Rage the next Massive Game by id software

Recently there has been a furore on edge forums regarding performance of Rage on PS3, 30 fps PS3 vs 60 fps XBox360, owing to edge article covering RAGE. Whereas Carmack claiming that performance is bit slow, whereas people say 30 fps difference is not a bit, it is half. Actually both are true. I think the following discussion clears the misconception.

Both things are true -

1.) PS3 version of Rage lags a bit beside XBox 360 - Carmack
2.) PS3 version version will run at 30 fps or 20 fps - edge magazine quoting Carmack

Edge is using Carmack's quote for fanwars, but the fact is true also.
It is clearly written in book "cross platform game programming" that if u do not get 60 fps (exactly 60 fps) then the next stop is directly 30 fps on PS3. Meaning if u get 59 fps even once, PS3 will revert to running in 30 fps, it is architected that way, and after that 20 fps(even if u get 29 fps. So u see both are correct.
And that is why Carmack said that he will lock fps at 60 htz(Also the game functions and updates itself at 60 Hz). Anyway he is pretty confident that he will deliver 60 fps by the time game is finished(Just drop the quality a bit to get 5 fps more, and difference is not even noticable). It looks like as if he is getting 55 fps on PS3 but due to way PS3 functions it reverts to 30 fps.
It is ceratinly not a big challenge to get that bit more performance, but he is actually sad at the level of effort invested in PS3 vs XBox 360(which is lot easy to program and a dominant console now). Ipersonaly do not favour any Console. I like PC(u get 59 fps if that is what is presented).
And PC has lots of Ram too(if u feed it).

Anyway this discussion is pointless seeing u can easily drop visual quality a bit to get some more fps and Carmack clearly says that performance is a bit less, which actually makes PS3 (thank u sony) run it at 30 fps.
Sometimes it amuses me to watch fan wars.(By people who really even do not know the specs of consoles even)

And I really do not think Rage will look better then Crysis even if it comes out after 2 years, and it will not be as fun to play as Fallout 3 (though Rage wil have far better Shooting and Driving which possibly will make it a very enjoyable and good game, but it lacks the core of Fallout 3 and does not will be "interesting" making someone to keep playing it time and again).

I am confident that Carmack will make Rage run at 60 fps, given his history of doing atleast what he openly says, and his knack for making games work on lowest hardware(Quake 1 on 33 MHz CPU complete, Doom 3 playable on Uber stupid Geforce 4000 MX, actually a DX7 featured card lacking shaders completely and that too after release.)
By the way the screenshots in edge article are looking cool, reminds me of Mad Max 3 Beyond Thunderdome. If they just do it right, even just copy the whole Fallout 3 with quality run and gun shooting I am more then happy. Though it already looks a Shooter Fallout 3 conceptually. Still great.

I think visually
1.) Crysis, 2. ) GTA 4, 3.) Oblivion, 4.)Half-Life 2 and that is the end. All these games are the most beautiful and ahve clear realistic graphics and a beauty to look at with top quality artwork.
And Gameplay wise is a matter of subjective opinion.