"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[disposeablehero]

LOL, Rockstar must think PC gamers are retards. Seriously, even on high settings games looks average in many areas, yet requires a nuclear PC to run. R trying to spin their terrible lack coding for superior PC tech as Future Gen Graphics, BWHAHAHAHA, lol. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Gta Guy 108]

Rockstar has released some bad ports recently. Bully for the pc, now the problems are twice as worse as the ones that GTA IV has. GTA IV, of course. I have not bought the game yet for the pc, I will soon, and I hope that there will be no problems and I can maybe mod it. And VCS. It was good on the psp, but they kind of messed up porting it to the PS2. It is still a good game, but feels odd to me. LCS was a good port in my opinion. The other GTA ports were and are the best ports.

[spaceeinstein]

They are going to release a patch so why still bash the company? Don't fret over it and move on. This is a new game on a new engine and there are people that can get the game running. If the patch still didn't fix anything, then you can bash them.

 

Actually, the best port from Rockstar was Vice City and it was a direct port. All other ports tries to add enhancing features that doesn't seem to work.

[disposeablehero]

They are going to release a patch so why still bash the company? Don't fret over it and move on. This is a new game on a new engine and there are people that can get the game running. If the patch still didn't fix anything, then you can bash them.

Why bash? LOL, because paying customers deserve more then ttoal incompetence. Also, this games requires more then a patch for issues of this calber, game needs a total re-write as it is apparent R have no clue how to code to use better PC resources properly.

[Havoc069]

They are going to release a patch so why still bash the company? Don't fret over it and move on. This is a new game on a new engine and there are people that can get the game running. If the patch still didn't fix anything, then you can bash them.

Why not bash them? They have my money right? I and obviously alot of people are having issues right? all these= Robbery So dont be a fanboy. They DONT need a pat on the back they need a good kick up the ass

[nitro_hedgehog]

 

They are going to release a patch so why still bash the company? Don't fret over it and move on. This is a new game on a new engine and there are people that can get the game running. If the patch still didn't fix anything, then you can bash them.

 

Actually, the best port from Rockstar was Vice City and it was a direct port. All other ports tries to add enhancing features that doesn't seem to work.

 

some of us are bashing them for not getting it right the first time. companies like valve usually do. why can't R*? they had SEVEN MONTHS and it still wasn't enough. i understand that they can't cover everything in testing but this is a HUGE issue. how they overlooked it is beyond me.

[Dhatz]

i am sorry,but PC's gone the wrong way,they went for shaders instead of performance,this is how it is problem to render 360deg of whole city.

[Picolini]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

[Creed Bratton]

If they really mean what they said about GTA4 PC being for future PC's, then you could call this a fraud. I mean, people expected to be able to play it on maximum settings based on system requirements that R* announced. And now they say you can't play on max, but they still took the money. I would demand a refund.

[Nemon]

800 x 600 gives me the same fps according to fraps as 1680x1050...

[d00mik]

Rockstar have spent money (I heard 250k?) on game protection to kick pirates in the face, but what we have now ? The game have appeared at 30oct on the most popular torrent-tracker, it have been cracked yesterday\today. I think, they spent huge amount and of time and efforts on defending their game from pirates hands instead of optimizing it.

Its ok to protect it from pirates when is not hurt the game quality.

 

Now we got: "This game for the future generation", of course it is! Everyone can develop buggy software with strange behavior ( wtf? I see people here with quad core, top hardware getting 20 fps ), memory leak etc, and say that you computer can't run it because its for future!

 

 

Idea of the future generation is nice, but they should tell us about this first or making patch for the future or something, sure they could think about something better.

 

Even NASA space shuttle will not run it on max, you dont understand, its for future generation!

 

 

[skating101]

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, ...).

SteaVor im going to try and explain this simply for you. Graphics are the most complex part of any computer game, forget traffic rules, paths etc and in this area the game is not more advanced than any other computer game:

 

1. The plants in GTAIV dont move and are not as detailed most other games.

2. The cars have less detail than NFS Most Wanted.

3. The textures are not such high quality.

4. The draw distance is not so large and the objects in the distance have very low detail.

5. The character models are extremely bland looking (compared to other games CoD4 or Crysis) .

6. The maximum number of characters on the screen at any one time is around 10.

7. The atmospherics are no more detailed than any other game currently out.

 

All of these point tell you just one thing: This name does not future processors to run at high speeds what it requires is GOOD PROGRAMMING and what does that tell you about Rockstar Games: they have been lazy on this port because PC games do not comprise a large enough part of their sales.

 

To all those out there that are saying why doesnt Rockstar apologise: Companies like Rockstar do not apologise because they have public interests, Take 2 Interactive, their parent company is a publicly listed company so if Rockstar admits a mistake with their game the share price of the parent company gets hammered and this folk is what its all about MONEY because these companies want to make money. But be happy that Rockstar will be working quietly on patches to shut this up before everyone returns their games and Rockstar loses money.

[disposeablehero]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

Sigh, you are the one that is Naive and does not understand, their PR release about future PC's, why say this now? Fact is, even on the highest settings games looks average, with no AA, bad textures, very poor shadows, this is just them trying to cover their arese now, damage control. No way going from medium to high should cause a game to need 2 GB vram, when the quality of the graphics is harldy justifiable compared to the retarded resources this game wants. Terrible misues of PC resources. Hire some new people rockstar.

[Havoc069]

I'd STILL love for someone to please please please tell my what the stats of a Next Gen PC is? Like HARD facts not just dribble. Because if even R* cant say/quote what it is than what they advertized is blatant fraud

[aNdReSk]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

I actually support rockstar in what they have done with the pc game. It reminds me of Opertation Flashpoint, with the new expansions they will add, the game will last longer than SA did, Flashpoint nowdays, that makes it look with state of the art graphics, and it's a year 2000 game

 

You will always have something new to see

[GamerShotgun]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

Although I really respect you Picolini, I need to say that this is a bit far from reality...

 

How the hell can Rockstar Games predict that GTA IV will only run on High settings, with future PC's? I just can't seem to understand that. It's a bit funny how the game isn't capable to run on high, with low resolution on a quad core CPU, SLIed GTX280s and with 4 gigs of RAM.

 

Honestly... my opinion is that they are trying to lick hardware providers' asses, to get more support from them. It's just ridiculous how we spent lots of money on upgrading our PC's, then it turns out to be nothing, because the game we did it for just won't run properly.. even on minimum settings.

 

So what the f*ck?

[disposeablehero]

 

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

I actually support rockstar in what they have done with the pc game. It reminds me of Opertation Flashpoint, with the new expansions they will add, the game will last longer than SA did, Flashpoint nowdays, that makes it look with state of the art graphics, and it's a year 2000 game

 

You will always have something new to see

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

 

By the time GTA 4 runs well on max settings no one will be playing it and games will be in another league graphically. makes no sense. At least with Crysis it is and will be the best looking game for a long time.

Edited December 4, 2008 by disposeablehero

[Havoc069]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

I actually support rockstar in what they have done with the pc game. It reminds me of Opertation Flashpoint, with the new expansions they will add, the game will last longer than SA did, Flashpoint nowdays, that makes it look with state of the art graphics, and it's a year 2000 game

 

You will always have something new to see

Ok fan boy over in the corner with you with the other fans and airconditioners. So you have absolutly NO problems with the game at all?

[Turdist]

I would really be happy if even just one other person on this board would join me in referring to rockstar as cockstar from this moment onward.

 

any takers?

[aNdReSk]

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

the game does look just like Xbox in some computers, and they arent ultra NASA computers so.. That's pretty good imo

 

lol You guys are the kind of guys who will leave ur supermodel girlfriend when she gets one point of acne in her face xD

[Havoc069]

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

the game does look just like Xbox in some computers, and they arent ultra NASA computers so.. That's pretty good imo

 

lol You guys are the kind of guys who will leave ur supermodel girlfriend when she gets one point of acne in her face xD

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

[thereisnospoon]

I would really be happy if even just one other person on this board would join me in referring to rockstar as cockstar from this moment onward.

 

any takers?

When they change their name to that, I will. Until then, you're just immature.

[aNdReSk]

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

Lol got out of arguments and started insulting people?

Grow up

[Havoc069]

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

Lol got out of arguments and started insulting people?

Grow up

Already grown up just trying not to sink to youre lvl of stupidness

[GamerShotgun]

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

the game does look just like Xbox in some computers, and they arent ultra NASA computers so.. That's pretty good imo

 

lol You guys are the kind of guys who will leave ur supermodel girlfriend when she gets one point of acne in her face xD

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

That's just gay.. I was in the corner with your mom matey. And we didn't get out of there since yesterday night

[bwu]

Wtf? I think I will have better games to play in the Future...

[Havoc069]

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

the game does look just like Xbox in some computers, and they arent ultra NASA computers so.. That's pretty good imo

 

lol You guys are the kind of guys who will leave ur supermodel girlfriend when she gets one point of acne in her face xD

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

That's just gay.. I was in the corner with your mom matey. And we didn't get out of there since yesterday night

Sweet enjoy MATEY!

[aNdReSk]

And youre an Idiot ho told you to come out of the corner?

Lol got out of arguments and started insulting people?

Grow up

Already grown up just trying not to sink to youre lvl of stupidness

So people who like rockstar, and like gta iv pc are stupid?

riiiigth

 

[bishman82]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

No, the problem isn't people trying to run it on too high settings it's when they lower the settings but still get the same performance as when it was high, and people getting the same performance with 2 year old graphics cards and brand new ones assuming the CPU'S are of a similar speed.

 

Any other PC game that has bad performance can easily be tweaked by lowering the resolution and texture quality down, taking a huge load off the gfx card and making the FPS shoot up, this game is relying on the CPU to determine the pace of the game, if it's too slow then your graphics card isn't really doing much while your CPU is grinding to a halt, you can run the damn thing in 1900x resolution or drop it down to 800x600, not really much of an improvement, same with all the other graphics settings, have them set so high you get a warning = bad performance, set them so low you have loads of spare Vram = still bad performance because your CPU's cores are pegged at 100%

[Turdist]

I would really be happy if even just one other person on this board would join me in referring to rockstar as cockstar from this moment onward.

 

any takers?

When they change their name to that, I will. Until then, you're just immature.

i said takers, not "people who disagree"