If we told you that we recently had a chance to play an open-world post-apocalyptic first-person shooter with an emphasis on RPG elements and bloody combat, you’d likely ask “Which one?” In this case it would be id Software’s very own Rage, available to play at QuakeCon 2011 and a title that has every chance to shoot itself in the foot. We had about an hour and a half to get acquainted with Rage, and despite the initial sense of unpleasant regurgitation, we had a good deal of fun.

The opening kicked off with a large meteor crashing into the earth (a flash of pre-apocalyptic action, we suppose), followed by chaos. Hiding in some sort of stasis pod seemed to be a logical move in this situation, and the protagonist did so. Upon emerging from the chamber, however, it was discovered that this was no silly episode of Futurama: the world was smashed up, blew up, and beat up with reckless abandon. We took control at this point but stood no chance against the mutant forces of awfulness, so it was a lucky break when a survivor took pity and helped us out.

He and a small band of resistors lived out their days in a junky yet welcoming gas station (also smashed up, blew up, and beat up) and invited us to stay. The offer of companionship and a chance to go kill lots of bad guys suited us just fine, so we wasted no time in loading our pistol and driving a four-wheeler into the unknown.

If this situation does not look appealing, Rage might not be for you.

Our buggy was faster than a man with a mutant on his tail (we would know), especially when the boost was activated. Flying up ramps and launching the poor driver into walls was exhilarating, but the controls felt a little squirrelly, especially when using the all-too-sensitive brakes. Still, it got the job done, and we roared our way through the semi-open world with eager anticipation.

The mini-map pointed the way via a handy dotted line, and we were soon in enemy territory; only a pistol stood between us and a horrible death as angry survivors attempted to murder us. The shooting felt both responsive and fluid, rewarding us for paying close attention to our foes. They hid behind cover of all sorts, sometimes taking us on with blindfire, to make good use of the grimy environment. The bolder ones (including those with flaming bats) charged us with all their might, but a sound smack to the head sent them spiralling away. However, they used melee attacks of their own, so spamming the punch button did us no favours.

The animation was a highlight of our experience. Enemies limped away when injured or even fell to the ground and tried to shoot at us from their prone position. Of course, gore flew every which way, specifically when grenades were in use. We also found ourselves a shotgun and some sharp blades that could be thrown through the air, upping the count of beheadings substantially.

It's not the muscles, the scars, the belt of grenades, or even the tank tattooed on his chest; that mustache commands respect.

Rage wasn’t very tough on Normal difficulty, but when we did finally go down, a mini-game was there to pull us from death’s icy grip. By dexterously aligning the thumb sticks and nailing the timing on some button presses, our health was refilled relative to our (sloppy) performance. Whether or not this skill can be abused as an easy way out remains to be seen, but it’s a neat addition on its own.

While Rage’s combat certainly hit the spot in terms of solid, tried-and-true shooting, there wasn’t anything especially original about it. There are, however, some light RPG additions to spice things up: for example, junk can be salvaged and combined to make brand new items. We made ourselves a device to break locks and a nifty scope for our pistol, both of which came in handy right away.

We sold the extra contents of our inventory back at the base, purchasing some healing kits in exchange. The locals were also willing to teach us how to use certain weapons and hand out missions to complete, the latter of which move the story forward. Tips during lengthy loading screens told us to head off the beaten path and explore, but most of these excursion ended with dead ends or invisible walls; often both. These early parts of Rage might be more confined than later portions, but we didn’t see a whole lot of open-ended opportunities.

Many mooses died for this manly costume to live.

For such a thoroughly apocalypsed world, Rage managed to look spiffy. Character models were detailed to an impressive degree, set in a dusty land under a glorious sky. It’s often ugly, sure — but that’s the point. Our main concern was the texture pop-in that plagued even the nearest of surfaces. We only had access to the PS3 version, but it could use some polishing up before hitting store shelves.

We weren’t blown away during our time with Rage, yet the intense fights kept us pushing forward and yearning for more. Ninety minutes was hardly enough time to dig into this promising game’s many layers — we didn’t even touch the racing or multiplayer — but it’ll have to work hard to dig itself out of the potentially stale genre pit. Keep your eyes open and your Acme Mutant Repellent at hand as we rapidly approach its October release date.

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.

As Sony and Microsoft scramble to release their motion controllers, it’s becoming clear that both are trying to build upon Nintendo’s original offering, take it further and expanding their respective customer bases.

I was recently discussing the whole Natal ‘revolution’ with someone who is associated with the technology’s history. He was trying to convince me how it will change the nature of the industry and become a ‘game changer’.

Sony too, are already in full PR mode explaining to the gaming press how their motion control will offer an unparalleled level of precision. Now I’m not going to tell you Natal or Sony’s won’t be as good as is being suggested, because I think they will be excellent. The technology behind them seems robust and its performance superb. We have seen video examples of people using them and they seem fast, responsive and accurate.

However, that alone doesn’t make them an industry changer. The idea that everyone is going to suddenly buy one is fanciful. Will it drive Xbox 360 sales? Perhaps, especially to some people who have not got a Wii. However the marketing will be complex, as they would need to rebrand the console to be able to move whole-heartedly into the casual space. Sony and Microsoft have both had casual games with alternative controllers out for some time, and neither have allowed them to cut into the mass market as Nintendo have been able to.

Just as the Wii suffers from not being perceived as a hardcore console (and that’s with more hardcore games being produced for it) so the 360 and PS3 suffer from being perceived as being hardcore and adult. Indeed, Scene It, Lips, Singstar and Buzz have so far failed to change this perception amongst the wider public.

Another issue of course is that not every existing or future PS3 or 360 user will actually buy the new controllers and that means developers still have to make games that won’t work with or take into account the new technology. It splits the platform, which can make it more expensive to develop for. Alternatively developers will add functionality in most games to support the controller, but it will rarely be key to gameplay, except for a few first party or key third party titles. If it’s not key to the gaming experience then many users will conclude that they can get along without it just fine. Sixaxis controller anyone?

I was chatting to an RTS fan the other day that was new to the whole console experience. He was taken aback at seeing Halo Wars on a big TV in my living room, but couldn’t understand why it didn’t have mouse and keyboard support. Clearly it can, but the developers know not all players will have one and then it creates two sets of players thereby making the gameplay experience harder to manage.

One of the other issues my friend, close to the ‘history of the Natal tech’, was trying to sell me on was that people don’t want to have to hold a device like a Wiimote. I had news for him. They do. That’s why there is a whole industry of bits of useless plastic which sticks onto your Wiimote. If you are playing tennis, you have a plastic tennis racket whilst golf benefits from a club or just the Wiimote in your hand. Now clearly Natal could be used with bits of plastic, but at that point you have then managed to undermine your USP for being controller free!

Sport games, shooting games, in fact lots of games all benefit from some tactile control over something physical in the real world. Additionally the Wiimote (along with the Motion Plus for argument’s sake) has buttons on it and an adapter with a traditional analogue stick. This means you can have motion and traditional gameplay at once. The guys at Nintendo knew what they were doing when they created the Wii. Sony’s device I believe has a button on it, but from what we have seen so far I’m yet to work out how players can have traditional character movement alongside ‘point and shoot’ dynamics. The latest preview was for the ‘upgraded’ version of Resident Evil 5 being produced for the new Sony technology. In the video we see a player holding one handed a traditional dualshock with the other handling the pointing. If proof is needed of why a ‘point and shoot’ device needs multiple buttons (and a comfortable nunchuk style analogue stick), then watching that video is it! I cannot imagine that being the preferred control scheme as it looks uncomfortable and tiring. Perhaps, nearer to release, Sony will announce a nunchuk style product; they certainly need to look into this.

Natal has no buttons, as it has no device to hold. However there is no reason why you can’t use a standard controller whilst moving your head or lobbing a grenade at the screen. Yet as most FPS games require you to be ‘hands on’ at all times (how many times have you thrown a grenade whilst strafing in Halo 3 or CoD?) it will be interesting to see how much extra interaction these traditional games can have with the motion technologies being offered. One area of real interest with Natal will be added viewing data via head movement – i.e. looking around corners.

There is of course one other major factor. Nintendo are hard at work with that massive R&D investment they are currently making. If we assume that they too are able to backwards engineer their Wiimote technology as countless other individuals have now done on YouTube, it would seem that the next step is for them to stick a camera on the sensor bar (which at present is just two led lights), resulting in camera based technology similar to Sony’s and Microsoft’s. If this can be used in addition to or with the current Wiimote tech (depending on the gameplay) then their experience will only become even more accurate and interactive. However it will be built on top of existing technology. Here, you see, is the killer point. If this new and improved Wii (whether it be HD or not) is 100% backwards compatible with the rather large existing Wii market, then it could be game over for Sony and Microsoft just as they start to catch up.

The Wii consumer is not accustomed to buying new consoles and new software every 2-3 years. This market owns multiple remotes, lots of games, a WiiBalance board and lots of plastic attachments. Are they all going to jump ship?

I’ll definitely have Natal, possibly also the Sony system. Fable 3 players will get Natal, as we assume it will use it. In theory these new controllers should continue the expansion of the gaming experience and also of the market in general. On the other hand, Microsoft and Sony might find that the launch of their new motion technologies becomes a distraction to their hardcore experience.

I would be surprised if it will be a game changer in this or the .5-generation that everyone is assuming we are moving into. Nintendo started this game with the Wii and will decide whether it’s a 2, 3 or 5 set match.