Isn't an issue - a whole company isn't just slack off for a week.

It's pretty much as Kinn says, although there are other factors of fear of risk and lack of vision.

Bravery and imagination are not required in the business side of games development, so are not encouraged. And anyone at the top of the food chain in one of the bigger games company has learned long ago when to cut their losses. 

Right. It's a financial decision, it's not lazyness. What company in it's right mind would make mission packs for a game that didn't sell well? Business suicide. 

I got your point

So what the main issue with a Rage?

an awkward ending? linearity 

Not enough people bought it!

The industry has changed. Now you need small teams producing things like Candy Crush. AAA projects are becoming niche compared to the massive exposure such filler games get.

Also: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/22/the-banner-saga-3/

fuKING idiots. 

Well the work is done Rage is there, its built right....and they could bring those sales with some quality additions and recoup some of the losses through Steam promotional game+addon bundles and also give some weight to the IP to shift off a Rage 2 to a totally different cheap crapass studio for a cashgrab... 

You're forgetting:

1. No Bravery

2. No Imagination 

Something occurred when reading above, ID use to have other studios go ahead and make expansion packs for their games, and some of those were pretty OK. Why are they not doing this with Rage to get more out of the whole base they built up with it ?

They wanted to. Then Zenimax saw that Rage didn't sell very well, took a look at the state of Doom 4, and shitcanned every non-Doom 4 product so the team would focus on one goal.

Except they forgot to fire Willits, so Doom 4 is still spinning wheels in shit.

Just throw me a bunch (horde) of enemies and fuck the rails of whatever they are

LOL this fucking guy. 

I guess id are trying to put the Rage saga behind them and pretend it never existed. I haven't played it yet, but I imagine part of it's failure is simply because it's id, and id are expected to delivery revolutionary games. Gamers sights were set too high.

Wolfenstein was the same, it didn't really sell that great did it? 

Gamers sights were set too high.

They were. By id. 

I never actually played Wolfenstein 2009, was it any good? 

the main issue , i wish it could've been much longer, bam-bam and what is it? it's the end

one of the favorite game ever, it has a great replayability , with it's secrets and all 

I suppose being creative director of the "worst" id games says a lot, but he made some of my favourite quakes maps :P 

Some people here make great maps but they couldn't direct a game for shit, either. 

but calling the ending "awkward" is incorrect. It didn't have an ending. It had a mild arena fight and a button pressing.

When it just put you in a place with targets, it was a solid game. It ran well (for me at least), the shooting felt good, the AI and animation coordination was great. But it was all over the place. I had to drive everywhere, through waves of respawning enemy cars, and when I got back I had to spend money to repair my vehicle and refill my ammo, so I could make it to the next level. I had to compete in races for arbitrary upgrades that were gating content I wanted to play.

I liked the shooting, the looting, the spaces I was fighting in - but the game kept putting me at arm's length away from it.

I would've much preferred 10 hours of the Dead City, the Subway Station, and the Bank Vaults or whatever they were called. Put me in those, put items in front of me (and hidden), and let me enjoy that shooting, and the AI and animation. Oh, and actually end. 

"They were. By id. "

That's very true. The marketing preceding Rage's release was mind blowing to look back on. What they said they were making and what they actually released were so far apart it was staggering. 

I've managed to not recall any of the marketing about Rage before hand. I think my eyes were more focused on the tech, I might have to go digging around for preview articles or such. 

The original topic post has a bunch of links to preview videos and such.

Just watch through the "RAGE Behind the Scenes" series up there and you'll hear all about the deep and meaningful story, etc. 

i liked it at the start, but stopped playing once i needed to race to progress.

i think i wouldn't have minded driving as much as i did except I couldn't figure out how to get my gamepad working just for driving. 

I think I only had to race once or twice to progress ... it's very minimal, IIRC. 

I love that id had the balls to just show uninterrupted gameplay footage in trailers leading up to the release. That is so rare these days :(

If you make your purchase decision based on those gameplay trailers then you knew exactly what you were getting. I enjoyed rage (minus the driving sections) but I was just expecting a good fps rather than some fallout3/fps rpg that some people thought it was going to be? The level design was extremely linear and lacked exploration, but the combat was satisfying and meaty.

I've played it to completion twice, which is more than I can say about 90% of games I play. 

Hah yeah, actually I played through it again myself when they implemented Ultra Nightmare difficulty, and a second playthrough is rare for me. It wasn't that it was a game that blew my mind, but a lot of it was really... comfortable. 

Those previous 2 posts, and Scarecrows.

Rage was a good shooter - you got solid, meaty FPS action in some spectacular environments. The characters were mildly entertaining too, and the optional racing / mini-games were fine. The main problems were having the necessary racing shoe-horned in, and a really weak ending. Fix those and it would have been a great game. Throw in some non-linearity and yeah an extra 10 hours of Dead City, it would have been excellent.

At the end of the day, after playing it, I just wanted more RAGE. Which is a good sign. But I didn't get any....ah well. 

I just can't wrap my head around the ending... at all. What was the logic behind that? Was it an attempt at a 'cliff hanger', thereby galvanizing consumer demand for expansion packs?
Did they finish the game a week before it was released?
What was that? 

There's no way they planned for that ending.

They basically cut it so they could ship in time.

If I had a dollar every time I played a game with a rushed, unfinished ending...

Bit sad to see it from a studio like id though. 

...it's time for a HUGE DLC wrapping up the thing for good.
Ain't it?