Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) So i've been really looking forward to this game like many of you, I loved the graphics on the xbox 360, but didnt play it much because i was eager to get hands on the pc version, well... i've got it - and im very disappointed like many of you, my system meets well over the recommended, when i launch the game and auto configure the graphics, its set both to high, upon entering the very bit of gameplay driving that car, i was amazed at how sh*t the graphics looked compared to that of my sisters xbox 360, but i was amazed to find that with graphics this sh*t and jaggy it still stuggles to play, so thank you rockstar for just wasting £30 of my money, this is the last time i will every look forward to a pc game released by these guys, total disappointment.... and to think i've been waiting this long *shrugs* better play it on my sis's 360 after all, at least the graphics are nice and it runs smooth, ect.. playable. also, if any of you guys have played dead space far cry 2 crysis call of duty wow, you will see what pc graphics are ment to look like, also those games run smmoooothhh as f*ck all maxed out on my pc, and look incredable, i thought with the money r* made of gta iv for the ps3 and 360 they could of spent a bit making it a decent port instead of a quick shabby one. i hear they spent 200k on copy protection... maybe they should of thought about making it work on 'normal' high end gaming machines instead of there f*cking alienware's with 4 Geforce 580's! Edited December 4, 2008 by Zorgus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant remember Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 i was amazed at how sh*t the graphics looked compared to that of my sisters xbox 360 How old is your sister ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 i was amazed at how sh*t the graphics looked compared to that of my sisters xbox 360 How old is your sister ? irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal687 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 So i've been really looking forward to this game like many of you, I loved the graphics on the xbox 360, but didnt play it much because i was eager to get hands on the pc version, well... i've got it - and im very disappointed like many of you, my system meets well over the recommended, when i launch the game and auto configure the graphics, its set both to high, upon entering the very bit of gameplay driving that car, i was amazed at how sh*t the graphics looked compared to that of my sisters xbox 360, but i was amazed to find that with graphics this sh*t and jaggy it still stuggles to play, so thank you rockstar for just wasting £30 of my money, this is the last time i will every look forward to a pc game released by these guys, total disappointment.... and to think i've been waiting this long *shrugs* better play it on my sis's 360 after all, at least the graphics are nice and it runs smooth, ect.. playable. also, if any of you guys have played dead space far cry 2 crysis call of duty wow, you will see what pc graphics are ment to look like, also those games run smmoooothhh as f*ck all maxed out on my pc, and look incredable, i thought with the money r* made of gta iv for the ps3 and 360 they could of spent a bit making it a decent port instead of a quick shabby one. i hear they spent 200k on copy protection... maybe they should of thought about making it work on 'normal' high end gaming machines instead of there f*cking alienware's with 4 Geforce 580's! I think r* forgot how to make pc games because the money they made by xbox and ps3 version has blinded there eyes u can go for saints row 2 atleast i hope it is better.not like this sh*tty rockstar if the r* continue GRAND THEFT AUTO title will be burried soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-time Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 i hear they spent 200k on copy protection... maybe they should of thought about making it work on 'normal' high end gaming machines instead of there f*cking alienware's with 4 Geforce 580's! Yeah, that f*cking huge amount of money should've been used for optimizing the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterBubbles Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 yeah im waiting for Saints Row 2 now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDave27 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Take Dead Space out of your "great looking PC games" list. It's a jag-fest on par with GTA but a little less noticable because there is less stuff on the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Well even if it does suck I'm sure it will be optimized over time. How long that will be, who knows. My Pc currently sux so I'm not going to play it anytime soon anyways until I upgrade. Hopefully by then they'll have many of the kinks worked out. I understand that those of you who bought it currently feel cheated that it runs like crap but I wouldn't consider it the worst game for PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) Take Dead Space out of your "great looking PC games" list. It's a jag-fest on par with GTA but a little less noticable because there is less stuff on the screen. runs really smooth for me... i really loved the graphics on this one... slightly jaggy, but its got f*ck all on gta iv Edited December 4, 2008 by Zorgus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 i hear they spent 200k on copy protection... maybe they should of thought about making it work on 'normal' high end gaming machines instead of there f*cking alienware's with 4 Geforce 580's! Yeah, that f*cking huge amount of money should've been used for optimizing the game. exactly my point, i mean even on the highest settings, with sh*tty unplayable game frame rates, the game still looks horrible on pc, even with the best rigs in the world, i cant see how this game could possibly look any better then the 360 version... *sigh* im just totally dispointed in rockstar, i thought they really wanted to make this a great experiance for the pc users, thats why all the hyp, and we never saw it running, so we all went and preordered it because our pc's whooped the recommended requirements, and its a terrible port, i'm not the only one saying this, 100's are.. all the screenshots rockstar released are all oviously rendered, and not gameplay stills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackadder. Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Please, please explain how this doesn't look better than the console version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Please, please explain how this doesn't look better than the console version. ok, err its jaggy as hell, runs like a big of wank(on high end machines), the reflections are minimal and look sh*t,also - the shadows they are really f*cking bad.. looks like noise. dude, read what everyones saying... take alook around a few forums... it certainly looks more polished on the xbox 360 and ps3, when turned up on pc you can see all the joins in the roads, like lines, looks sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevyboy Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 i hear they spent 200k on copy protection... maybe they should of thought about making it work on 'normal' high end gaming machines instead of there f*cking alienware's with 4 Geforce 580's! Yeah, that f*cking huge amount of money should've been used for optimizing the game. exactly my point, i mean even on the highest settings, with sh*tty unplayable game frame rates, the game still looks horrible on pc, even with the best rigs in the world, i cant see how this game could possibly look any better then the 360 version... *sigh* im just totally dispointed in rockstar, i thought they really wanted to make this a great experiance for the pc users, thats why all the hyp, and we never saw it running, so we all went and preordered it because our pc's whooped the recommended requirements, and its a terrible port, i'm not the only one saying this, 100's are.. all the screenshots rockstar released are all oviously rendered, and not gameplay stills... Actually those of us lucky enough to have the game running well (yes far and few between but not the point here) will attest to the fact that this game on max looks far better than either console version does. I'm averaging 40 FPS with all maxed settings and 60 Visual Distance (every other slider maxed and textures high / rendering very high) with no lagging or stuttering and a low of 35 FPS after 2 hours of solid playing tonight in all kinds of conditions with many explosions and high speed chases. Yes this game needs major work but don't spew BS about this game looking terrible with max settings, WAY BETTER than a console. Oh and don't judge screenshots, most lose a lot of quality when being saved with mspaint and resized from the original caption size. /troll on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) ok fine, but the point is it dont work for most people(and on low settings looks wrose then xbox 360 no??), i guess your one of the lucky one's with a £600 - £700 pound video card. and the majority of people have not got that major high end hardware its a bad port, and thats that, a system hog that should not require these much resources, sloppy coding. surely i should be able to have a nice gaming experiance with a 8800 gtx 768, but the answer is no! - soon had you get up to high speeds in a car it lags like hell, making it unplayable. this is on 1024x768 medium textures high render everything else default... the game slighty runs faster on 1440 x 900 ? lol - hows that possible... i thought the higher the res, the slower the game, lol thats how most games work anyway looks like a 20-25 fps job. and even with all this lagging, i find it to look very jaggied Edited December 4, 2008 by Zorgus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 maybe they will release a patch, looks like everyone is hoping so there is def issues here, untill then, away it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle016 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Sorry for those of you who are getting crappy performance. R* better fix all the problems soon, because they sure as hell don't want the PC community pissed at them (because I'm betting it's more powerful than what they think). To Chevyboy, the graphics at MEDIUM are better than the console version. It looks great right now and I'm loving the very high traffic density. I'm thinking that the people who think the game looks like crap are just angry that they're having troubles with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevyboy Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Sorry for those of you who are getting crappy performance. R* better fix all the problems soon, because they sure as hell don't want the PC community pissed at them (because I'm betting it's more powerful than what they think). To Chevyboy, the graphics at MEDIUM are better than the console version. It looks great right now and I'm loving the very high traffic density. I'm thinking that the people who think the game looks like crap are just angry that they're having troubles with it. Glad to hear your not having issues that a lot of others are, hell of a fun and good looking game isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorgus Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 what rigs you two guys using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graven Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Oh and don't judge screenshots, most lose a lot of quality when being saved with mspaint and resized from the original caption size. /troll on Just a hint if You want better caps, there´s no need to re-size this small pictures. If You don´t have shareware graphics program, use IrfanView (.jpg quality slider at 100%) instead of MSpaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now