"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[skeeter780]

 

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.

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

 

360 was released in 2005. The first dual core cpu's for pc like the x2 3800 came out around the same time and all by itself cost more than the 360.

 

If a cpu matching the speed of a core 2 duo was available when the 360 was released it would have cost at least $1,000. So how exactly could the 3 year old 360 have a better cpu than todays mid range pc cpu's? It doesnt, its a paper tiger.

 

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050...5054.html?95741

http://movementarian.com/2006/08/18/flops-...he-human-brain/

 

 

AMD Athlon @ 600 mhz - 2.4 gigaflops (single precision), 1 gigaflop (double precision)

Pentium 4 @ 2 ghz - 8 gigaflops (single precision)

Pentium 4 @ 3 ghz - 12 gigaflops

Athlon 64 X2 4600 - 14.7 gigaflops, 17400 MIPS

G5 Dual 2.3GHz - 30 gigaflops

XBox 360 Xenon chip -115 gigaflops

XBOX 360 Xenos graphics chip - 240 gigaflops

nVIDIA 7800 GTX 512 - 200 gigaflops

ATi X1900 - 553.8 gigaflops

 

I've also read that a 2GHz Core 2 Duo processor core theoretically can run at 16 gigaflops. So four 3GHz Core 2 Duo cores (Core 2 Quad) would be running at 96 gigaflops.

 

Now its all theoretical, but I think that shows that the 360 CPU is not a slouch at all. The FIFA 09 PC producer stated earlier in the year that the Xbox 360 version uses nearly all the CPU power for AI/physics, and they were not able to port the gameplay of the 360 version over because it would not perform well on many PCs.

 

 

 

I wonder if theres a performance difference between running the game on x86 and x64 since the game was originally optimized to run on a 64-bit system.

The FIFA producer didnt want to take the time to optimize the game for pc. Most hardcore pc gamers with good rigs dont play sports games anyway.

 

The QX9775 is Intels fastest processor. Its costs $1500 and does 51 gigaflops. How much does the 360 cpu cost? $75 maybe? Use some common sense.

 

Lets say this rating actually means something in real world performance. How could IBM put out a cpu 3 years ago thats faster and astronomically cheaper than even Intels latest cpu's. Stop buying into Microsofts bs hype.

 

This is from Gamespys review of Supreme Commander:

 

On the 360, though, the game's units sport extremely simplified geometry and drastically reduced animations compared to their PC counterparts. The ground textures and environments are blank and forget any sort of atmospheric effects. All needed to be sacrificed to get hundreds and hundreds of units moving onscreen using the 360's weaker processing power

[algenon_iii]

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.

NO. I've been gaming on IBM PC clones since the beginning of the 90's and I've not seen things as bad as they are now.

 

The turning point, I feel, was the GTA III deal for the PS2. Once that happened console manufacturers realised they could pay-off software developers so that their platform was the lead platform. So it became incredibly money focused instead of gaming focused. Sadly the only company that could do this for the PC happens to make a console as well (in case you were wondering, that is why monopolies are bad).

 

This added a new twist to what has always happened. Some games in the 80/90's would come out on the ST and Amiga and not the PC as the developers had 68000 expertise and didn't want to touch x86 coding and vice versa

 

However, there was porting by 3rd party companies (something that I think has disappeared). During the 80's I remember there was lot cross platform porting going on, take Elite for example that was published by Acornsoft for the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron, but ported to loads of other platforms by companies like Firebird who released the C64 version.

 

As shocking as it might sound I'm too old for this crap (I had some grief with farcry2 as well) and would abandon the PC platform if a company came out with an Amgia/C64 style computer that I could work, surf and game on... Oh I don't like console controllers (it's hard to break a 20+ year habit) so a console isn't an option.

[pinky]

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.

NO. I've been gaming on IBM PC clones since the beginning of the 90's and I've not seen things as bad as they are now.

 

The turning point, I feel, was the GTA III deal for the PS2. Once that happened console manufacturers realised they could pay-off software developers so that their platform was the lead platform. So it became incredibly money focused instead of gaming focused. Sadly the only company that could do this for the PC happens to make a console as well (in case you were wondering, that is why monopolies are bad).

 

This added a new twist to what has always happened. Some games in the 80/90's would come out on the ST and Amiga and not the PC as the developers had 68000 expertise and didn't want to touch x86 coding and vice versa

 

However, there was porting by 3rd party companies (something that I think has disappeared). During the 80's I remember there was lot cross platform porting going on, take Elite for example that was published by Acornsoft for the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron, but ported to loads of other platforms by companies like Firebird who released the C64 version.

 

As shocking as it might sound I'm too old for this crap (I had some grief with farcry2 as well) and would abandon the PC platform if a company came out with an Amgia/C64 style computer that I could work, surf and game on... Oh I don't like console controllers (it's hard to break a 20+ year habit) so a console isn't an option.

Never too old for this crap, old farts unite.

 

Yeah, I remember the Elite porting. I was on the ZX Spectrum side back then.

[BesQpin]

 

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

This.

 

 

FFS, would you buy a game for the PS4?

 

And this.

[BlackMamba47]

That guy is proof inbreeding is bad. Why would it be a bitch to run on PC which has 5 times the power of any console yet runs on console, yet PC struggles with much better hardware on medium and low? Bad coding.

 

Why release a statement AFTER launch and people bought the game saying that a game that looks like a console game is somehow future proof and requires 3 times more resources then games that look 3 times as good? It is called trying to save thire arse, marketing, pr speak to cover for their obvious technical ineptitude.

 

Explain why Steam is doing the unheard of offering refunds?

 

Explain why the recommended requirements only allow you to play a game that looks average on medium settings at best?

 

Explain how this is not rockstars fault? It is the consumers fault Rockstar cannot use modern tech properly? (See Bully as well, which runs like arse and looks like a PS2 game). That is beyond the dumbest, most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say.

 

Explain why ech sites all over the web are all saying the game is a mess? IS that our fault?

 

How is it our fault Rockstar has the most assinine DRM of all, knowing full well the game will get pirated regardless?

 

Lowest common denominator? That would be consoles, so explain how PC's with 4 times the power crash, cannot run on medium settings with a game that has terrble shadows, low res textures?

 

The game runs fine on console, so PC should be able to run it vastly better like any other console port, why not GTA 4? Incompetence.

 

That guys is beyond a retard, seriously, everyones PC is bad and it is the consumers fault Rockstar released a bad product and waited until AFTER launch to try and BS us with the future PC crap. No one will be playing GTA 4 by the time that future comes, and games will be vastly better graphically, hell, many are now.

Even if the coding is bad, which it very well may be, just be happy that R* let y'all know instead of going the Crytek route and releasing the game that couldn't be played on the highest settings for any of the current hardware that was out during that time.

 

R* released that information because they knew that people would be pissed. As my earlier statement said, would you rather have had them said nothing and let people play in blissful ignorance? I find it so funny that people are much more angry at the fact that R* told them what was up instead of just staying quiet.

 

Valve is completely unrelated to R*, and they could be doing refunds for reasons unrelated

 

Because if anyone knew graphics cards and did research, they would know that the 8600gt is a sh*t card and that any newer releases, 8800gt on and HD3850 on, thoroughly outclass it in every respect.

 

R* did not make you purchase the game. That's your choice. If the game runs well on the systems that R* used to test it, and seeing how they used systems with both the minimum and recommended specifications in order to list the hardware that would be fit to run it, but doesn't run well on yours, that's not R* fault, that's the fault of the general PC hardware and software programming community.

 

People should know from the many decades of computer gaming that most new releases of highly touted and highly ambitious games will come with bugs. Again, this is the fault of the consumers for expecting R* to be one of the first companies to release a game with no bugs at launch. R* is a great company, but they are not the reincarnation of God or Buddha, so don't expect miracles.

 

R* can do whatever the hell they want in regards to DRM. People knew the steps that it would take to validate their game, purchased the game anyways, and now they bitch at the fact they have to go through it. That's like someone buying a car after from a person who says it needs a new engine and gas, driving it for 1 mile and it breaks down, and then bitching at the person who sold it to them. In this case, people must realize that this is caveat emptor, so it's our jobs as consumers to make the decision whether a game purchase is the right one at the time.

 

Lowest common denominator was in response to PC hardware. Some people are trying to play with the bare minimum specifications, so they shouldn't be shocked at the fact that the game won't look as good as they expected and won't run as well as they expected. For people with the crashes and the bugs, that's what you get with any high-budget, extremely technically inclined PC release.

 

The problem that people have is that they expected GTA4 to be just another PC game port from a console original, but no game of this calibre, of this size and scope has ever had to be ported from the console to the PC, and on top of that, made for hardware that is vastly superior to what the consoles have. For anyone to expect it to run perfectly smooth and better than the consoles, especially people who aren't in the R* offices and R & D departments, is not R* problem, but the problem of us consumers. Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

Everyone's PC is not bad and not everyone is having trouble with the game. The problem is that the people who have trouble are yelling louder than those who are playing fine, which in the field of statistics is a major problem of any polls are call-in results. Those who are more passionate for or against a subject are more likely to respond than those who are content (the ones playing) or the ones who are apathetic (those who don't have the game or play on consoles), which makes it seem as though the majority is having trouble, which isn't the case at all.

 

People have the wrong characterization of the future. You imply that future means years down the road. The future for R* could mean 2-3 months down the line, which in the realm of PC hardware is a long time, and during that time much new technology will be released and will outclass even further the technology see today. Once again, people's expectations and inferences are taking the place of logic and reason, and y'all have the nerve to say I'm retarded. Last time I checked, I'm not the one who plopped down $50 for a game that won't run on my computer.

[ceedot]

You've just been ass raped.

 

 

I think they were just lazy and decided not to actually optimize it enough because the money they earnt now was enough to keep them well off in their life.

[BlackMamba47]

You've just been ass raped.

 

 

I think they were just lazy and decided not to actually optimize it enough because the money they earnt now was enough to keep them well off in their life.

Which I agree with totally. Again, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. R* and T2 are concerned about profits, and they knew that no matter the quality of the game or how well optimized it was, droves of people would buy it on name alone. If you ask me, that's great business for them and nothing out of the ordinary in the realm of consumer electronics. Now watch, a few years down the road when GTAV or whatever the next next-gen GTA release may be, people will do exactly the same thing and purchase the game on name alone. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it, and it seems like more than a few of the posters here suffer from Alzheimer's.

[Nemon]

 

Even if the coding is bad, which it very well may be, just be happy that R* let y'all know instead of going the Crytek route and releasing the game that couldn't be played on the highest settings for any of the current hardware that was out during that time.

 

They di'nt let us yall kno'! They put out some ridiculous recommended requirements that seemed way too high to begin with, considering the fact that this is a port from two consoles 3 and 4 years old. Then at launch, it became clear that even these requirements were too low, since Rockstar lack the ability to port a game from inferior systems to a superior one. Mass Effect comes to mind when thinking about the total opposite outcome of a port... Crytek stated that the highest settings were for future hardware components, PLUS the game was developed solely for the enjoyment of PC gamers.

 

 

R* did not make you purchase the game. That's your choice. If the game runs well on the systems that R* used to test it, and seeing how they used systems with both the minimum and recommended specifications in order to list the hardware that would be fit to run it, but doesn't run well on yours, that's not R* fault, that's the fault of the general PC hardware and software programming community.

 

Actually, Rockstars misleading announcements convinced alot of gamers into buying this game. When they saw that they passed the minimum requirements with a good margin, that's a reason to buy. When those requirements turn out to be complete and utter rubbish, then what? They get screwed over.

 

 

Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

Wow. This.

 

 

[BlackMamba47]

Even if the coding is bad, which it very well may be, just be happy that R* let y'all know instead of going the Crytek route and releasing the game that couldn't be played on the highest settings for any of the current hardware that was out during that time.

 

They di'nt let us yall kno'! They put out some ridiculous recommended requirements that seemed way too high to begin with, considering the fact that this is a port from two consoles 3 and 4 years old. Then at launch, it became clear that even these requirements were too low, since Rockstar lack the ability to port a game from inferior systems to a superior one. Mass Effect comes to mind when thinking about the total opposite outcome of a port... Crytek stated that the highest settings were for future hardware components, PLUS the game was developed solely for the enjoyment of PC gamers.

 

 

R* did not make you purchase the game. That's your choice. If the game runs well on the systems that R* used to test it, and seeing how they used systems with both the minimum and recommended specifications in order to list the hardware that would be fit to run it, but doesn't run well on yours, that's not R* fault, that's the fault of the general PC hardware and software programming community.

 

Actually, Rockstars misleading announcements convinced alot of gamers into buying this game. When they saw that they passed the minimum requirements with a good margin, that's a reason to buy. When those requirements turn out to be complete and utter rubbish, then what? They get screwed over.

 

 

Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

Wow. This.

1. People should know by now that transferring a game from consoles to PC is much more difficult than doing the opposite, and considering what GTA4 was on consoles, that was a mighty task by any stretch of the imagination

 

2. Once again, nothing was misleading on the part of R*. The minimum and recommended requirements are just that, the systems requirements that R* deems sufficient to play the game. They never said that the recommended requirements would result in the game being played smoothly throughout and with the highest settings; they never said the recommended requirements would result in the best gameplay that there is. What happened is that consumers took recommended to be the Bible in terms of hardware, when they very well should have done their own research (which is laziness and incompetence on part of the consumers), and thought that R* had the answers to everything. The expectations and screwing of R* words by the consumers are the consumers fault. What you take, what you infer, what you gather from the words R* says is your own doing, not R*.

 

3. Once again, R* made no one purchase the game, made no one go through the validation, and made no one suffer through trying to play the game with outdated hardware. To blame them for using "misleading comment to convince people to buy the game" is just silly and shows just how lazy consumers have gotten. People expect the corporations and the government to hold their hands and provide support every step of the way when sometimes you gotta do sh*t yourself. Lazy sods.

[YodaStar]

Bullsh*t becouse the visual output isnt justified at all by the ridicolous requirements. A game lika armed Assault with max settings renders far more than GTAIV and looks far better.

[Mr Heckler]

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?

 

I started doing that 3 days ago.

[Olafgtaiv]

 

GTA IV

Edited December 5, 2008 by Olafgtaiv

[Olafgtaiv]

i think that by trying to get the game to run on older hardware rockstar might have ***ked up with newer hardware and were lazy enough not to rectify it.

 

well this is just my opinion like it or not.

[skating101]

Black Mamba you seem to know everything or at least presume to without even owning the game so i put this to you.

 

The game is not technically amazing by any stretch of the imagination either in terms of AI or graphics so how come this game runs so poorly compared to technically superior games?

 

And btw Rockstar when they put out recommended Specs one would presume that they didnt mean "You will get 20fps with these specs" you idiot

[YodaStar]

 

The game is not technically amazing by any stretch of the imagination either in terms of AI or graphics so how come this game runs so poorly compared to technically superior games?

 

GTAIV is far from impressive.

 

Low resolution shadowmap, badly done jiterring of sahdow edges.

 

Broken streaming system.

 

CPU has to do uncessary work. The CPU of the consoles did graphcial tasks to back up the GPU but the code hasn't been optimised as it should for PC. instead of moving the work from CPU to the wastly more powerful PC GPUs they ditched this optimisation step for a brute force solution.

 

Their texture LOD/entitiy LOD system is lousy hence the ridicolous VRAM requirements.

 

In short it's a bad port that relies on a brute force approach.

 

 

Look for a moderately optimised game like Armed Assault with ~40 combatants. That is beyond the highest settings in GTAIV in processing and graphical IQ.

Edited December 5, 2008 by YodaStar

[Malik]

 

Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

... I am ashamed in your place

[DeeperRed]

Give this game to any other company to port and wit would be running at 60 FPS on my system.

Rockstar just couldn't give a flying f*ck and put pretty much the exact console code into the PC.

 

7 months they said they spent "Building it from the ground up". One word sums that up for me.

.

.

.

Bullsh*t

[camdean]

Yep ..

 

 

 

[disposeablehero]

That guy is proof inbreeding is bad. Why would it be a bitch to run on PC which has 5 times the power of any console yet runs on console, yet PC struggles with much better hardware on medium and low? Bad coding.

 

Why release a statement AFTER launch and people bought the game saying that a game that looks like a console game is somehow future proof and requires 3 times more resources then games that look 3 times as good? It is called trying to save thire arse, marketing, pr speak to cover for their obvious technical ineptitude.

 

Explain why Steam is doing the unheard of offering refunds?

 

Explain why the recommended requirements only allow you to play a game that looks average on medium settings at best?

 

Explain how this is not rockstars fault? It is the consumers fault Rockstar cannot use modern tech properly? (See Bully as well, which runs like arse and looks like a PS2 game). That is beyond the dumbest, most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say.

 

Explain why ech sites all over the web are all saying the game is a mess? IS that our fault?

 

How is it our fault Rockstar has the most assinine DRM of all, knowing full well the game will get pirated regardless?

 

Lowest common denominator? That would be consoles, so explain how PC's with 4 times the power crash, cannot run on medium settings with a game that has terrble shadows, low res textures?

 

The game runs fine on console, so PC should be able to run it vastly better like any other console port, why not GTA 4? Incompetence.

 

That guys is beyond a retard, seriously, everyones PC is bad and it is the consumers fault Rockstar released a bad product and waited until AFTER launch to try and BS us with the future PC crap. No one will be playing GTA 4 by the time that future comes, and games will be vastly better graphically, hell, many are now.

Even if the coding is bad, which it very well may be, just be happy that R* let y'all know instead of going the Crytek route and releasing the game that couldn't be played on the highest settings for any of the current hardware that was out during that time.

 

R* released that information because they knew that people would be pissed. As my earlier statement said, would you rather have had them said nothing and let people play in blissful ignorance? I find it so funny that people are much more angry at the fact that R* told them what was up instead of just staying quiet.

 

Valve is completely unrelated to R*, and they could be doing refunds for reasons unrelated

 

Because if anyone knew graphics cards and did research, they would know that the 8600gt is a sh*t card and that any newer releases, 8800gt on and HD3850 on, thoroughly outclass it in every respect.

 

R* did not make you purchase the game. That's your choice. If the game runs well on the systems that R* used to test it, and seeing how they used systems with both the minimum and recommended specifications in order to list the hardware that would be fit to run it, but doesn't run well on yours, that's not R* fault, that's the fault of the general PC hardware and software programming community.

 

People should know from the many decades of computer gaming that most new releases of highly touted and highly ambitious games will come with bugs. Again, this is the fault of the consumers for expecting R* to be one of the first companies to release a game with no bugs at launch. R* is a great company, but they are not the reincarnation of God or Buddha, so don't expect miracles.

 

R* can do whatever the hell they want in regards to DRM. People knew the steps that it would take to validate their game, purchased the game anyways, and now they bitch at the fact they have to go through it. That's like someone buying a car after from a person who says it needs a new engine and gas, driving it for 1 mile and it breaks down, and then bitching at the person who sold it to them. In this case, people must realize that this is caveat emptor, so it's our jobs as consumers to make the decision whether a game purchase is the right one at the time.

 

Lowest common denominator was in response to PC hardware. Some people are trying to play with the bare minimum specifications, so they shouldn't be shocked at the fact that the game won't look as good as they expected and won't run as well as they expected. For people with the crashes and the bugs, that's what you get with any high-budget, extremely technically inclined PC release.

 

The problem that people have is that they expected GTA4 to be just another PC game port from a console original, but no game of this calibre, of this size and scope has ever had to be ported from the console to the PC, and on top of that, made for hardware that is vastly superior to what the consoles have. For anyone to expect it to run perfectly smooth and better than the consoles, especially people who aren't in the R* offices and R & D departments, is not R* problem, but the problem of us consumers. Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

Everyone's PC is not bad and not everyone is having trouble with the game. The problem is that the people who have trouble are yelling louder than those who are playing fine, which in the field of statistics is a major problem of any polls are call-in results. Those who are more passionate for or against a subject are more likely to respond than those who are content (the ones playing) or the ones who are apathetic (those who don't have the game or play on consoles), which makes it seem as though the majority is having trouble, which isn't the case at all.

 

People have the wrong characterization of the future. You imply that future means years down the road. The future for R* could mean 2-3 months down the line, which in the realm of PC hardware is a long time, and during that time much new technology will be released and will outclass even further the technology see today. Once again, people's expectations and inferences are taking the place of logic and reason, and y'all have the nerve to say I'm retarded. Last time I checked, I'm not the one who plopped down $50 for a game that won't run on my computer.

Instead of the crytek route? wah? I wish r did take the crytek route, at least crysis looks amazing to justify its resources, and my old 8800GT was able to max it out in 07 on 1280 X 1024 res, GTA 4 with Quads and 4870 X2 runs like arse on medium. Lets not even mention the bugs, get real. R can learn from Crytek.

[disposeablehero]

Theretcal performance is useless when it comes to real time eprformance, both Cell and the 360 processor are slower then mid-range PC CPU's, you cannot compare the 2, totally different architecture,. The CPU's in the consoles are low end by todays PC standards:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

 

Amazing how dumb sopme people are and throwing theritical numbers and thinking it shows they knwo what they are talking about.

[slowmoejoe]

Gamespot Article

 

 

Grand Theft Auto IV on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was an undoubted triumph. The best game in the long-running series received high review scores from across the industry, and the sheer quality of the game made it easy to forget that the PC is where it all started for the franchise.

 

Thankfully, Rockstar has not forgotten this, and the team at its Toronto offices has been working very hard, by the looks of things, to make sure that the series' PC homecoming doesn't disappoint those fans who might have been disgruntled to see the console versions hitting shelves first.

 

At first glance, the game looks brighter, sharper, and more vibrant, with the development team looking to take advantage of the increased flexibility presented by the PC platform. The aim is to ensure that the game not only looks good on top-end hardware--at a maximum resolution of 2560x1600 pixels--but also runs perfectly well on three-year-old machines, according to the Rockstar staffer taking us through the demo. Recommended and minimum specifications for the game are yet to be released.

- Dated Oct 30, 2008

 

All sizzle and no bacon mate.

 

As cynical as I can sometimes be I must hand it to you BlackMamba, you try to piss on the PC users something big. You talk like you have a deep understanding of the grand capitalist designs of R*, which in a way could, or even should be true. Us poor PC gamers, duped into buying this game from a company that we have trusted in the past.

 

Alzheimer's indeed! When the next GTA comes out we the many gamers who have experienced IV problems will horde and flock to buy it and froth at the mouth at the very prospect of a new game. The console high horse is indeed comfortable for you, but you would have no problems with buying a console for gaming, or upgrading your computer at the slightest whim then would you? Laziness and incompetence seem to be your favourite phrases when describing those who pre-ordered the game even before the system requirements were released. They also seem to apply to anyone who bought the game but can't run it for one reason or another. Oh and it also applies to those people who are unhappy with having to login to Rockstar Social Club, and GFWL to play the game. While we're at it why not just use it for just about anyone who has a complaint about the way GTA IV is for the PC currently, that should cover it nicely.

 

I appreciate that there are a number of gamers out there who have absolutely no problems running the game, but there are also a large enough number who are experiencing problems. A number that, if the above article is to be believed, should not exist.

 

Still on BlackMamba, please provide the rest of us ignorant fools with the light of your shining wisdom and intellect by highlighting anything that may have forewarned us gamers that this game may not run well on our systems. I would especially appreciate any articles of such :

 

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.

----

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.

----

People have the wrong characterization of the future. You imply that future means years down the road. The future for R* could mean 2-3 months down the line, which in the realm of PC hardware is a long time, and during that time much new technology will be released and will outclass even further the technology see today.

 

 

You presume much by this;

They never said that the recommended requirements would result in the game being played smoothly throughout and with the highest settings; they never said the recommended requirements would result in the best gameplay that there is.

I believe what should be the case is :

At the minimum requirements the game should be playable at an acceptable level (Acceptable being simply able to play the game at possibly the lowest settings). At the recommended requirements the game would offer the desired experience (that the developer intended for the game). But I may as well refer you to the article I provided again.

 

 

Everyone's PC is not bad and not everyone is having trouble with the game. The problem is that the people who have trouble are yelling louder than those who are playing fine, which in the field of statistics is a major problem of any polls are call-in results. Those who are more passionate for or against a subject are more likely to respond than those who are content (the ones playing) or the ones who are apathetic (those who don't have the game or play on consoles), which makes it seem as though the majority is having trouble, which isn't the case at all.

 

I think you mean to say that not everyone's computer is bad?

And I think it should be obvious that nobody would complain if its going well, but one person having trouble would obviously yell for help, or in this case curse loudly and hope to be heard. If I paid money for a game, and it doesn't work as advertised why should I not be angry? And then why should I not be angry at the wise-crack taunting me because I'm angry?

 

Getting offended (if the reaction was read correctly) at being called a retard for calling others retards..

 

 

If anyone is bothered to read this, I recommend it just so one may get an idea of things..

The Gamer's Bill of Rights

Edited December 5, 2008 by slowmoejoe

[disposeablehero]

it is amazing how a few people are defending such a crap job here, Steam is offering refunds, that is unheard of. Reports are all over the fron page of sites about how massive the issues are, this is not simply a few people on the froums crying, even REAL reviews blasted it (Bit-tech). The issues this game has and poor performance are widespread, more so then any other Big name title I can remember. This is of gothic III quality from a big time dev with loads of cash. Unacceptable. A fine midless guppies who have no clue about hardware notwithstanding, there is a reason the game is getting blasted everywhere. user score is 49% at metacritic.

[Mike2k4]

Even if the coding is bad, which it very well may be, just be happy that R* let y'all know instead of going the Crytek route and releasing the game that couldn't be played on the highest settings for any of the current hardware that was out during that time.

 

R* released that information because they knew that people would be pissed. As my earlier statement said, would you rather have had them said nothing and let people play in blissful ignorance? I find it so funny that people are much more angry at the fact that R* told them what was up instead of just staying quiet.

 

Valve is completely unrelated to R*, and they could be doing refunds for reasons unrelated

 

Because if anyone knew graphics cards and did research, they would know that the 8600gt is a sh*t card and that any newer releases, 8800gt on and HD3850 on, thoroughly outclass it in every respect.

 

R* did not make you purchase the game. That's your choice. If the game runs well on the systems that R* used to test it, and seeing how they used systems with both the minimum and recommended specifications in order to list the hardware that would be fit to run it, but doesn't run well on yours, that's not R* fault, that's the fault of the general PC hardware and software programming community.

 

People should know from the many decades of computer gaming that most new releases of highly touted and highly ambitious games will come with bugs. Again, this is the fault of the consumers for expecting R* to be one of the first companies to release a game with no bugs at launch. R* is a great company, but they are not the reincarnation of God or Buddha, so don't expect miracles.

 

R* can do whatever the hell they want in regards to DRM. People knew the steps that it would take to validate their game, purchased the game anyways, and now they bitch at the fact they have to go through it. That's like someone buying a car after from a person who says it needs a new engine and gas, driving it for 1 mile and it breaks down, and then bitching at the person who sold it to them. In this case, people must realize that this is caveat emptor, so it's our jobs as consumers to make the decision whether a game purchase is the right one at the time.

 

Lowest common denominator was in response to PC hardware. Some people are trying to play with the bare minimum specifications, so they shouldn't be shocked at the fact that the game won't look as good as they expected and won't run as well as they expected. For people with the crashes and the bugs, that's what you get with any high-budget, extremely technically inclined PC release.

 

The problem that people have is that they expected GTA4 to be just another PC game port from a console original, but no game of this calibre, of this size and scope has ever had to be ported from the console to the PC, and on top of that, made for hardware that is vastly superior to what the consoles have. For anyone to expect it to run perfectly smooth and better than the consoles, especially people who aren't in the R* offices and R & D departments, is not R* problem, but the problem of us consumers. Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV.

 

Everyone's PC is not bad and not everyone is having trouble with the game. The problem is that the people who have trouble are yelling louder than those who are playing fine, which in the field of statistics is a major problem of any polls are call-in results. Those who are more passionate for or against a subject are more likely to respond than those who are content (the ones playing) or the ones who are apathetic (those who don't have the game or play on consoles), which makes it seem as though the majority is having trouble, which isn't the case at all.

 

People have the wrong characterization of the future. You imply that future means years down the road. The future for R* could mean 2-3 months down the line, which in the realm of PC hardware is a long time, and during that time much new technology will be released and will outclass even further the technology see today. Once again, people's expectations and inferences are taking the place of logic and reason, and y'all have the nerve to say I'm retarded. Last time I checked, I'm not the one who plopped down $50 for a game that won't run on my computer.

Oh not you again. Seriously, do you work for R* or something? You appear to be blaming the consumer at every turn, and not realising that R* actually released a broken game to the general public. Of course people were going to buy it - it was a really good game on the 360, and so people thought they would be able to expand on that with modding, making their own videos, and having a greater experience with multiplayer.

 

1. Please don't insult the 8600gt - I have it, and it's an awesome card. It runs all sorts of games incredibly well (TES IV: Oblivion, Crysis, COD 4 etc.). This is a very large scale problem. It is not the consumer's fault. End of.

 

2. You say, and I quote, "Our expectations were out of line, or in the case seeing as how I'm not purchasing the game, your expectations were out of line, and to blame R* for your expectations is to blame McDonald's for making you get fat or blaming Ford or GM for making you spend more on gas when you purchased an SUV"

 

That is one of the most idiotic sentences I've read on a forum. Are we psychic? How were we to know R* was releasing a broken/unfinished game? We trusted them, we didn't question anything. They deceived us by not telling us it wasn't finished/was broken, and so be bought it, unaware.

 

And 3. I'm not going to say you're retarded. Possibly deluded. Most people have already bought the latest hardware, and I'm reading all over the forum that the game stutters and is essentially unplayable. You can't blame the consumer for not knowing that this would happen.

 

---

 

I don't care about having the graphics sliders all the way up. But having to have them all the way down, at 1024x768 30hz when my pc runs on a resolution far greater than that, and still have juttering and laggy, slow, frustrating gameplay? I hope there's a patch that will fix this, or I may well not purchase another PC game R* distributes. (You might think, "Oh, one person doesn't buy it, boo hoo". But a lot of people are having the same problem as me, and some are having worse problems than me, so it might not just be me who is losing its trust in R*, a company who, before GTA IV came out, was one of the most respected and admired game companies out there.

[xenoss]

I understand in the same way as the defenders do about R*'s statement. Simply put, they are future-proofing the game so that even a year or 2 down the road, people who have this game or are going to buy this game can still scale up the game as they upgrade.

 

Most posters here however do no "get" the concept of future-proofing and says "hhahaha, gta4 made for future pc's. bs!" No, fellow posters. what they mean is that the game is made for current pcs AND future pcs. With "medium" settings being the current, and highest being the future. They could have named em "highest" and "beyond highest" and people might feel less hurt that their Kick-Arse PCs cant run highest.

 

But defenders... had this actually been the truth, you would be right. But this is simply not the case, as the more clear-minded posters already showed...

 

The game CANNOT be run on Medium. if R* was future-proofing the game, then Medium should work smoothly; since it is supposedly designed for "current-gen pcs". But it doesnt. Medium is sh*t for the current gens. How come? GTA was never known for the graphics, I can forgive it not looking like Crysis or COD, only a fool would expect GTA to look like that. But what it needs to be, is to run smoothly. Yet it doesnt.

 

Why are people sour? The sum is greater than the parts.

 

-LONG wait after console release.

-Unforgivably Bad performance on a setting that says Medium (even if it really meant Highest; bad perf is bad perf).

-Lying about future-proofing to try and justify the performance issues; spraying salt on fans' wounds.

-Spending instead on SecuRom.

-Triple layer protection paranoia: SecuRom, WGL, R* Social Club; require online activiation, disc in drive, and R*SC for saving game?

-SLI support missing.

-bad comp with ATI cards. (these 2 issues after 7 months of development).

 

-People have been looking forward to it while being jealous and pissed at the console owners who stole the franchise since gta3.

 

Everything adds up to 1 big disappointing release of a badly optimized port. It is no wonder that people are up set and down right hostile.

 

They did so many things wrong, but what did they really do right? What is in the PC version to offset all of that? 32 player limit and a video editor for those interested in dabbling in machinema. In other words, not a lot of things. Like many are saying: a sh*t port.

 

Even if they fixed this with a patch, this will never change. They messed up Release big time both technically and in PR. Smooth releases are a rarity nowadays; I'd like a game that doesnt need a patch within the first week of release.

 

Sadly, by the time the next game comes out, most who proclaimed they wont purchase anything from R* will be giving them a second chance. When the rage dies down after so long and the game looking so fun, everyone deserves a second chance. So... who can we blame when R* doesnt learn the lesson? Dont forget that this game is after Bully... an even more messed up piece of garbage of a port. R* you knew and loved is gone. Now it is just another piece of sh*t company making and selling sh*t products under a named franchise.

Edited December 5, 2008 by xenoss

[BobLeeSwagger]

 

Amen Xenoss !!!

[NecroViolator]

WHERE are ALL the Options that was promised to the PC users ???

 

Where is the BLOOM options to turn the totally asinine crap OFF...

Something that WILL give EVERYONE a huge boost in FPS...

Remove ALL Pixalated crappy shadows OFF and such...

 

We got none of the Options that were promised... ...

 

But hopefully Rockstar will put/enable them in a patch...

[Hater2]

Just wanna say f*ck YOU R*!

[isaac811]

I don't mind that R* made a game for further computer

But does it have future graphics?

I've seen the screen of all high setting.....

I just can say it even looks worse than graphics on xbox 360

I pre-ordered the game last week, but I regret to do that....

 

[gta4freakk]

What can I say. I told you this game was going to go downside from the moment I saw the official specs. I even made a topic about that. and what did you do when you read my topic? You spit it back at my face, telling me that it ain't going to happen, that R* never makes mistake. What the f*ck you're trying to say bitch? That their word is gold? Well right now, their word is worse than sh*t itself. I'm glad I didn't buy it, I didn't throw blindly cash like you. Now, since nobody gives a sh*t about piracy in my country, I'm going to play the singleplayer only, and then when things are fixed I will consider whether I should buy the original or not. I told you, R* either released the specs random, or calculated them wrong! Well all I can say that you were wrong and I was right. You're bitchin about it now, and I'm watching you and laughing at all of yous.

 

Who's the money issued bitch now???

[BlackMamba47]

 

Gamespot Article

 

 

Grand Theft Auto IV on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was an undoubted triumph. The best game in the long-running series received high review scores from across the industry, and the sheer quality of the game made it easy to forget that the PC is where it all started for the franchise.

 

Thankfully, Rockstar has not forgotten this, and the team at its Toronto offices has been working very hard, by the looks of things, to make sure that the series' PC homecoming doesn't disappoint those fans who might have been disgruntled to see the console versions hitting shelves first.

 

At first glance, the game looks brighter, sharper, and more vibrant, with the development team looking to take advantage of the increased flexibility presented by the PC platform. The aim is to ensure that the game not only looks good on top-end hardware--at a maximum resolution of 2560x1600 pixels--but also runs perfectly well on three-year-old machines, according to the Rockstar staffer taking us through the demo. Recommended and minimum specifications for the game are yet to be released.

- Dated Oct 30, 2008

 

All sizzle and no bacon mate.

 

As cynical as I can sometimes be I must hand it to you BlackMamba, you try to piss on the PC users something big. You talk like you have a deep understanding of the grand capitalist designs of R*, which in a way could, or even should be true. Us poor PC gamers, duped into buying this game from a company that we have trusted in the past.

 

Alzheimer's indeed! When the next GTA comes out we the many gamers who have experienced IV problems will horde and flock to buy it and froth at the mouth at the very prospect of a new game. The console high horse is indeed comfortable for you, but you would have no problems with buying a console for gaming, or upgrading your computer at the slightest whim then would you? Laziness and incompetence seem to be your favourite phrases when describing those who pre-ordered the game even before the system requirements were released. They also seem to apply to anyone who bought the game but can't run it for one reason or another. Oh and it also applies to those people who are unhappy with having to login to Rockstar Social Club, and GFWL to play the game. While we're at it why not just use it for just about anyone who has a complaint about the way GTA IV is for the PC currently, that should cover it nicely.

 

I appreciate that there are a number of gamers out there who have absolutely no problems running the game, but there are also a large enough number who are experiencing problems. A number that, if the above article is to be believed, should not exist.

 

Still on BlackMamba, please provide the rest of us ignorant fools with the light of your shining wisdom and intellect by highlighting anything that may have forewarned us gamers that this game may not run well on our systems. I would especially appreciate any articles of such :

 

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.

----

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.

----

People have the wrong characterization of the future. You imply that future means years down the road. The future for R* could mean 2-3 months down the line, which in the realm of PC hardware is a long time, and during that time much new technology will be released and will outclass even further the technology see today.

 

 

You presume much by this;

They never said that the recommended requirements would result in the game being played smoothly throughout and with the highest settings; they never said the recommended requirements would result in the best gameplay that there is.

I believe what should be the case is :

At the minimum requirements the game should be playable at an acceptable level (Acceptable being simply able to play the game at possibly the lowest settings). At the recommended requirements the game would offer the desired experience (that the developer intended for the game). But I may as well refer you to the article I provided again.

 

 

Everyone's PC is not bad and not everyone is having trouble with the game. The problem is that the people who have trouble are yelling louder than those who are playing fine, which in the field of statistics is a major problem of any polls are call-in results. Those who are more passionate for or against a subject are more likely to respond than those who are content (the ones playing) or the ones who are apathetic (those who don't have the game or play on consoles), which makes it seem as though the majority is having trouble, which isn't the case at all.

 

I think you mean to say that not everyone's computer is bad?

And I think it should be obvious that nobody would complain if its going well, but one person having trouble would obviously yell for help, or in this case curse loudly and hope to be heard. If I paid money for a game, and it doesn't work as advertised why should I not be angry? And then why should I not be angry at the wise-crack taunting me because I'm angry?

 

Getting offended (if the reaction was read correctly) at being called a retard for calling others retards..

 

 

If anyone is bothered to read this, I recommend it just so one may get an idea of things..

The Gamer's Bill of Rights

A logical argument that's well written and structured nicely. For this, I am appreciative. I'm not pissing on PC users by any means. While I do play GTA4 on 360, my computer is built for gaming and has been upgraded at regular intervals to insure that the quality that I want out of my games is achieved. What I am pissing on is the fact that some people had far too high expectations of the game optimization in regards to the common hardware of potential buyers, and on top of that, being overconfident at the power of their own PC hardware.

 

To the person saying the 8600gt is a great card, that is quite laughable. In its generation of cards, the 8k series by Nvidia, the 8600gt is incredibly weak in comparison to the 8800GTX, the 8800Ultra, the 8800GT, all three versions of the 8800GTS, and the 8600GTS. With the new revisions of the series, the 9k series, along with the GTX200 series SKUs, the 8600gt is thoroughly outclassed. From the graphics chips released by ATI, starting with the HD3800 series onward, the 8600gt is also outclassed in both performance and price. If your 8600gt is somehow able to play Crysis at a decent resolution with settings not set to all low, I want that card.

 

Back to my original quote, I am not pissing on PC gamers, not by any stretch of the imagination. If I were, I'd be pissing on myself, which is just filthy and something I wouldn't do under my free will. What I'm amazed at is the fact that people are directing the entirety of the blame towards R* when some of the blame can be placed on themselves and the choices they made in regards to the purchase. Not in one of my posts have I ever said that no blame deserves to be levied against R*. While my diction may have given that impression (but once again falls under the realm of personal inference and can be misconstrued, much like the specifications given by R*), don't at all believe that R* is free from blame.

 

If the game isn't optimized well, the blame should be placed on R*, much like blame was levied against Crytek for releasing the poorly optimized graphical beauty but technical mess that was Crysis (of which I adopted early and couldn't play worth sh*t on my 7900gs which has since been upgraded). That is something that I can completely understand as a complaint against the company, and if my earlier posts did not accurately and fully express those sentiments, the fault is on me.

 

What I will not apologize for and back off from are those consumers who are levying complaints from their hardware perspective, particularly those who have hardware that they should have known would be incapable of playing GTA4 at the settings they deemed suitable. In this case, some blame can also be levied against R*, as recommending the 8600gt as a graphics card was not only wrong, but stupid, as the 8600gt was the ugly duckling of what turned out to be a very powerful and successful generation of graphics cards released by Nvidia.

 

What I'm saying is if you bought a 8600gt based on the recommended specification of R*, that's the fault of R*, although you should have done research on graphics cards as they are arguably the most critical component of a smooth gaming experience on a PC. If you had a 8600gt long before GTAIV was released for PC and are dismayed at the perfomance, you should upgrade. There are many cards out now that can be had for less than $175, such as the 8800/9800GT, 9800GTX+, 9600gt, HD3850, HD3870 (although I wouldn't advise the last two, but they are much faster than the 8600gt), and the HD4850, that so thoroughly outshine the 8600gt that I'm amazed that Nvidia had the gall to release such a card alongside the coveted 8800GTX and 8800GTS 640mb edition.

 

For the people who are unhappy about the login and activation needs, I have absolutely no sympathy for you, unless there's a problem on R*'s end (as there was with iPhone activations and Half-Life 2 Steam certifications during its initially release). If you are simply miffed that you have to go through those steps, steps that were talked about in depth long before the game was released, that's your problem in regards to your lack of patience or frustration level, not R* trying to make sure that those who play the game acquired it legally. That's a case where laziness is a factor, and it's not unplaced to levy that term against some of the consumer populace.

 

Lastly, I'm in no way deriding people who have a valid reason for being angry at the GTAIV PC release. If you have a PC system with hardware that should run the game smoothly, hardware being a dual-core or quad-core processor, 2 or more GB of memory, and a graphics card that's not from the 7k series, non-88 series of cards for Nvidia, and pretty much any card for the X1k series from ATi, and you're game isn't running smoothly based on the coding done by R* and not any factors controlled by you (such as numerous external processes running in your background, any anti-virus programs, etc.), then you have a valid complaints. However, if you lack that hardware and have the bare minimum specifications, or your problems are not in any way related to R* but instead steeped in your disdain for activating the game the way the company who spent their time and millions of dollars to make the game requires, not only don't I have sympathy for you, I think it's a spit in the face to R* that you have the nerve to complain about them.

 

Any person who calls themself a PC gamer should know that if you choose to live by the bare minimum specifications listed on the box or the manual, not only are you taking a risk, but your likely going to have a sh*t time trying to play the game, and for you to expect support from the game company is a pipe dream, pure and simple.

 

EDIT: After seeing some photos, the fact that R* didn't include any AA is shocking. However, if they did have AA, the gameplay performance would be even worse than it is now, so I wonder what the complaints would have been then ;p

Edited December 5, 2008 by BlackMamba47