Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What was wrong with the port of GTA IV on the PC?

140 replies to this topic
Yogensia
  • Yogensia

    Hobbyist Digital Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2014
  • None

#121

Posted 13 July 2014 - 11:27 AM

 

GFWL was the sh*ttiest excuse for online gaming ever. It was worse than Origin, and thats pretty bad. I think Steam is the only good online gaming tool. Hopefully GTA V PC will run on that or Rockstar's own thing.

Agreed. Games for windows is awful.

Luckly V will be like MP3. Steam and Social Club

 

 

Sadly, it will require both Rockstar Social club and Steam, which is a shame (I hope I'm wrong though). I'd wish it only required Steam. If they want people to use RSC they should make it interesting and useful, but always optional. Forcing it to be running doesn't help anyone.

 

As for GFWL... good f**king riddance, may it burn in the depths of hell, although last i read about it they were saying it's not really dead.


milenkovic24
  • milenkovic24

    Srbin

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2014
  • Serbia

#122

Posted 13 July 2014 - 11:59 AM Edited by milenkovic24, 13 July 2014 - 12:01 PM.

Rage engine was a new engine at that time, initially released in 2006 while GTA IV is in 2008. Now, the things are completely different. Max Payne 3 (2012) was very good optimized, they ,,learned,, the engine. GTA V will be hopefully better optimized (but also higher requirements), it`s the biggest Rockstar title to date, logically it would be evolved with people who know pc, and it`s not a port like GTA IV. It`s almost a decade since they launched Rage. And if i`m not mistaken, it was first RAGE game on pc.


Ruscris2
  • Ruscris2

    Snow Storm

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2009
  • European-Union

#123

Posted 13 July 2014 - 12:33 PM

 

 

GFWL was the sh*ttiest excuse for online gaming ever. It was worse than Origin, and thats pretty bad. I think Steam is the only good online gaming tool. Hopefully GTA V PC will run on that or Rockstar's own thing.

Agreed. Games for windows is awful.

Luckly V will be like MP3. Steam and Social Club

 

 

Sadly, it will require both Rockstar Social club and Steam, which is a shame (I hope I'm wrong though). I'd wish it only required Steam. If they want people to use RSC they should make it interesting and useful, but always optional. Forcing it to be running doesn't help anyone.

 

As for GFWL... good f**king riddance, may it burn in the depths of hell, although last i read about it they were saying it's not really dead.

 

 

Why would you want RGSC removed?

And that is not going to ever happen, they have the thing on consoles too.


SKaREO
  • SKaREO

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013

#124

Posted 13 July 2014 - 12:52 PM

After the bullsh*t GFWL that I had to deal with, the game wouldn't even run properly. It was an unoptimized pile of dogsh*t and Rockstar never addressed it or fixed it, so to Hell with GTA V on the PC. I will pirate it and see how much they f*cked it up, but I'm obviously going to buy it and play it hard on my PS4, the way it was meant to be played.


bindik
  • bindik

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2013

#125

Posted 13 July 2014 - 01:03 PM

SKaREO, There is difference between PORT and a game :)


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#126

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:21 PM Edited by Xerukal, 13 July 2014 - 04:22 PM.

After the bullsh*t GFWL that I had to deal with, the game wouldn't even run properly. It was an unoptimized pile of dogsh*t and Rockstar never addressed it or fixed it, so to Hell with GTA V on the PC. I will pirate it and see how much they f*cked it up, but I'm obviously going to buy it and play it hard on my PS4, the way it was meant to be played.

Oh boo f*cking hoo, something that happened 6 years ago is now influencing each and every decision you make when met with a Rockstar product on PC. What a load of sh*t. 

 

Max Payne 3 was Rockstar's redemption, as far as I'm concerned. The game ran on an insanely wide range of hardware and even properly maxed out on some lower-end rigs to boot. Yes, it was linear and yes, it isn't open world. But the improvements to the RAGE engine and the general stability of that engine on PC should NOT go unnoticed. Especially because It's a bloody hassle to work with in the first place. 

 

GTA IV happened and it was an abomination, we get it. But then Max Payne 3 happened and it was great. So balance out your opinion and stop with the bias. We aren't in 2008 anymore.

  • sibs44, MarkyEvansy and Evan-KCR like this

Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#127

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:36 PM

Well,one thing is the quality of the port,and the other is lack of new patches,in my opinion there should be more,until it represents the quality it meant to be,but no.......sadly 1.0.0.7 was their last one and that's what's wrong,seriously.It's not alright.Sandbox games heavily rely on smooth and stable frame rates,and GTA 4 is poor on this field,game is sometimes fast,like it should be,but sometimes frame rates drops in a matter of seconds to gain normal rates,so like i said 1.0.0.7 shouldnt be the last one,as there was so much to do.And just because it's a sandbox game,doesn't mean it cant have stable frame rates.

I

get it if we're discussing what was wrong with GTA IV port in the past, but today if you can't run it smoothly then you won't even run GTA V at all.


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#128

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:51 PM Edited by Xerukal, 13 July 2014 - 04:53 PM.

 

Well,one thing is the quality of the port,and the other is lack of new patches,in my opinion there should be more,until it represents the quality it meant to be,but no.......sadly 1.0.0.7 was their last one and that's what's wrong,seriously.It's not alright.Sandbox games heavily rely on smooth and stable frame rates,and GTA 4 is poor on this field,game is sometimes fast,like it should be,but sometimes frame rates drops in a matter of seconds to gain normal rates,so like i said 1.0.0.7 shouldnt be the last one,as there was so much to do.And just because it's a sandbox game,doesn't mean it cant have stable frame rates.

I

get it if we're discussing what was wrong with GTA IV port in the past, but today if you can't run it smoothly then you won't even run GTA V at all.

 

Hey, that's not true. Smoothly means different stuff for different people. So let's say "smooth" is a stable 60. Some people with higher-end rigs still can't keep a stable 60 in IV.

 

Personally, my current PC is an absolute trainwreck. But I know It'll be able to run V, even though I won't have this specific PC by the time the game releases, since I am in the process of building a new one. But I'm sure that, if you were AT LEAST half-way there in running IV smoothly, you'll be able to run GTA V, and play very optimally at low/medium settings at that, assuming the optimization is at least as good as Max Payne 3's. 

 

All evidence gathered from build logs and leaks suggest that GTA V is not a port. In fact, PC ports in general seem to be dying out. The only excuse for sh*tty optimization nowadays is devs either being piss lazy and not wanting to take the time to optimize for a wider range of hardware, or devs simply not being able to do it for whatever reason, technical, time constraint or otherwise.


RedIndianRobin
  • RedIndianRobin

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2014
  • India

#129

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:20 AM

The only thing that was wrong with GTA 4 was the memory. It was such a memory hogging game. The game loads up with 700mb data into ram, then quickly rises to 1.5gb and more after free roam. It had no control on how much ram to utilize. Thus the ram will soon become full and then it starts to lags. Kinda like Windows Vista. It was a good OS, but it was memory hogging at the same time. Hope this helped. :)  


teninchtoenail
  • teninchtoenail

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2014
  • United-States

#130

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:30 AM

What was wrong with the GTA4 port was a bunch of kids with Dell email machines trying to run a very demanding game, probably at higher resolutions than 360 and ps3 were. 

 

It is not nearly as bad as people say, atleast not at this point.

 

It's also sad how despite it being 7 years old it still sh*ts over every other open world games in terms of world simulation and physics. Rockstars engine is head and shoulders above the competition.


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#131

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:13 AM Edited by Xerukal, 14 July 2014 - 05:14 AM.

What was wrong with the GTA4 port was a bunch of kids with Dell email machines trying to run a very demanding game, probably at higher resolutions than 360 and ps3 were. 

Absolute bollocks. I know people, myself included (to an extent), that built brand new machines just to have a go at maxing out this game back in 2008. They BUILT them themselves. No pre-built bullsh*t. And they still had MASSIVE issues. 

 

Of course it's not as bad at this point, when you've got overpowered GTX 600/700 series GPUs kicking IV's poorly optimized arse left, right and center. But we didn't have those 5-6 years ago. It's like saying Watch_Dogs' technical ineptitude is fine because people with GTX 990s will be able to have a go at it with 100 FPS in 1080p in 5-6 years down the line.

 

There's no going around it, IV was a technical piece of sh*te on PC and there are many reasons as to why it was the way it was. But we're now we're here in 2014 and advancements have been made. RAGE, although still very unfriendly towards devs from what I've read, has come a long way. IV was a huge learning experience for Rockstar and Max Payne 3's PC version proved that. V's PC version will cement that fact.


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#132

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:20 AM

It was a bad port for those who wanted to max it out. At the time (2009) I had somewhat just upgraded and i still had to run it on medium with only textures on max. (because texture quality is my biggest OCD) I couldn't complain at all, but i can't say for others.

 

That game can still do wonders of graphics even today. I don't think it was supposed to be played maxed-out at the time.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#133

Posted 14 July 2014 - 09:40 AM

It was a bad port for those who wanted to max it out. At the time (2009)


So you can't comment of when it was actually released in 2008 when it was literally a sh*t heap then. ;)

ab30494
  • ab30494

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2014
  • United-States

#134

Posted 14 July 2014 - 02:42 PM

What was wrong with the GTA4 port was a bunch of kids with Dell email machines trying to run a very demanding game, probably at higher resolutions than 360 and ps3 were. 

 

It is not nearly as bad as people say, atleast not at this point.

 

It's also sad how despite it being 7 years old it still sh*ts over every other open world games in terms of world simulation and physics. Rockstars engine is head and shoulders above the competition.

exactly, i have been playing GTA IV the last few days, and it runs smooth


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#135

Posted 14 July 2014 - 03:42 PM

 

It was a bad port for those who wanted to max it out. At the time (2009)


So you can't comment of when it was actually released in 2008 when it was literally a sh*t heap then. ;)

 

 

You mean it wasn't sh*t anymore a month after? Because i bought the game in january 2009 since i was traveling in december. I don't know why the complaints if it was all fixed in one month.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#136

Posted 14 July 2014 - 03:47 PM

You mean it wasn't sh*t anymore a month after? Because i bought the game in january 2009 since i was traveling in december. I don't know why the complaints if it was all fixed in one month.


Yeah, we got like a patch 2 weeks after release, and then one more a week later or something, so if you played in January, you'd already be on Patch 3 :p. Trust us, you will never know the horror of GTA IV PC on release, it was just, beyond dire, even for people with good computers, at the time I could run most games fine above 30fps, then comes GTA IV, struggling around 10 - 15fps, and with a glitch at the time which caused the textures to go insane and not display the city, so you had like vehicles and lamp posts just floating as it was trying to do, something. :D

Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#137

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:11 PM

 

You mean it wasn't sh*t anymore a month after? Because i bought the game in january 2009 since i was traveling in december. I don't know why the complaints if it was all fixed in one month.


Yeah, we got like a patch 2 weeks after release, and then one more a week later or something, so if you played in January, you'd already be on Patch 3 :p. Trust us, you will never know the horror of GTA IV PC on release, it was just, beyond dire, even for people with good computers, at the time I could run most games fine above 30fps, then comes GTA IV, struggling around 10 - 15fps, and with a glitch at the time which caused the textures to go insane and not display the city, so you had like vehicles and lamp posts just floating as it was trying to do, something. :D

 

 

I wouldn't complain tbh. 3 patches in one month shows how great Rockstar supported the game.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#138

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:23 PM

I wouldn't complain tbh. 3 patches in one month shows how great Rockstar supported the game.


No excuse, they HAD to patch it quickly, it was hated on by most gaming websites and being made clear that Rockstar were selling an unfinished product. That attitude isn't the best to take, imagine it in any other scenario, you go to a restaurant, order something off the menu, and instead they serve you something undercooked, and missing the sides, would it be ok if they came to your table and quickly set it on fire to quick cook it and refuse to give you a refund, would you call that acceptable service?
  • RyanBurnsRed and Xerukal like this

andersona7x6661
  • andersona7x6661

    Moderators are fat and don't have life

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2014
  • Brazil

#139

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:01 PM

Everything

RyanBurnsRed
  • RyanBurnsRed

    Since 1776

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • United-States

#140

Posted 14 July 2014 - 07:51 PM

 

GFWL was the sh*ttiest excuse for online gaming ever. It was worse than Origin, and thats pretty bad. I think Steam is the only good online gaming tool. Hopefully GTA V PC will run on that or Rockstar's own thing.

 
Origin isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Yeah when it first launched it WAS pretty bad, but EA has improved it a lot since.
However, Uplay is a different story. It's the new GFWL in my opinion, and probably worse.
 
Uplay is the #1 reason I won't buy Ubisoft games anymore, especially on Steam. I hate having to go through Steam AND Uplay to play FC3. It just doesn't make any goddamn sense.
Let's also add in the horrible server connections, terrible overlay, and the fact that it doesn't even minimize to the toolbar. Instead you have to keep that ugly abomination open in a Window while playing a game. 

Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#141

Posted 14 July 2014 - 10:59 PM

While i wasn't criticizing the GTA IV port in my past posts in this thread, i have to say SecuROM, GFWL and the old version of Social Club WERE ABSOLUTELY sh*t. Those were the only things that really bothered me.

 

But those were 2008 DRM practices. They're learning now.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users