"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[DeeperRed]

Ok this single statment wants me to never buy anything from Rockstar again!

 

Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available.

 

So hang on a sec rockstar you want uus to run the game badly so people will upgrade there computers ? Hang the f*ck on!

Even if EA had made this game it would be hitting FPS of 50 on the high end rigs but Rockstar perposfully made it terrible so it wouldn't

 

Now proof is right here. These are FPS's from my OLD rig which had a Q6600 at 2.8GHZ I know have an i7 at 3.5GHz!

 

Assassins Creed - Highest settings, full AA and AF @ 1920X1080 Average FPS = 50 (I got 40 with just one Ultra)

 

Call Of Duty World at War - Highest settings, full AA and AF @ 1920X1080 Average FPS = 60

 

Crysis Warhead - Highest settings, no AA or AF @ 1920X1080 Average FPS = 50

 

UT 3 - Highest settings, full AA and AF @ 1920X1080 Average FPS = 70

 

 

Now GTA runs at 25 FPS with Textures on medium and Render Quality on High with 40 view distance and 100 Detail distance.

Now you may say "Its an open world game with lots of objects and people" Yes it is BUT it still looks like ass and runs like ass. My comp should aleast 30FPS on the highest

 

 

i7 920 @ 3.5GHz

2X 8800Ultra SLi

4GB DDR 3 Ram (1333MHz)

 

 

Crysis had a reason when it came out to run like crap becuase it look so damn good! GTA IV doesn't I am running basically medium and getting 25FPS. Yes its bad optimization but ROckstar did it on purpose!

[Rockstar1]

Yeah it's just an excuse. When was the last time PC hardware had to "catch up" to a console port ?

 

 

[MaxAwesome]

Hey, I totally agree with you.

 

Just read my post from just a few minutes ago.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=379523

 

We have similar points.

[redriot]

"Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available."

 

 

------ R* declared this AFTER the release of the game! How many people would have pre-ordered the game, knowing this facts? 50% of the actual orderes maybe? F*ckin nasty move, Rockstar.

[Colton]

R* wants you to buy the game NOW, so your great great grandchildren can run it decently LATER!

 

Makes perfect sense to me.

[xrk]

 

Crysis had a reason when it came out to run like crap becuase it look so damn good! GTA IV doesn't I am running basically medium and getting 25FPS. Yes its bad optimization but ROckstar did it on purpose!

Lol, wasn't optimization also a big reason why crysis ran like crap too?

 

[Sylvania]

 

Yeah, I don't get it either... my computer isn't the best nor the worst i wanna run medium at least, it's really stupid.

[DeeperRed]

 

Crysis had a reason when it came out to run like crap becuase it look so damn good! GTA IV doesn't I am running basically medium and getting 25FPS. Yes its bad optimization but ROckstar did it on purpose!

Lol, wasn't optimization also a big reason why crysis ran like crap too?

Partially but on Mediem it was a smooth as water. Thankfully Warhead is very well done so I can push 40FPS on highest

Though on original Crysis on Highest settings I was still getting 25FPS average

[spaceeinstein]

Didn't previews and reviews state that the game lags even before the game was released? You have to think on the bright side: at least Rockstar acknowledge that there is a problem. They are listening.

[Rim]

I hope they're making patch or pre-release, cause the game is almost unplayable for older computers

[DeeperRed]

Didn't previews and reviews state that the game lags even before the game was released? You have to think on the bright side: at least Rockstar acknowledge that there is a problem. They are listening.

I know but they still released a broken game.

 

What the hell where the developers doing for the 7 months it took to port this game ? One thing is sure, they didn't beta test

[SteaVor]

Don't really know what's the issue with that - are you guys complaining just because you cannot go around boasting that you are able to run the game on highest settings on your $2000 gaming rig? IMO it's an interesting move because it means that even in 2009 or 2010 you can get even better graphics out of GTAIV instead of being capped at what was the maximum in 2008.

 

Would you have complained if they had capped the abilities of their engine, declared as as "highest level of detail" what the settings call "medium" at the moment, and released a patch that enabled the highest possible quality settings 2 years later? I guess not, even though it's essentially the same.

 

There are many issues worth complaining about - preparing the game for the possibilities of next-generation hardware isn't one of them in my opinion.

[MaxAwesome]

Don't really know what's the issue with that - are you guys complaining just because you cannot go around boasting that you are able to run the game on highest settings on your $2000 gaming rig? IMO it's an interesting move because it means that even in 2009 or 2010 you can get even better graphics out of GTAIV instead of being capped at what was the maximum in 2008.

 

Would you have complained if they had capped the abilities of their engine, declared as as "highest level of detail" what the settings call "medium" at the moment, and released a patch that enabled the highest possible quality settings 2 years later? I guess not, even though it's essentially the same.

 

There are many issues worth complaining about - preparing the game for the possibilities of next-generation hardware isn't one of them in my opinion.

If that is the case, then why release it NOW?

 

They should have known that people would want to run this game on high on their powerful PCs.

 

And it's just down right ridiculous and unacceptable that with our current hardware that is supremely superior to consoles, can't even run the game as smooth or as good-looking as on consoles!

 

 

 

 

[DeeperRed]

 

Don't really know what's the issue with that - are you guys complaining just because you cannot go around boasting that you are able to run the game on highest settings on your $2000 gaming rig?  IMO it's an interesting move because it means that even in 2009 or 2010 you can get even better graphics out of GTAIV instead of being capped at what was the maximum in 2008.

 

Would you have complained if they had capped the abilities of their engine, declared as as "highest level of detail" what the settings call "medium" at the moment, and released a patch that enabled the highest possible quality settings 2 years later? I guess not, even though it's essentially the same.

 

There are many issues worth complaining about - preparing the game for the possibilities of next-generation hardware isn't one of them in my opinion.

I suggest you visite a hospital because I think you suuffer from retardedness.

 

I put money into my computer to play the games on there best. Rockstar come along and PURPOSFULLY make a game a pile of crap so we have a reason to upgrade our computers.

I am all for next generation but if the game can run easliy on current gen but purpofully make it run like crap, then there a bunch of c*nts.

 

They didn't prepare anything, they just made the game run badly on perfectly capable hardware AND TOOK OUR MONEY

[bcrt2k]

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

[GamerShotgun]

 

Don't really know what's the issue with that - are you guys complaining just because you cannot go around boasting that you are able to run the game on highest settings on your $2000 gaming rig?  IMO it's an interesting move because it means that even in 2009 or 2010 you can get even better graphics out of GTAIV instead of being capped at what was the maximum in 2008.

 

Would you have complained if they had capped the abilities of their engine, declared as as "highest level of detail" what the settings call "medium" at the moment, and released a patch that enabled the highest possible quality settings 2 years later? I guess not, even though it's essentially the same.

 

There are many issues worth complaining about - preparing the game for the possibilities of next-generation hardware isn't one of them in my opinion.

I suggest you visite a hospital because I think you suuffer from retardedness.

 

I put money into my computer to play the games on there best. Rockstar come along and PURPOSFULLY make a game a pile of crap so we have a reason to upgrade our computers.

I am all for next generation but if the game can run easliy on current gen but purpofully make it run like crap, then there a bunch of c*nts.

 

They didn't prepare anything, they just made the game run badly on perfectly capable hardware AND TOOK OUR MONEY

I don't want to be a pain in the ass but.. If you look at GTA III's pre-release pics, you can see that it had much better graphics than it had in the Final Release..

 

Now... some of you were complaining about this, so Rockstar released their first game, which is exactly the same as you can see on the official pre-release pictures.

 

Seriously, what's up with it? Although I agree the game is a piece of sh*t when we are talking about optimization, but it's still interesting how everyone here complains about it's lame performance.

 

I bet most of these whiners doesn't even have the game, just came from the SR forums.

 

And a side note: Rockstar Games f*cked it up big time in my opinion.. THIS is the last time I'm buying anything released by them for sure. And for those who say that Pirates have been f*cked in their asses: Yep, because you haven't... at least they didn't throw out their money for a big piece of dog crap.

 

I guess if I want to have some fun, I have to wait for the PC release of SR2... And believe me, I didn't ever expect myself to say something like this.

Edited December 4, 2008 by MasterK

[Colton]

Hey, they got your money ... it's your problem now.

 

 

Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available.

 

That's R* giving you the finger. Great doing business with you.

[Rim]

R*'s QUOTE: Nothing personal, just business

[GamerJerome]

i cloud play all games on higest settings gta iv is the first one that can not crysis warhead ultra high settings and i thought now i can handle gta iv to but wrong this game is much more heavyer (maby thanks to the many bugs in it) i hope that if the patch is comming it get fixed

[SteaVor]

 

I suggest you visite a hospital because I think you suuffer from retardedness.

 

I put money into my computer to play the games on there best. Rockstar come along and PURPOSFULLY make a game a pile of crap so we have a reason to upgrade our computers.

I am all for next generation but if the game can run easliy on current gen but purpofully make it run like crap, then there a bunch of c*nts.

 

They didn't prepare anything, they just made the game run badly on perfectly capable hardware AND TOOK OUR MONEY

That does sound as if R* should simply label the medium settings display as the maximum possible (artificial capping is what I'd called that) because then everybody will be comfortable with it? "Hooray, with the latest patch I can play it with 80% view distance enabled!"

 

What you need to understand is that "medium" in GTAIV is equivalent to "(very) high" in any other game, so it's not really surprising that many PCs have problems running it at medium settings. You just need to lower the settings even more (while keeping in mind that this doesn't mean that your hardware is "medium", but just just medium compared to future hardware generations). The game will still look better than it ever did on consoles, so there's no reason to complain either.

 

 

@Colton:

No, they're saying: We're giving you the opportunity to experience the game just as it was advertised with our massive pre-release screenshots, PROVIDED your hardware is capable of running the game with those settings. If not, lower them until you game runs smooth (and still gett better graphics than on consoles), and once you've bought new hardware you can move the sliders to the right and get a better experience.

Edited December 4, 2008 by SteaVor

[bishman82]

I don't care if high settings are for future computers, what bothers me is the fact that medium or low settings don't even give a boost in performance!

[skating101]

 

Don't really know what's the issue with that - are you guys complaining just because you cannot go around boasting that you are able to run the game on highest settings on your $2000 gaming rig?  IMO it's an interesting move because it means that even in 2009 or 2010 you can get even better graphics out of GTAIV instead of being capped at what was the maximum in 2008.

 

Would you have complained if they had capped the abilities of their engine, declared as as "highest level of detail" what the settings call "medium" at the moment, and released a patch that enabled the highest possible quality settings 2 years later? I guess not, even though it's essentially the same.

 

There are many issues worth complaining about - preparing the game for the possibilities of next-generation hardware isn't one of them in my opinion.

the graphics ARENT fuc*ing next generation! Why cant you idiots understand that! There is NOTHING graphically as intense as crysis in this game!

[SteaVor]

 

I don't care if high settings are for future computers, what bothers me is the fact that medium or low settings don't even give a boost in performance!

That's caused by poor optimization: optimizing is poor, ATI compatibility is poor, that's what they need to concentrate on.

Still there's no reason to blame them for including settings that only make sense on future hardware.

 

@skating101:

There was a reason why I compared GTAIV on PC with GTAIV on consoles and not with Crysis: They're not comparable. We just don't have anywhere near enough insight into the way the engine of either of them works, so we cannot tell whether there's really more to compute for the RAGE engine or whether it's indeed poor programming. GTA contains many complex layers of simulation that are needed to make the game world behave consistently (just think of traffic rules, behavior and path of each and every ped and car,.. weather, ...).

Edited December 4, 2008 by SteaVor

[Vercetti Gangsta]

I understand all the concerns of pirates and such, but that is no excuse for making such a poor console to PC port.

 

The statement they made is a disgrace. There are PCs that are unable to run IV even though they're by far superior to the consoles. Even PCs with similar specifications as the consoles are unable to run it properly.

 

Rockstar USED to be a great company. Marketing is certainly their first priority. Customer satisfaction and quality endproducts appear to be thrown into the trash bin.

[ECH]

 

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

how is it that the console version gets AA and the PC users can't use AA? Or am I mistaken?

[bcrt2k]

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version/color]

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

how is it that the console version gets AA and the PC users can't use AA? Or am I mistaken?

My guess is the 360 has an option in the API to enable AA whereas on PC they would have to code their own AA support. I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of drivers from ATI and nVidia support forcing AA though.

[Killuminati91]

Im actively reading game forums for about 1 year now. Has it always been like that? Do the customers always get punked?

 

Crysis: Patch support stopped, multiplayer died because of punkbuster

Crysis Warhead: Still no SDK / Editor, Modding scene is gone

Left 4 Dead: To less content, no promised cutscenes

And now GTA: sh*tty port, excuses after everyone bought it

 

What the f*ck is wrong with the game industry? Are they f*ckin stupid? They cry and cry about piracy and how

noone buys their f*ckin games, but their f*ckin games are just f*ckin bad - so what?

 

Im really getting sick of those money hungry motherf*ckers. Game Industry, Music Industry, Clothing Industry. Its all the same.

 

Gta runs great for me, but there is no excuse for what they are doing.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Killuminati91

[ECH]

 

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

how is it that the console version gets AA and the PC users can't use AA? Or am I mistaken?

My guess is the 360 has an option in the API to enable AA whereas on PC they would have to code their own AA support. I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of drivers from ATI and nVidia support forcing AA though.

But shouldn't AA be a selectable option in the game itself? What other 2008 AAA title doesn't offer AA?

[Havoc069]

@SteaVor

Sir im aiming this post at you

 

I have over the last few days since release sitting in the background and looking at all the troubled posts, And i think what it all comes down to is HONESTY And quite frankly the way this whole fiasco has been handled its a travisty to say the least.

 

I draw you attention to this:

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=376237

 

And this:

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=378730

 

Both dated the 3rd of December nowit appears to be the 4th of December

Quite an interesting read to say the least,but ifo WAY to late for people that have Preordered there games wouldnt you say? Because if this information HAD been released before the actual release date, wouldnt you say that the sales woulda slumped? Id say they would have.

 

Youre quote here "What you need to understand is that "medium" in GTAIV is equivalent to "(very) high" in any other game, so it's not really surprising that many PCs have problems running it at medium settings. You just need to lower the settings even more (while keeping in mind that this doesn't mean that your hardware is "medium", but just just medium compared to future hardware generations). The game will still look better than it ever did on consoles, so there's no reason to complain either."

 

Err ok interesting point but from where i stand High/Very High on a PC is just THAT not this Medium=VERY HIGH for the PC. Please BE specific and Talk PC graphical setting NOT console settings. Now that you say the Next Gen PC etc will be able to run with graphics cranked to Very High etc. Ok what is the Next Gen PC Stats. Id surely like to know as would many others. Alll in all it comes down to HONESTY and it seems quite apparent that to R* that the dollar IS way more important than a loyal customer. And Hence the rediculas release dates of important info regarding what PC specs that are required and the stupid statements about requireing a Next Gen PC to run at max (What ever that is) Do you know? HONESTY

[Demonith]

Higher settings are for future PC's--HahahahahahahhaAAAAAAhahahhahha plsssssss this is tooo machh