraph of Rockstar Games presents Table Tennis also provides this information. What's confusing, here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Engine technical info

Just a heads up that I plan to add technical info to this article later today or tommorow. GTA4.net has a great writeup from the GTAIV trailer, but I cannot access it from work. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some reference for the use of RAGE in LA Noire? –jello ¿? 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you google for "la noire rage" a few candidates pop up, but like I said I cannot access game sites from work. So I'll look in to it later. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the candidates, they are all either fanforums or unreliable foreign sites posting speculation. Since Rockstar Games acquired rights to publish LA Noire at a late stage of development from Team Bondi, use of RAGE is uncertain. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar is being said to use RAGE on all of it's PS3 and X360 games. Thats what I have read so far. Gta95 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar just released a gameplay video for L.A. Noire, it uses RAGE, no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.166.238 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2011‎ (UTC)

LA Noire source?

LA Noire doesn't use RAGE... --72.19.91.48 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ERB versions

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=198598570&postcount=272 post by Ash735, from what I understand a former R* employee.

RAGE ERB1

• Rockstar Presents Table Tennis

RAGE ERB2

• Grand Theft Auto IV
• Midnight Club LA
• Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City

RAGE ERB3

• Max Payne 3
• Grand Theft Auto V/Online

I'm not sure how to nicely merge that info into the article, perhaps it also needs more sources. Something completely different is Red Dead Revolver. This 2004 game uses the "Advanced Game Engine" or AGE, an engine that R* supposedly developed so they would no longer have to license renderware which had fallen in the hands of EA. I find all of this a bit confusing. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This could probably be insert easily, and if the question arises where to put RDR, as the source outlines is complicated, we would just sort it under ERB2. There problem here is, though, that I'm not sure if we can take a NeoGAF post as reliable source, as we cannot confirm this user's identity as [former] Rockstar San Diego employee, and might just spew random information on the internet to gain attention. BTW, do you know/would you bother explaining what ERB stands for? Lordtobi (✉) 21:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned he is a former R* employee in Mystery Solved: Why There is No Red Dead Redemption Port for PC but this is obviously no good source. I don't know what ERB stands for, but a gtaforums staff member says "(ERB is presumebly 'Engine Release Build')". Sounds plausible. W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The YouTube channel "Tony StrongStyle" is questionable as far as that we cannot tell where he gained the information from. He will have though that it was plausbible, just like you above. And somebody guessing the meaning (it literally says "presum[a]bly") is not credible either. Unless we find a secondary source on the matter, or at least a primary one, we are on dry ground on the matter. Lordtobi (✉) 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I merely provided the suggestion for the meaning of ERB as fun trivia that might help someone else to find a real source, "sounds plausible" is not a credible source. As for Tony Strongstyle, that video is where I learned about the neogaf post. I am not a regular visitor on neogaf. So what I suspect is that Tony is a regular visitor on neogaf or another platform where Ash735 is active and has learned somewhere there that Ash735 is a former R* employee. This would still not be a credible source, all I'm saying is Tony may or may not be just guessing. Ash735 appears to also be active in the modding community and I suspect all the ERB information could also be discovered by a modder, so he could also have the correct information if he's not a former R* employee. For our purposes, the modding community may be able to verify this ERB information. W3ird N3rd (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, even they were able to stick together valid information to a usable extend, we cannot use it the way we would like to as it would not be accepted as reliable source here (as being tertiary aka. a fan page, unnotable blog, or forum; in our case the latter), and would need to wait for a secondary source to report on that. For particular research, I recommend the Video games WikiProject's custom Google search engine located at [1], which lists only reliable sources in our scope. 11:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If the modding community could explain how/where in the game files one can see what ERB version a game is, would that not be a credible source? The modding community is not the source here, the source would be the official game files. You just need the modding community to interpret them. Seems extremely silly to me if that's not a credible source. W3ird N3rd (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You could also dig out profane debugging comments or unused one-pixel graphics, and then give it away as being a claim from a credible source, which it is not. It is also unlikely that the finds will exactly reflect what one might expect when digging through these contents: there can and always will be errors and typos (wrong version number, deprecated comments, you name it). Again, the best option would be to just go with secondary sources, and only resort to primary sources (that is, published primary sources, not game files) to do the research work and confirm it with the company. Lordtobi (✉) 12:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Which screenshot to use for the infobox?

@Lone Internaut: You have inserted a screenshot of Red Dead Redemption into the infobox, although it appears that this screenshot does not provide much information/presentation for the engine itself (you see a cover system being used, but that is not a native part of the engine, rather something that was built on top of it, just as the game's gunfights are). I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to instead insert either:

• a) A screenshot of Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis, detailing that it was the first game to use the engine and stating what was in the engine since day one.
• b) A screenshot of Grand Theft Auto V, the newest and newest-generation title to use the engine, depcting here what details strikingly show that RAGE is being used, instead of any other engine.
• c) A screenshot of any other RAGE-using game, that clearly shows significant RAGE features, rather than a random gameplay item.

Else, I don't think that a screenshot, which simply displays graphics/gameplay not directly related to the engien, is really necessary, and could just as well be left out. Lordtobi (✉) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Well at a first thought I put that screenshot since it is just how a game (using that engine) is construct in its visual context, in its graphic form. So I just tought that it would be good. I wrote " using cover system" just beacuse it's what happen in the screenshot, to describe it, not to say that it an important part of the engine itself.

Both ideas of using Table Tennis or GTA V screenshot are valid. One is the engine in its beginnings and the other is the engine in its actual maturity. Maybe GTA V is better, since it's RAGE most recent application. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, on the GTAV article, we have a combat screenshot and a picture of the city; in the former image, we could point out particle effects, shadows, transparency effects (broken glass), while the latter displays depth of field, draw distance, weather effects, etc. Currently, I'd be in favor of the second image, as it was used promotionally to show off how good the game looks, and we can tell how the engine took a part in this easily. Would you agree on that; and if so, could you transfer the rationale from the RDR screenshot to this image, and place the respective filelink and appropriate caption in this article? Lordtobi (✉) 22:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mh, hard choice. Particle effects, shadows, transparency effects are not bad to show how an engine beheaves....on the opposite the second screenshot is about depth of field, draw distance, weather effects which in fact the article speaks about in the text. You're right, the second one is better. Give me a minute, I'll do that. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ok, I did. Caption should be good, but if you have a better description, put it, of course. Lone Internaut (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I adjust the caption for more detail on a concise format; I might also have been wrong about the image being of promotional nature, as it appears to be taken from a review, and as such is likely an ordinary screenshot from the game('s cutscenes). Lordtobi (✉) 23:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I remember it also show in a trailer somewhere, sometime. Great work. I also would suggest to put "RAGE Technology Group" in "author" parameter of the box, since they are the group of phisycal people who create it, and "Rockstar San Diego" in "developer(s)" parameter since it is the studio in which the group worked. But I might be wrong, maybe is better the way it is now. Lone Internaut (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

I'm happy to put some money on the fact that the Switch version of Red Dead Redemption will be a port of an existing version running in an emulator. Therefore, the Switch is still not a platform that RAGE runs on and should be removed. - X201 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like more work than making a straight port since Double Eleven is not known for emulation work. Rockstar had the L.A. Noire engine ported to Switch as well, so I don't find this super unlikely here. What do you wager? A few GA reviews? IceWelder [✉] 07:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is the RAGE logo sourced from?

I know it's not the actual logo coming from some leaks, where is the one used from? Foanx92 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe it was created by Gamerzworld in 2011 based on the shirts in this 2009 video, which appear official. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

I request that someone adds Grand Theft Auto Online to the list of games that utilize RAGE. It should be within the Grand Theft Auto V column, as they're both developed by Rockstar North and released in the same year, 2013. LoadingYourData101 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I know GTA Online probably uses the exact same tech as GTA 5, but it would still be worth having a reliable source that says GTA Online uses RAGE. Everything else in the table has a source, but if I were to put GTA Online, it would be missing one. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)