"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[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

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

riiiigth

I loath R* for there lack of Honesty and stupidity in what they have done to the ......Well you look at the posts in the Forum

[camdean]

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

[TruXter]

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!

Hello new person to GTA.

 

We will be seeing at least two more versions of GTAIV over the next 4-6 years.

This game may stay the core of them all and may have downloadable content that adds more cities.

 

 

As I have played all gta's as of current. I can fairly say

That each version has done the exact same thing.

Just this time they came out and said it to us.

 

I totally appreciate that they did this

I like gta and play it with pure exploration.

 

 

If you stay liking GTA once you see more that you can get out it

you will learn what is so great.

 

First thing that makes it great, is making your rig play the game smooth.

second is the actual game play

third is the mods that you can come up with that fit the game the best.

fourth is waiting for the next game.

 

 

Wining and crying from the pc gamer masses,

makes me fear that rockstar will soon figure they can not please

pc gamers because they are too technical.

 

I make my machine do it, why can't you?

[Sarmagedon]

 

 

First of all R* have made a terible market research about this product,do you now the what is the % of gamers who have the computer configuration to play this game? I think that 30 % have "Super computers" (quad core,great grafic cards e.c.t) and what about the other 70% (single core,dual core,medium or week cards),even the guys with Quad Cores and Powerfull cards are not pleased with the game performance thats why R* are making (probably) patch...

 

Did R* published a Demo verzion od GTA 4 ?

 

 

This thing's are terible misstakes in R* Corporation and i'am sure that GTA IV have the lowest profit in the hole GTA series...

 

[disposeablehero]

 

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue, and are naive for believeing R propaganda. See Crysis for real Cutting edge graphics, puts GTA 4 to shame. How is it made to last? By the time people can max it out no one will care, PC graphics move to fast, many betetr games and graphics will be vastly better, hell, Crysis and others already surpass it. Rockstar just released that BS statement to try and cover for their obvious lack of technical know how. It's sad a few Naive people actually by Rockstars BS. Game looks average yet require an insane amount of resources. Hire new tech people Rockstar or stick to consoles.

Edited December 4, 2008 by disposeablehero

[nitro_hedgehog]

 

Hello new person to GTA.

 

We will be seeing at least two more versions of GTAIV over the next 4-6 years.

This game may stay the core of them all and may have downloadable content that adds more cities.

 

 

As I have played all gta's as of current.  I can fairly say

That each version has done the exact same thing.

Just this time they came out and said it to us.

 

I totally appreciate that they did this

I like gta and play it with pure exploration.

 

 

If you stay liking GTA once you see more that you can get out it

you will learn what is so great.

 

First thing that makes it great, is making your rig play the game smooth.

second is the actual game play

third is the mods that you can come up with that fit the game the best.

fourth is waiting for the next game.

 

 

Wining and crying from the pc gamer masses,

makes me fear that rockstar will soon figure they can not please

pc gamers because they are too technical.

 

I make my machine do it, why can't you?

we can't make our rigs run it well because the game is poorly optimized. it's pitiful to not be able to run it at least 30 fps when your rig exceeds recommended requirements which is a ridiculous set of requirements considering that consoles ran the game fine with less advanced hardware.

[TruXter]

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue,blah blah blah

Wait for the next issuance of nvidia cards and ati cards.

 

 

 

[disposeablehero]

 

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue,blah blah blah

Wait for the next issuance of nvidia cards and ati cards, because I am a moron who believes anything anyone say like an imbecile.

Then what? Game still looks average? Game is supposed to be more CPU limited according to Euphoria and Lucas Arts. Seriously, Naive much? Bully looks old, yet runs like ass, has nothing to do with hardware, it is software and a misuse of Tech resources.

[ECH]

 

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.

Can you confirm, ask or inquire if this patch will allow for an option to enable AA?

[TTS]

Rather than spending atleast a grand on updating our computers, It'd be cheaper to buy a X360 and the game.

 

Screw Rockstar.

[disposeablehero]

Rather than spending atleast a grand on updating our computers, It'd be cheaper to buy a X360 and the game.

 

Screw Rockstar.

I would rather piss vinegar then buy a console, sorry, why downgrade to a console becasue of one bad port, lol. I will keep my better graphics, controls and mods PC thank you.

[S1LV3R_W0LF]

I remember saying that the 50 Mil M$ payed to R* was to DLC, both consoles and PC's later, now I think the extra millions was to this:

 

WINDOWS XP SP3

WINDOWS VISTA SP1

NET FRAMEWORK

WMP CODECS

QUAD CORES

...

 

In other words M$ payed them, to make the most expected game of all times demand people to get M$ products in order to play, and... for some cases less patient to get a crappy console, and in this case since the DLC is for X360 exclusive ... the options are easy.

 

I don't have the game yet, so I can't complain ... I don't even know If I should get it when it's available here, but for all I've read, this game was awesome when was shown to us, but they used a machine so powerful that not even the closest future we will have it has a regular Home PC...

 

Many people here say others shouldn't be so greedy with the graphics and such, but what I see isn't bad performances with demanding people, what I see is people with so many problems that they can't actually play the game... and that's what MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS are set for, at least PLAY IT.... even if isn't so visual pleasant.

 

--------

 

R* North wasn't perfect programing for PC, but I guess R* Toronto don't have a clue of what that is ... R* should ask R* North to work on the mess that Toronto made, and get more people to program DLC or whatever ...

 

R* reminds me some well known trademarks like NIKE and others, they have products that are very bad quality, but they keep doing them because people trust in the NIKE logo ... until the day they open their eyes.

 

Well THQ, hurry with SR2 ... your Franchise will smash GTA this time.

Edited December 5, 2008 by S1LV3R_W0LF

[camdean]

 

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue, and are naive for believeing R propaganda. See Crysis for real Cutting edge graphics, puts GTA 4 to shame. How is it made to last? By the time people can max it out no one will care, PC graphics move to fast, many betetr games and graphics will be vastly better, hell, Crysis and others already surpass it. Rockstar just released that BS statement to try and cover for their obvious lack of technical know how. It's sad a few Naive people actually by Rockstars BS. Game looks average yet require an insane amount of resources. Hire new tech people Rockstar or stick to consoles.

What ?

 

 

Why do people think that you HAVE to run a game at high settings for it to be any good lol, thats the silliest thing ever. All proper hardcore, future pc games are like this, accept it, or go back to EA games and WoW !

 

Examples: Supreme Commander and expansion - It was a CPU killer, all those single core players couldnt play multiplayer or even single player, including me, I upgraded.

 

Operation Flashopint 2 - Not out yet, it's coming march, on it's release I doubt anyone will be able to run it on HIGH settings, it's a game for the future. Yeah so it's crap !

 

Warcraft - This will run on my watch, nobody loses out.

 

EA games (part from crysis) - Will run on high on most pc's, games suck anyway, boring unrealistic crap !

 

Oh look I have it on highest settings, oh look it means it pwns !!

 

 

Pffft.

 

 

Some people are crazy !!

 

 

Realistic games/Hardcore games are like this, rockstar have made sure their game will last on the pc.

[disposeablehero]

 

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue, and are naive for believeing R propaganda. See Crysis for real Cutting edge graphics, puts GTA 4 to shame. How is it made to last? By the time people can max it out no one will care, PC graphics move to fast, many betetr games and graphics will be vastly better, hell, Crysis and others already surpass it. Rockstar just released that BS statement to try and cover for their obvious lack of technical know how. It's sad a few Naive people actually by Rockstars BS. Game looks average yet require an insane amount of resources. Hire new tech people Rockstar or stick to consoles.

What ?

 

 

Why do people think that you HAVE to run a game at high settings for it to be any good lol, thats the silliest thing ever. All proper hardcore, future pc games are like this, accept it, or go back to EA games and WoW !

 

Examples: Supreme Commander and expansion - It was a CPU killer, all those single core players couldnt play multiplayer or even single player, including me, I upgraded.

 

Operation Flashopint 2 - Not out yet, it's coming march, on it's release I doubt anyone will be able to run it on HIGH settings, it's a game for the future. Yeah so it's crap !

 

Warcraft - This will run on my watch, nobody loses out.

 

EA games (part from crysis) - Will run on high on most pc's, games suck anyway, boring unrealistic crap !

 

Oh look I have it on highest settings, oh look it means it pwns !!

 

 

Pffft.

 

 

Some people are crazy !!

 

 

Realistic games/Hardcore games are like this, rockstar have made sure their game will last on the pc.

Are you stupid? Game runs and looks bad on low or high, point is whats the point of saying the game is designed to run on future PC's if the graphics are poor? No one said you need to run it on high, problem is, If a game is gonna be way more demanding then crysis mit should at least cme close to it in graphics, GTA 4 looks average at best. Even on low people with Quads and high end gear are getting bad performance. Lay off R's nutz, geez.

 

On top of this you have the game blaoted with all kinds of apps, and buggy, many cannot even play it. For a game with this much hype and caliber it is a disaster, as bad as Gothic III. Rockstar cannot scream low budget like Pyranha Bytes could.

 

All those games you mentioned ran well on all settings according to Hardware, GTA 4 runs poor on Quads and top of the line hardware on lower settings, pathetic. Game is mis-using PC resources, Rockstar needs to hire new PC devs and techs, or stiick to consoles, it is all over the web how bad this game is right now.

 

It is so bad Steam is offering refunds, lol, unheard of, explain that?

Edited December 5, 2008 by disposeablehero

[Drunk Russian 9]

 

Realistic games/Hardcore games are like this, rockstar have made sure their game will last on the pc.

No, that's just you.

 

Rockstar Toronto screwed up big time and you idiots can't comprehend that. If Rockstar North did the PC version, we would have another great addition to the series.

[skating101]

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

SIGH, no, the game even on high settings looks average, you have no clue, and are naive for believeing R propaganda. See Crysis for real Cutting edge graphics, puts GTA 4 to shame. How is it made to last? By the time people can max it out no one will care, PC graphics move to fast, many betetr games and graphics will be vastly better, hell, Crysis and others already surpass it. Rockstar just released that BS statement to try and cover for their obvious lack of technical know how. It's sad a few Naive people actually by Rockstars BS. Game looks average yet require an insane amount of resources. Hire new tech people Rockstar or stick to consoles.

What ?

 

 

Why do people think that you HAVE to run a game at high settings for it to be any good lol, thats the silliest thing ever. All proper hardcore, future pc games are like this, accept it, or go back to EA games and WoW !

 

Examples: Supreme Commander and expansion - It was a CPU killer, all those single core players couldnt play multiplayer or even single player, including me, I upgraded.

 

Operation Flashopint 2 - Not out yet, it's coming march, on it's release I doubt anyone will be able to run it on HIGH settings, it's a game for the future. Yeah so it's crap !

 

Warcraft - This will run on my watch, nobody loses out.

 

EA games (part from crysis) - Will run on high on most pc's, games suck anyway, boring unrealistic crap !

 

Oh look I have it on highest settings, oh look it means it pwns !!

 

 

Pffft.

 

 

Some people are crazy !!

 

 

Realistic games/Hardcore games are like this, rockstar have made sure their game will last on the pc.

camdean read my post on page 3 i want to call you a complete dumbass but everyone else already has

[themerchant8]

Definition of futureproof:

 

Looks awesome and runs good on current hardware, but has the ability to look even better later.

========================

Definition of GTA 4:

 

Does not look good and run good on current hardware, but once you invest in a multi-thousand dollar computer it'll START to look acceptable.

========================

 

[slowmoejoe]

I would like to add something here.. For all those noble folk who think "Oh, R* did us all a favour and made this game to last for the next 20 years etc etc etc"

 

I have a 7900 GS, Athlon 64 X2 although its 2.2 GHz, and >3GB of RAM.

 

Now I would say I should meet the system requirements as stated at the back of the game, and I would expect to be able to at least play this game, yes?

It does not run on my computer, that is to say at the lowest of low settings because I couldn't give a toss to even try changing the settings since it says I'm exceeding system resources by just adjusting any setting. What is the deal here?

 

Anyone who says that you can run the game on Medium if you meet the system requirements has to read a little closer, preferably with a magnifying glass, a dictionary, and an English Language Doctorate by their side.

 

I don't mind upgrading my computer because I know its a little on the old side, but having my eyes burned out by the ugliness of it all (not to mention the various bugs that are still around, AND the unnecessary signing up for Rockstar Social Club and GFWL) even though I meet the recommended system requirements is a little rich for me..

 

One thing I don't understand is the claim that this is made for future PC's.. Why would anyone splash for a game they can't play right now? Doesn't make sense to me, can't see why it would make sense to anyone else as well. If a game were meant for the future then bloody well make sure it stays there, in the FUTURE.

 

FFS, would you buy a game for the PS4? I love the GTA series, I played the first games for the PC, I watched it grow from top-down to 3D, and stuck with the game. Now all I expect is a game that doesn't kick us (loyal customers/gamers whatever you want to call yourselves) in the proverbial nuts (sorry to any females out there, insert a painful place of your choice if you wish) and run off giggling with my cash, looking behind and promising "to look into the matter".

 

 

[calebchosen]

The patch won´t do anything... it´s gonna take a lot of patches to straight this f*cker out.

Neverwinter nights 2 1.0 was almost unplayable, after almost 22 patches, it still has bugs..

 

Rockstar Screwed Pc Gamers big time!! It´s really sad, since gta started on pc.. Oh.. the memories..

[disposeablehero]

I would like to add something here.. For all those noble folk who think "Oh, R* did us all a favour and made this game to last for the next 20 years etc etc etc"

 

I have a 7900 GS, Athlon 64 X2 although its 2.2 GHz, and >3GB of RAM.

 

Now I would say I should meet the system requirements as stated at the back of the game, and I would expect to be able to at least play this game, yes?

It does not run on my computer, that is to say at the lowest of low settings because I couldn't give a toss to even try changing the settings since it says I'm exceeding system resources by just adjusting any setting. What is the deal here?

 

Anyone who says that you can run the game on Medium if you meet the system requirements has to read a little closer, preferably with a magnifying glass, a dictionary, and an English Language Doctorate by their side.

 

I don't mind upgrading my computer because I know its a little on the old side, but having my eyes burned out by the ugliness of it all (not to mention the various bugs that are still around, AND the unnecessary signing up for Rockstar Social Club and GFWL) even though I meet the recommended system requirements is a little rich for me..

 

One thing I don't understand is the claim that this is made for future PC's.. Why would anyone splash for a game they can't play right now? Doesn't make sense to me, can't see why it would make sense to anyone else as well. If a game were meant for the future then bloody well make sure it stays there, in the FUTURE.

 

FFS, would you buy a game for the PS4? I love the GTA series, I played the first games for the PC, I watched it grow from top-down to 3D, and stuck with the game. Now all I expect is a game that doesn't kick us (loyal customers/gamers whatever you want to call yourselves) in the proverbial nuts (sorry to any females out there, insert a painful place of your choice if you wish) and run off giggling with my cash, looking behind and promising "to look into the matter".

Good post, true, R dropped the ball BIG TIME on this one.

[ZaCkOX]

Let me say this for everyone that is experiencing the NEW FEELINGS for Rockstar.

 

When I first played GTA 4 for Xbox. I had a great time. I had been playing video games for over 18 years. Of all the games I had played, GTA 4 was by far the best fun played game. I would have voted best game of the year. It was smooth, looked great, and the fun factor was off the scale with multiplayer. Now I remind us all, even you Rockstar, if you are listening! This was on the XBOX 360. A console which is faded out and very old to any new computer parts nowadays.

 

IF my spanking brand new computer parts, spend 3,000 or more to play this game and STILL CANNOT PLAY IT, WITH WORSE GRAPHICS AND BOXY TEXTURES THAN THE XBOX VERSION, YOU SCREWED UP. You have made every person with the same experience hate your guts, your product is by far the worst of the year, WAIT, WORST EVER. You could have not used Windows Live, created social club, and not released the game requiring sp3/vista sp1. You would of made the game work fine and probably even created your own game server. If you would have done this, I am sure me and a lot of others would have been with you ALL THE WAY! But.... but.... noooo.

 

When it comes to money, it comes to your loyal customers and you think about that next time before you make your game run through dos, activate over the internet, and piss all of us off. I will never buy another rockstar game for PC again. And it is 100% YOUR FAULT. NO ONE ELSES!

 

 

DOES ANYONE SEE THIS ON THE XBOX 360? DON'T GIVE ME EXCUSES HOW TO FIX IT BECAUSE ANY OTHER GAME I CAN INSTALL AND I WILL NOT EXPERIENCE THIS CRAP!

 

- I SPEAK FOR ALL THE GAMERS, Thank you!

[BlackMamba47]

I'm gonna piss off a bunch of people, but this should be fun.

 

1. R* is a company that care about profits. Releasing the game before Christmas precludes having great profits. Announcing that your game isn't optimized for most computers would hurt those profits, hence why they didn't say anything.

 

2. The fact that people don't realize this is not the fault of R*, its the fault of the incompetent public that has rose-colored glasses and think that companies are in the game for the benefit of the consumer.

 

3. If you had read anything about the game, seen any screens or videos of the game, or even played on one of the consoles, that should have let you know that this game would be a bitch to run on PC, because no other game released to date, even Crysis, has attempted to combine the graphic quality of GTA with all of the cogs and gears that are involved in the pedestrian AI, the physics, etc.

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

5. All comparisons to Crysis, Crysis:Warhead, or any other non-sandbox PC game should henceforth be the symbol of gross incompetence on the part of members of this forum. GTA never has, and likely never will be, a FPS, and FPS don't have to compute anywhere near the amount of data that a GTA game would have to.

 

6. Why in the hell would people care about graphics settings that affect buildings and objects in the far distance when the majority of the game is on ground level? If that's the case, go out a pick up the latest iteration of Cabela's Deer Hunting or Crysis if you want to look at crap in the distance while people shoot at you back on ground level. Last time I checked, Niko wasn't anything near an ornithologist, and could probably care less about how the Chrysler Building's Art Deco features are rendered on your poor ass computer.

 

7. To the person with the 7900gs. I had a 7900gs for two year. It lasted long, ran well, but was thoroughly outclassed by even the worst of the 8000-series Nvidia cards and the 3000-series ATI cards. If you had taken the time to do some research, you would have known that fact. Just because you card meets the minimum requirements, that should not suggest that R* will or would have catered to the lowest-common denominator, that being your card. Shell out $100 bucks, get a new graphics card, maybe a new CPU, and enjoy, but don't complain to R* because your technology is outdated and they've created a game that rightfully caters to the latest and greatest.

 

8. If companies catered to the lowest common denominator, as some of you posters seem to want, people a 3dfx card would be able to play Crysis in all it's 2-d or -10FPS glory. Now just let that seep in for a bit, and think about how silly that sounds, and then think about how stupid it makes you look in retrospect (Since I can tell most of you need some honest retrospection and stop being such misers and shell out the money necessary to play a game you've probably already beaten 10 times).

 

9. On that note, I don't see why people are so enamored with the PC version anyways. Most of you have probably beaten it, likely all have played it, so why should R* care about repeat players when they've already gotten you once for the console version and have gotten you again for the PC version. Don't get all pissy at R* because you have the need to purchase a game you've played and/or beaten already.

 

10. Don't get mad that R* requires us to sign up through various methods before we play the game. Again, if people had not been lazy and stupid and did their research before they pre-ordered and/or purchased the game, they would have known these facts and prepared accordingly. R* is not at fault for your laziness, your incompetence, and your inane inability to do what you need to do to get ready for a purchase. They prey on fools like you who go by name and reputation only, and that's not their fault, it's yours stupid.

 

11. Lastly, upgrade your sh*tty ass computers and stop complaining. If you want the game to look good, upgrade. If not, play on lower settings, or stick to the console versions that have consistent framerates and still great graphics. People aren;t buying the game for the future, they're buying the game for now. However, some of these people were smart and realized that GTA4 for PC would need a very powerful computer to run well, and those who were stupid thought that their old sh*t would run the game at a playable framerate. Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it? And y'all only have yourselves to blame.

 

Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360. When I want to get it for PC, I'll make sure before I spend $50 that my computer will play it at the framerates that I deem acceptable, not stumble in with blind hope that outdated hardware and technology will suffice like so many of you fools did.

[ZaCkOX]

I'm gonna piss off a bunch of people, but this should be fun.

 

1. R* is a company that care about profits. Releasing the game before Christmas precludes having great profits. Announcing that your game isn't optimized for most computers would hurt those profits, hence why they didn't say anything.

 

2. The fact that people don't realize this is not the fault of R*, its the fault of the incompetent public that has rose-colored glasses and think that companies are in the game for the benefit of the consumer.

 

3. If you had read anything about the game, seen any screens or videos of the game, or even played on one of the consoles, that should have let you know that this game would be a bitch to run on PC, because no other game released to date, even Crysis, has attempted to combine the graphic quality of GTA with all of the cogs and gears that are involved in the pedestrian AI, the physics, etc.

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

5. All comparisons to Crysis, Crysis:Warhead, or any other non-sandbox PC game should henceforth be the symbol of gross incompetence on the part of members of this forum. GTA never has, and likely never will be, a FPS, and FPS don't have to compute anywhere near the amount of data that a GTA game would have to.

 

6. Why in the hell would people care about graphics settings that affect buildings and objects in the far distance when the majority of the game is on ground level? If that's the case, go out a pick up the latest iteration of Cabela's Deer Hunting or Crysis if you want to look at crap in the distance while people shoot at you back on ground level. Last time I checked, Niko wasn't anything near an ornithologist, and could probably care less about how the Chrysler Building's Art Deco features are rendered on your poor ass computer.

 

7. To the person with the 7900gs. I had a 7900gs for two year. It lasted long, ran well, but was thoroughly outclassed by even the worst of the 8000-series Nvidia cards and the 3000-series ATI cards. If you had taken the time to do some research, you would have known that fact. Just because you card meets the minimum requirements, that should not suggest that R* will or would have catered to the lowest-common denominator, that being your card. Shell out $100 bucks, get a new graphics card, maybe a new CPU, and enjoy, but don't complain to R* because your technology is outdated and they've created a game that rightfully caters to the latest and greatest.

 

8. If companies catered to the lowest common denominator, as some of you posters seem to want, people a 3dfx card would be able to play Crysis in all it's 2-d or -10FPS glory. Now just let that seep in for a bit, and think about how silly that sounds, and then think about how stupid it makes you look in retrospect (Since I can tell most of you need some honest retrospection and stop being such misers and shell out the money necessary to play a game you've probably already beaten 10 times).

 

9. On that note, I don't see why people are so enamored with the PC version anyways. Most of you have probably beaten it, likely all have played it, so why should R* care about repeat players when they've already gotten you once for the console version and have gotten you again for the PC version. Don't get all pissy at R* because you have the need to purchase a game you've played and/or beaten already.

 

10. Don't get mad that R* requires us to sign up through various methods before we play the game. Again, if people had not been lazy and stupid and did their research before they pre-ordered and/or purchased the game, they would have known these facts and prepared accordingly. R* is not at fault for your laziness, your incompetence, and your inane inability to do what you need to do to get ready for a purchase. They prey on fools like you who go by name and reputation only, and that's not their fault, it's yours stupid.

 

11. Lastly, upgrade your sh*tty ass computers and stop complaining. If you want the game to look good, upgrade. If not, play on lower settings, or stick to the console versions that have consistent framerates and still great graphics. People aren;t buying the game for the future, they're buying the game for now. However, some of these people were smart and realized that GTA4 for PC would need a very powerful computer to run well, and those who were stupid thought that their old sh*t would run the game at a playable framerate. Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it? And y'all only have yourselves to blame.

 

Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360. When I want to get it for PC, I'll make sure before I spend $50 that my computer will play it at the framerates that I deem acceptable, not stumble in with blind hope that outdated hardware and technology will suffice like so many of you fools did.

Look at gears of war for PC. It came out very good compared to GTA 4 for pc. And gears of war plays a little faster. That's the problem. They did nothing to stop this from happening. It would of been easier to just take what they had on the xbox and transfer it to the pc like Gears did.

 

That's SAD!

[slowmoejoe]

Gosh, waiting for a mate to swing by for lunch is killer..

 

Anyway @ BlackMamba47;

 

You make a fair point on my system, though I did say I was going to upgrade it soon enough. My point here being the system requirements mentioned. Fair enough the game is catered to the latest and greatest, but when mentioning system requirements it should be expected that you can run the game at an acceptable level. If it can't run at an acceptable level then just up the system requirements that are mentioned and no one can make a fuss about it.

 

The other posts I won't really respond to, besides mentioning the fact that insulting others with "stupid, fool, etc" would definitely piss them off, no matter what you said. You may enjoy pissing them off with the insults, but the fact is that some of these people have better rigs than me and get no more enjoyment than I do. I don't own a console, and I can't really afford to right now. So what do I do? I'm already coughing up to upgrade my computer (No cheap thing as you should know since you say you had a 7900 GS, with a new GPU comes a new PSU maybe). A miser I am not, but financially healthy I am not either. I take it that you may be more well off but do take a moment to consider that others may not be so well off before you begin shooting them down with such remarks.

[Mike2k4]

I'm gonna piss off a bunch of people, but this should be fun.

 

1. R* is a company that care about profits. Releasing the game before Christmas precludes having great profits. Announcing that your game isn't optimized for most computers would hurt those profits, hence why they didn't say anything.

 

2. The fact that people don't realize this is not the fault of R*, its the fault of the incompetent public that has rose-colored glasses and think that companies are in the game for the benefit of the consumer.

 

3. If you had read anything about the game, seen any screens or videos of the game, or even played on one of the consoles, that should have let you know that this game would be a bitch to run on PC, because no other game released to date, even Crysis, has attempted to combine the graphic quality of GTA with all of the cogs and gears that are involved in the pedestrian AI, the physics, etc.

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

5. All comparisons to Crysis, Crysis:Warhead, or any other non-sandbox PC game should henceforth be the symbol of gross incompetence on the part of members of this forum. GTA never has, and likely never will be, a FPS, and FPS don't have to compute anywhere near the amount of data that a GTA game would have to.

 

6. Why in the hell would people care about graphics settings that affect buildings and objects in the far distance when the majority of the game is on ground level? If that's the case, go out a pick up the latest iteration of Cabela's Deer Hunting or Crysis if you want to look at crap in the distance while people shoot at you back on ground level. Last time I checked, Niko wasn't anything near an ornithologist, and could probably care less about how the Chrysler Building's Art Deco features are rendered on your poor ass computer.

 

7. To the person with the 7900gs. I had a 7900gs for two year. It lasted long, ran well, but was thoroughly outclassed by even the worst of the 8000-series Nvidia cards and the 3000-series ATI cards. If you had taken the time to do some research, you would have known that fact. Just because you card meets the minimum requirements, that should not suggest that R* will or would have catered to the lowest-common denominator, that being your card. Shell out $100 bucks, get a new graphics card, maybe a new CPU, and enjoy, but don't complain to R* because your technology is outdated and they've created a game that rightfully caters to the latest and greatest.

 

8. If companies catered to the lowest common denominator, as some of you posters seem to want, people a 3dfx card would be able to play Crysis in all it's 2-d or -10FPS glory. Now just let that seep in for a bit, and think about how silly that sounds, and then think about how stupid it makes you look in retrospect (Since I can tell most of you need some honest retrospection and stop being such misers and shell out the money necessary to play a game you've probably already beaten 10 times).

 

9. On that note, I don't see why people are so enamored with the PC version anyways. Most of you have probably beaten it, likely all have played it, so why should R* care about repeat players when they've already gotten you once for the console version and have gotten you again for the PC version. Don't get all pissy at R* because you have the need to purchase a game you've played and/or beaten already.

 

10. Don't get mad that R* requires us to sign up through various methods before we play the game. Again, if people had not been lazy and stupid and did their research before they pre-ordered and/or purchased the game, they would have known these facts and prepared accordingly. R* is not at fault for your laziness, your incompetence, and your inane inability to do what you need to do to get ready for a purchase. They prey on fools like you who go by name and reputation only, and that's not their fault, it's yours stupid.

 

11. Lastly, upgrade your sh*tty ass computers and stop complaining. If you want the game to look good, upgrade. If not, play on lower settings, or stick to the console versions that have consistent framerates and still great graphics. People aren;t buying the game for the future, they're buying the game for now. However, some of these people were smart and realized that GTA4 for PC would need a very powerful computer to run well, and those who were stupid thought that their old sh*t would run the game at a playable framerate. Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it? And y'all only have yourselves to blame.

 

Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360. When I want to get it for PC, I'll make sure before I spend $50 that my computer will play it at the framerates that I deem acceptable, not stumble in with blind hope that outdated hardware and technology will suffice like so many of you fools did.

Oh. My. Bloody. God.

 

You call us stupid, lazy, incompetent, and then you completely blast our computer systems. Good morning to you too.

 

So, so many people on this forum have PCs which far exceed the dismal recommended specs R* released. Here's why I'M annoyed at R*: my PC and its specs are more than good enough to run this game, and yet I knock the resolution down, the four sliders into single figures - and Still I get jumpy, slow-mo, frustrating performance. (Yes, it's been like two or three days since release, but they've had seven months; they could have pushed the release date forward a bit to finish the game off, and I for one would have respected them for it. Chucking it out at the beginning of December, with more issues than Amy Winehouse, doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid).

 

I'm far from a computer whizkid, so how can I be expected to know that this game wouldn't run relatively nicely on my PC? I took R*s word for it, as I'm expected to, because they made the game therefore they are responsible for distributing it completely finished (or unfinished in this case). Yes, many PC games have issues on release day, but you can't honestly tell me that this is a small issue, surely?

 

Oh, and don't blame us because R* distributed a game which they hadn't finished completely.

 

I'll kindly take any comments you (or indeed any other forum member) has and I'll reply nicely.

[besa]

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

 

You ignorant fool!

 

We did read...We did read minimum and recommended requirements. I know recommended ones doesn't mean we will be able to max the game, but it sure means to a person with an IQ over 100 that we could run it smooth at medium level.

But guess what cockstar fan boy, with rigs that outperform recommended one by a mile u STILL CANT have stable fps.

Man i really hope they fix that, don't get me wrong, but stop acting like a bunch of retards who believe in every single word that comes from cockstars mouth.

 

I am not gonna even start with the next gen of computers bullsh*t because i will loose it and call Putin asking him to press that god damned button.

 

/rant off

 

Edit: outrun by mike2k4

[proh1]

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

 

You ignorant fool!

 

We did read...We did read minimum and recommended requirements. I know recommended ones doesn't mean we will be able to max the game, but it sure means to a person with an IQ over 100 that we could run it smooth at medium level.

But guess what cockstar fan boy, with rigs that outperform recommended one by a mile u STILL CANT have stable fps.

Man i really hope they fix that, don't get me wrong, but stop acting like a bunch of retards who believe in every single word that comes from cockstars mouth.

 

I am not gonna even start with the next gen of computers bullsh*t because i will loose it and call Putin asking him to press that god damned button.

 

/rant off

 

Edit: outrun by mike2k4

I get 25 FPS set at lowest settings with an 8800 GTX, quad core CPU and 4 gigs of RAM. something is surely wrong. now stop talking about eachothers moms.

[besa]

Off course something is wrong. Only ones who doesn't get it are the dee dee dee ones.

 

As more as i read i really envy those stupid idiots.

Ignorance is such a bliss. I wish i was so stupid. Hell if they ever invent stupid-pill im gonna be the first in line for that sh*t.

My life would instantly become great!

 

[skating101]

I'm gonna piss off a bunch of people, but this should be fun.

 

1. R* is a company that care about profits. Releasing the game before Christmas precludes having great profits. Announcing that your game isn't optimized for most computers would hurt those profits, hence why they didn't say anything.

 

2. The fact that people don't realize this is not the fault of R*, its the fault of the incompetent public that has rose-colored glasses and think that companies are in the game for the benefit of the consumer.

 

3. If you had read anything about the game, seen any screens or videos of the game, or even played on one of the consoles, that should have let you know that this game would be a bitch to run on PC, because no other game released to date, even Crysis, has attempted to combine the graphic quality of GTA with all of the cogs and gears that are involved in the pedestrian AI, the physics, etc.

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

5. All comparisons to Crysis, Crysis:Warhead, or any other non-sandbox PC game should henceforth be the symbol of gross incompetence on the part of members of this forum. GTA never has, and likely never will be, a FPS, and FPS don't have to compute anywhere near the amount of data that a GTA game would have to.

 

6. Why in the hell would people care about graphics settings that affect buildings and objects in the far distance when the majority of the game is on ground level? If that's the case, go out a pick up the latest iteration of Cabela's Deer Hunting or Crysis if you want to look at crap in the distance while people shoot at you back on ground level. Last time I checked, Niko wasn't anything near an ornithologist, and could probably care less about how the Chrysler Building's Art Deco features are rendered on your poor ass computer.

 

7. To the person with the 7900gs. I had a 7900gs for two year. It lasted long, ran well, but was thoroughly outclassed by even the worst of the 8000-series Nvidia cards and the 3000-series ATI cards. If you had taken the time to do some research, you would have known that fact. Just because you card meets the minimum requirements, that should not suggest that R* will or would have catered to the lowest-common denominator, that being your card. Shell out $100 bucks, get a new graphics card, maybe a new CPU, and enjoy, but don't complain to R* because your technology is outdated and they've created a game that rightfully caters to the latest and greatest.

 

8. If companies catered to the lowest common denominator, as some of you posters seem to want, people a 3dfx card would be able to play Crysis in all it's 2-d or -10FPS glory. Now just let that seep in for a bit, and think about how silly that sounds, and then think about how stupid it makes you look in retrospect (Since I can tell most of you need some honest retrospection and stop being such misers and shell out the money necessary to play a game you've probably already beaten 10 times).

 

9. On that note, I don't see why people are so enamored with the PC version anyways. Most of you have probably beaten it, likely all have played it, so why should R* care about repeat players when they've already gotten you once for the console version and have gotten you again for the PC version. Don't get all pissy at R* because you have the need to purchase a game you've played and/or beaten already.

 

10. Don't get mad that R* requires us to sign up through various methods before we play the game. Again, if people had not been lazy and stupid and did their research before they pre-ordered and/or purchased the game, they would have known these facts and prepared accordingly. R* is not at fault for your laziness, your incompetence, and your inane inability to do what you need to do to get ready for a purchase. They prey on fools like you who go by name and reputation only, and that's not their fault, it's yours stupid.

 

11. Lastly, upgrade your sh*tty ass computers and stop complaining. If you want the game to look good, upgrade. If not, play on lower settings, or stick to the console versions that have consistent framerates and still great graphics. People aren;t buying the game for the future, they're buying the game for now. However, some of these people were smart and realized that GTA4 for PC would need a very powerful computer to run well, and those who were stupid thought that their old sh*t would run the game at a playable framerate. Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it? And y'all only have yourselves to blame.

 

Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360. When I want to get it for PC, I'll make sure before I spend $50 that my computer will play it at the framerates that I deem acceptable, not stumble in with blind hope that outdated hardware and technology will suffice like so many of you fools did.

you are such a moron blackmamba please go and read my previous post before you spout more rubbish

[Drunk Russian 9]

Don't listen to him . . . he's a console fanboy.