Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA IV is the worst PC port of all time

46 replies to this topic
oceanskate99
  • oceanskate99

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#31

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:07 AM Edited by oceanskate99, 18 September 2013 - 12:09 AM.

Hi, I couldn't help but notice this thread.  @3rr0r.   This idea that GTA 4 is a bad port, is a myth propigated by word of mouth gossip and an assumtion made because it came AFTER the console versions were released.  I worked several years in the game industry (Descent back in the day, Parallax/Interplay, EA, Sublogic, knew people on Id Doom team, MS other connections from friends etc)   and first off, most games are created first on PC or what ever high powered machines that can speed development.  It's often inefficienct to continually rebuild the game for a console because that eats up too much development time.  Developers get a rough idea of how the game will function, and keep around basic functions needed to run on the target platform, but tend to stay on the speediest platform they can work on until the project is near completion.  They keep in mind the target platform has limits to it's abilities, frame rates and so on..  Likely GTA was ported to the consoles last, but since RS wants to sell those games in lower fidelity off first, they only show those at first launch.  So assumptions are made by fans.  The reason it runs as expected on xbox is because the xbox NEVER changes (other than a couple different iterations) even though it's old.  While that's a good general guideline, I'm not 100% certain on how GTA was developed, however the big point is too many people are jumping on the "it's a bad port" wagon and riding it and repeating vauge generalisations like parrots.  Acurate knowledge isn't always the general concesus or "collective conisous" of a basic internet search.  Too many myths, old wifes tales etc are propigated that way.

 

Next 3rr0r,  a rock solid 30 fps is more than your eye can see and more than enough to be "playable".  If a game becomes unplayable, it's often due to displayed number of polygons in the data base vs the efficiency of the occlusion code (code that determins what the viewer can really see) as the player view position updates and world spins around him.  Yes, the player doesn't really move in a game.  The world translation code moves the world around a stationary player in the opposite direction of intended movement.  Yes, you could think in relativity, but this is how the coder sees the game during development.  It's an illusion that the player is moving as the viewport is a stationary window (your monitor on your desk).  Think about that for a minute.    I have the source code to several games, and know.  In an inefficient game, they will typically just draw most of the world from far Z to near Z, having the closer objects render over top of the more distant ones.  By drawing over top, it covers up what the eye should not see.  With the exception that some irregular shaped objects can draw improperly, but then that gets into BSP trees and other sorting algorithms etc.   Also new games like GTA use much of this same technology, only the game, concept, publisher etc change.  But as the world is rendered on screen, frame rates dip and spike all the time within some reasonable range.  Being that the GTA world is large, it's logical to see that they have some pretty decent rendering code, so as to not waste too much CPU or GPU etc.   If the game runs as intended and is smooth on say an xbox, then the rendering code that determines what is visible, is already efficient enough.  If it's a large place, and the user has say some issues with their PC, such as a slow hard drive, poor bus, poor video card, odd audio card/drivers, conflicts etc, stuttering can occur.  Especially if there are driver issues, or something is funky with the windows install.  This can happen even on a high end PC, if something is amiss.  But usually it can be remedied, and these people here are trying to help you.  While you can say this is the frame rate as it dips, it's not the overall real frame rate average.  In other words, if you are playing at 30 fps, but then due to a problem it dips down to 3 frames per second,  It's not going to play well and you should look to your system for issues no matter how fast or new it is.  That said, when GTA 4 came out, I played it on a 3 year old, high end system and it ran perfectly smooth and no stuttering.  So it has nothing to do with optimizing, optimizations etc to get the code to be efficient enough as people seem to think.  It's often more due to all the combinations of unforseen hardware and possible settings. Sometimes code is tweaked by the developer to help avoid issues, but the developer can only go so far to address the sea of hardware out there.  Your playability problems ARE problems with your PC or it's settings, OR your install of windows etc and nothing to do with how fast it is or how efficent the orignal rendering code is, or that you think it's a "port" etc.. 

 

If my 2006 computer ran it perfectly, the issue is NOT your new i7 rig.  So all this "it's not optimized" bull is just that, bull.   At this point your new i7 is so fast, it would overcome any inefficiencies anyway as we are years into the future (of the past when GTA came out, lol).  It is so much faster than any console that it has oodles of processing power to deal with whatever...  So again look for conflicts, problems, weird combos.  Look and pay attention to other people who are getting the results you want on PC's where they have a fun playable game.  Draw conclusions from that.   Keep in mind that hardware has changed vastly since the release of GTA 4 and there is room for things to go wrong in a game that was developed 5 years ago.  I have a new system, much like yours, but a litte faster with 4770k and cherry picked cpu at 3.8ghz.  It makes no difference.  My Crysis 1 demo install would NOT run correctly or display true stereo correctly, and it stutters while my older system runs it much better.  I could fool with it, or do the full install again, but I'm too busy and will just look to newer releases. 


oceanskate99
  • oceanskate99

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#32

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:39 PM Edited by oceanskate99, 17 September 2013 - 11:59 PM.

.


Lukeno94
  • Lukeno94

    Maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2013

#33

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:09 PM

You've got to be employed by Rockstar or willfully blind to claim that GTA IV isn't poorly optimized. You *never* get a stable 30 fps on any setup, it fluctuates between 15 and 40 fps for me (I have an i3 2120 @ 3.3 GHz, 12 GB of RAM and a GTX 670 GPU; which beats almost anything that was out when the game was released) and you trying to fob things off on things like "slow hard drives" is ridiculous; I've got a 3 TB Seagate 7200 RPM unit, which is almost as quick as conventional hard drives get, and it has plenty of space free (the OS runs off of a SSD). WAY too many people have the same issue for you to fob it off on bad drivers, corrupted/messy Windows, etc. Also, that wall of text hurt my eyes.


Diego Mustard
  • Diego Mustard

    Black Mage

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Japan

#34

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:53 PM

I don't think it wasn't not badly optimized... if it were, shadows would've been easier to render, or overall, the minimum specs required would've been able to play it.

 

If you get the minimum specs, and bump everything to the lowest settings, I think the game experience will be bad alone...


luceberg
  • luceberg

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2008

#35

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:31 AM

I don't think it wasn't not badly optimized... if it were, shadows would've been easier to render, or overall, the minimum specs required would've been able to play it.

 

Congratulations! You won the prize for the most double negatives ever in one sentence!


RyanBurnsRed
  • RyanBurnsRed

    We're born with nothing and we die alone

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • United-States

#36

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:03 PM

Saints Row 2 is probably the worst PC port of all time. GTA IV has nothing on that game.


Diego Mustard
  • Diego Mustard

    Black Mage

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Japan

#37

Posted 21 September 2013 - 05:41 PM Edited by Diego Mustard, 21 September 2013 - 06:02 PM.

Stop it with Saints Row 2, please. I think GTA IV does pretty well with the record. Speak about ultra computers not running it well even to this very day.

 

We're talking about GTA IV only of course... if it were for the worst PC ports, there are millions, not just SR2.


Marshall_X
  • Marshall_X

    The most trusted pilot in GTA Series

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • None

#38

Posted 21 September 2013 - 07:09 PM

I was very pissed off at the decision made by rockstar not to announce the new GTA V for PC

Rockstar has not cancelled the PC Version, they are shipping it in mid 2014 or later and maybe they made it so late so they could prepare a better optimization. 

Spoiler


Marshall_X
  • Marshall_X

    The most trusted pilot in GTA Series

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • None

#39

Posted 21 September 2013 - 07:11 PM

Saints Row 2 is probably the worst PC port of all time. GTA IV has nothing on that game.

I do agree mate, SR2 ?? With the Damn Driving Controls? I press the direction key for say 1-2 seconds and my car turns around . !! 


unc13bud
  • unc13bud

    I stay mad @ Rockstar

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2010
  • None

#40

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:34 AM

 

You *never* get a stable 30 fps on any setup, it fluctuates between 15 and 40 fps for me (I have an i3 2120 @ 3.3 GHz, 12 GB of RAM and a GTX 670 GPU; which beats almost anything that was out when the game was released)

your settings are too high for that configuration

 

Likely GTA was ported to the consoles last, but since RS wants to sell those games in lower fidelity off first, they only show those at first launch.

I found your idea very interesting, because i do know that they rockstar/take2 are deliberately not saying they will do a PC version because people like me are waiting for it. and yeah, saints row 2 PC was awful, its why i haven't bought a saints row game since


GTATESTERIV
  • GTATESTERIV

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2014
  • Canada

#41

Posted 13 March 2014 - 04:17 AM

hello guys im just a normal gta player but gta iv is the worst fu.king game ever i mean the performance

i dont even know why rockstar even put gta iv on pc i dont know for gta v if they put too but i hope not

many computers will blow up or players get so screwed up because of so much lag

here is my rig send me some stuff would make gta iv run smoothly

RIG:

intel i7 core

video card: nvidia palit geforce 630 2gb

ram 8gb

directx11

first run of gta iv: 90-120 fps

second run 15-20 

fu.k this game :miranda:


Ss4gogeta0
  • Ss4gogeta0

    Spilled coffee on Laptop. no more mods

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 May 2011
  • United-States

#42

Posted 13 March 2014 - 04:52 AM

worst PC port is Scarface hands down... cant even run it without specifically setting a multicore computer to use a single core... and the controls are f*cked and unchangable


uncredited
  • uncredited

    Midnight Marauder

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2013
  • None

#43

Posted 13 March 2014 - 10:44 AM

Runs pretty great on my setup, all settings maxed, 6060 x 1200 res, just a single 680 4gb

wqpi1.jpg

 

Are you using ENB or Utlimate Graphic Tweak or something else?

 

Savegames are compatible with all versions.

Even if you use XLiveLess at first and then remove it?

I cannot decide whether play the game on patch 1.0.4.0. (runs smooths) or 1.0.7.0. (got randoms crashes while playing with high graphics). the thing is that I would like my stats to be recorded on the RGSC but still if I can't play it well with the lastest patch, it truly sucks. On what patch do you guys plays? what are you using? Xliveless? mods? I would like to know. Thanks.


cp1dell
  • cp1dell

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2008
  • None

#44

Posted 15 March 2014 - 12:46 AM

Look on the bright side. III, VC, and SA were bad ports in their time too. Nowadays people have no problem running them. It's only a matter of time until modern hardware has no problem running IV.


Mick3Mosue
  • Mick3Mosue

    Mick3Mouse

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2014
  • Sweden

#45

Posted 17 March 2014 - 09:57 AM

My fps is stuck at 53 all the time. 


UH-60_NightHawk
  • UH-60_NightHawk

    {Legends Will Live}

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#46

Posted 17 March 2014 - 10:12 PM

QUOTE (luceberg @ Saturday, Apr 20 2013, 21:50) It is not possible to get a stable framerate in this game because the amount happening varies continuously. To my eyes, a framerate over 30 and mostly higher looks fluid. I don't ask more than that.
Well then you should consider playing on console, we, the PC community enjoy flawless and rather fluid gameplay, fps around 120 with our 144 Hz monitors...
30 fps on a PC is unplayable, try playing the new most wanted on 30 fps or some fps for that matter, far cry 3 or crysis 3 on 30 fps on PC, it is unplayable.

 

You have a valid great point there, dude, It's better than going out and buying an extra PS3 just to jailbreak it and mod this game too.

So If you want to mod GTA IV for the PS3 it's not really worth it, There is a bigger chance that you'll get console banned.

While on the PC You will most likely NOT get caught or banned. (Highly doubt the fact they would)


uncredited
  • uncredited

    Midnight Marauder

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2013
  • None

#47

Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:35 AM

Does anyone of you manage to run the game on Windows 8.1?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users