"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[Psycold]

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

Why do you continually try to stick up for this game? THE GAME DOESN'T WORK AS ADVERTISED, IT IS BUGGY AND UNFINISHED, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE PAID FOR. I buy games for PC all the time and I NEVER have problems like this, I spend literally 4 hours yesterday at my friends house just getting his copy to show textures. The game is full of crash bugs, weird loading anomalies and countless menu bugs.

 

Don't f*cking tell me that I am setting the graphics too high for my rig, you have already proven you have absolutely no concept of how graphics work. You blast Crytek when they are the reason I upgraded in the first place, and I'm glad I did! When the Crysis demo first came out, I had an Athlon 4400 x2, 2gb of DDR400 and a Geforce 6800 512 mb, the game ran like total ass even on low settings. I upgraded nothing but my video card, got an 8800 GTS 320 mb, with that setup I could run any game on the market with all settings on medium - high with more emphasis on the high.

 

I just upgraded my machine the other day, now I have a core2duo 2.4 gig with 2 gb of DDR2 at 667mhz and the same video card AND A FRESH INSTALL OF XP WITH EVERYTHING UPDATED. Every game I played before runs AMAZINGLY WELL on my new rig, Far Cry 2 automatically chooses the highest settings for everything, Fallout 3 I can crank the object and view distance up all the way with minimal impact on my frame rate. Crysis and Warhead I can comfortably put on high and only need a slight boost from Rivatuner too keep my fps above 30 at all times.

 

Enter GTA IV.......the game autodetects my settings and decides I should use Low textures, after some moving around the sliders (that make absolutely no sense) I managed to get it to medium (xbox graphics), but the shadows are horrific, the lighting is non-existent, and objects don't load properly. All these problems and I'm running it at 1024x768!!!!!! Mamba, you either work for Rockstar or your head is so far up your ass, the fumes are making you delusional.

[Psycold]

*****double post******

[proh1]

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.

Don't argue with the guy, he's an idiot.

I have an 8800 GTX, Quad Core CPU and 4 GB of RAM.

When I set everything to the lowest settings, I get 25-30 FPS.

Something is definitely wrong.

[DeeperRed]

Mamba please f*ck off and stop defending rockstar.

They f*ckED UP dealed with it.

 

Crysis works well on computers you fool, the day of release I was staying at 30FPS with everything on HIGHEST at 1440X900, that was with my old RIg. Now Crysis Warhead on the other hand runs at 40FPS on HIGHEST at 1920X1080 on my New Rig.

 

Crysis looked beatuiful and therefore demanded a good rig, this game even on highest settings looks like a jagered piece of crap and runs like it aswell

[Psycold]

I just wanted to throw this in blackmamba's retarded f*cking face:

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/12/04/...ft-auto-iv-pc/4

 

Graphics Testing

As we said before, GTA IV is very resource hungry and needs a lot of hardware behind it if you want to aim for 30 frames per second. If you want more than that then you’ll the type of rig that most gamers only see in their most filthy of dreams.

 

Thus, in order to do our graphics testing we had to shift to a new system to make sure we could get access to the maximum possible graphics. We used one of our beefiest machines – Vista 64-bit, 4GB of DDR2 RAM, a QX6850 at 3GHz and an ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 with 2GB of video memory (although the game only recognised 1GB, because the frame buffers are mirrored).

 

Unfortunately, even with the high end hardware we were unable to max out the settings totally – on a system that literally has ten times the graphics power of an Xbox 360. With textures set to High we were still struggling to see a solid 30 fps like we hoped.

-----------------------------------------

 

 

BTW - looking at screenshots from people who actually got the high resolution textures working, the game still looks awful. Anybody else looking at the pictures they released and the pictures on the game box and wondering what kind of alien technology they were running that sh*t on? This is what it look like on high resolution for PC:

 

Edited December 5, 2008 by Psycold

[siapnar]

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...

Precisely what I'd like to see

[Gangsta-NL]

I swear that this game looks exactly like Bully (the graphics)..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fuqid8kT4A...ex=0&playnext=1

 

And if someone remembered my post (a few months ago) where I said that I wont buy it because I definately know R* will screw this game up, I'm right. :-P

Typically R*. I thought they cared about quality. This proves not.

Screwing Bully and GTA 4 = Epic Fail.

 

No AA on a game... Only Rockstar... =)

 

I make a program... I release it... And then I say to run 80% of the options in the program, you will need Windows 7... Which isnt released yet..

WTF rockstar seriously, am I buying this game, to play it with my Children 15 years later?! F* R*

 

I'am buying this game when it's 10 dollars or something.. Maby even not.

[Chevyboy]

I'm not defending R* in any way, but you boneheads that keep bashing the graphics on high need to stop looking at screenshots and crying wolf.

 

Most of those are done by copy and pasting in to mspaint and then being resized and distorted on the forums.

 

Trust me this game looks far better IN GAME on max settings than on the console versions (I've played both). Stop basing your beliefs on these cheap looking screenshots.

[camdean]

This thread has become really wide (scrolls along to find add reply button) ..

 

 

After I actualy got past the crashes to test it and reading others posts, I am dissapointed, at quite a few things ..

 

 

1. Obvious graphics problems/resource problem

2. Normal PC controllers are only useable by swapping dll's (thanks guys ), I still have problems with my axis, but thats hopefully going to get fixed by some rather sexy dude.

3. Lack of people online, I haven't played a 32 player yet, the most we got was 4 players lol

4. The lack of graphics options, AA and other things.

 

 

I am a proper R*/PC game fanboy but this has frustrated me, it's still an amazing game and still my favourite game of all time , so I just have to sit back and bite my face off waiting for a patch and help of some people for other problems

[BlackMamba47]

To all those calling me an idiot, if you had took the time to read my last post, I made it very clear the point I was trying to make.

 

If you have the hardware; the processing power, the memory, the graphics capability, to handle GTAIV and the game isn't working, I don't blame you for being mad.

My vitriol was directed towards those with complaints about the DRM and complaints about gameplay who systems are thoroughly inadequate for running a game

the size and scope of GTA.

 

However, seeing as how many of you didn't take the time to read, to call me an idiot for making clear and logical points is really a reflection on yourselves, and the fact

that I'm taking the time to explain my points in response to the responses levied by a bunch of people who are going off older posts after I made it clear the group I was targeting

and not reading the updated post that has the point I'm trying to make suggests to me that I shouldn't take the time, nor use the effort, to educate some of you.

 

They say ignorance is bliss, and if y'all are unwilling or unable to read what I wrote and see that I wholeheartedly agree with those whose computers are up to snuff and still can't play the game,

then that explains to me why so many people are having issues with the game that are unrelated to their PC hardware.

 

To Psycold: In my last post, I said that I was appalled at that the fact that R* had left out AA, which is a major factor why the graphics are disappointing even on high-end systems. So, this retarded

f*cking face agrees with you, and has just made you look like a blithering fool who is using conjecture and word-of-mouth in a feeble attempt to spite me.

 

To Deepered: Seeing as how I don't have the game and never had an intention of buying the game, I have nothing at stake in this argument. The people who waited for months

and dropped their $50 to be the early-adopters of this software have stuff at stake, so it is them, not I, who have to deal with this situation. I can happily go play my 360 copy in all it's glory

if I felt, but this is just too much fun to let go.

 

To Proh1: I'm guessing you're one who didn't read my post before this and went by what I said earlier (which didn't accurately explain my position), but with your system, you theoretically

should be able to play the game smoothly and on the highest settings no problem. The fact that you don't is very disappointing and I can see where you coming from. The fact you called me a f*cking idiot

is disappointing for someone who has such a nice computer system, but I guess that goes to show that even rasclots can have taste.

 

To Psycold: Your earlier post is really disappointing, so let me do a little informing for you. You have a 8800gts, the 320mb version, which is a very good card and can run most games at good settings no problem.

However, some games require a great deal of Vram and memory buffer from the graphics, but since your 8800gts only has 320 mb of Vram, the game may be trying to access more video memory than you have, which can lead to problems.

I don't work for R*, wouldn't want to unless it was in the corporate setting and unrelated to game development, but you show that you entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted what I wrote completely.

I'm always going to stick up for GTAIV the game. It has provided me with hours of entertainment that many other games could not come close to doing. I believe what you meant is sticking up for the GTAIV PC release.

In that case, I'm not doing that. I'm doing this as an exercise in intellectual debate and for fun only. I don't have it on PC, although I expect I could run it ok (but from what I hear from many of you, I wouldn't want to), but I don't plan on purchasing it

anytime soon. Don't let me get y'all all worked up, although it puts a smile on my face, because this is a nice diversion from the normal tedium of my weekdays. My only goal here is to get people worked up, and it seems it has worked,

and it would serve most of you well if you went back to what seems to me to be a pressing issue, getting your $50 purchase to run

 

 

 

[skating101]

To all those calling me an idiot, if you had took the time to read my last post, I made it very clear the point I was trying to make.

 

If you have the hardware; the processing power, the memory, the graphics capability, to handle GTAIV and the game isn't working, I don't blame you for being mad.

My vitriol was directed towards those with complaints about the DRM and complaints about gameplay who systems are thoroughly inadequate for running a game

the size and scope of GTA.

 

However, seeing as how many of you didn't take the time to read, to call me an idiot for making clear and logical points is really a reflection on yourselves, and the fact

that I'm taking the time to explain my points in response to the responses levied by a bunch of people who are going off older posts after I made it clear the group I was targeting

and not reading the updated post that has the point I'm trying to make suggests to me that I shouldn't take the time, nor use the effort, to educate some of you.

 

They say ignorance is bliss, and if y'all are unwilling or unable to read what I wrote and see that I wholeheartedly agree with those whose computers are up to snuff and still can't play the game,

then that explains to me why so many people are having issues with the game that are unrelated to their PC hardware.

 

To Psycold: In my last post, I said that I was appalled at that the fact that R* had left out AA, which is a major factor why the graphics are disappointing even on high-end systems. So, this retarded

f*cking face agrees with you, and has just made you look like a blithering fool who is using conjecture and word-of-mouth in a feeble attempt to spite me.

 

To Deepered: Seeing as how I don't have the game and never had an intention of buying the game, I have nothing at stake in this argument. The people who waited for months

and dropped their $50 to be the early-adopters of this software have stuff at stake, so it is them, not I, who have to deal with this situation. I can happily go play my 360 copy in all it's glory

if I felt, but this is just too much fun to let go.

 

To Proh1: I'm guessing you're one who didn't read my post before this and went by what I said earlier (which didn't accurately explain my position), but with your system, you theoretically

should be able to play the game smoothly and on the highest settings no problem. The fact that you don't is very disappointing and I can see where you coming from. The fact you called me a f*cking idiot

is disappointing for someone who has such a nice computer system, but I guess that goes to show that even rasclots can have taste.

 

To Psycold: Your earlier post is really disappointing, so let me do a little informing for you. You have a 8800gts, the 320mb version, which is a very good card and can run most games at good settings no problem.

However, some games require a great deal of Vram and memory buffer from the graphics, but since your 8800gts only has 320 mb of Vram, the game may be trying to access more video memory than you have, which can lead to problems.

I don't work for R*, wouldn't want to unless it was in the corporate setting and unrelated to game development, but you show that you entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted what I wrote completely.

I'm always going to stick up for GTAIV the game. It has provided me with hours of entertainment that many other games could not come close to doing. I believe what you meant is sticking up for the GTAIV PC release.

In that case, I'm not doing that. I'm doing this as an exercise in intellectual debate and for fun only. I don't have it on PC, although I expect I could run it ok (but from what I hear from many of you, I wouldn't want to), but I don't plan on purchasing it

anytime soon. Don't let me get y'all all worked up, although it puts a smile on my face, because this is a nice diversion from the normal tedium of my weekdays. My only goal here is to get people worked up, and it seems it has worked,

and it would serve most of you well if you went back to what seems to me to be a pressing issue, getting your $50 purchase to run

But you've changed your tune man

 

Remember this

 

 

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

 

This is neither high budget nor extremely technically inclined, what it is is a poor job done by a company with so much money it feels it can do a half assed job and still get a bundle of cash.

[BlackMamba47]

To all those calling me an idiot, if you had took the time to read my last post, I made it very clear the point I was trying to make.

 

If you have the hardware; the processing power, the memory, the graphics capability, to handle GTAIV and the game isn't working, I don't blame you for being mad.

My vitriol was directed towards those with complaints about the DRM and complaints about gameplay who systems are thoroughly inadequate for running a game

the size and scope of GTA.

 

However, seeing as how many of you didn't take the time to read, to call me an idiot for making clear and logical points is really a reflection on yourselves, and the fact

that I'm taking the time to explain my points in response to the responses levied by a bunch of people who are going off older posts after I made it clear the group I was targeting

and not reading the updated post that has the point I'm trying to make suggests to me that I shouldn't take the time, nor use the effort, to educate some of you.

 

They say ignorance is bliss, and if y'all are unwilling or unable to read what I wrote and see that I wholeheartedly agree with those whose computers are up to snuff and still can't play the game,

then that explains to me why so many people are having issues with the game that are unrelated to their PC hardware.

 

To Psycold: In my last post, I said that I was appalled at that the fact that R* had left out AA, which is a major factor why the graphics are disappointing even on high-end systems. So, this retarded

f*cking face agrees with you, and has just made you look like a blithering fool who is using conjecture and word-of-mouth in a feeble attempt to spite me.

 

To Deepered: Seeing as how I don't have the game and never had an intention of buying the game, I have nothing at stake in this argument. The people who waited for months

and dropped their $50 to be the early-adopters of this software have stuff at stake, so it is them, not I, who have to deal with this situation. I can happily go play my 360 copy in all it's glory

if I felt, but this is just too much fun to let go.

 

To Proh1: I'm guessing you're one who didn't read my post before this and went by what I said earlier (which didn't accurately explain my position), but with your system, you theoretically

should be able to play the game smoothly and on the highest settings no problem. The fact that you don't is very disappointing and I can see where you coming from. The fact you called me a f*cking idiot

is disappointing for someone who has such a nice computer system, but I guess that goes to show that even rasclots can have taste.

 

To Psycold: Your earlier post is really disappointing, so let me do a little informing for you. You have a 8800gts, the 320mb version, which is a very good card and can run most games at good settings no problem.

However, some games require a great deal of Vram and memory buffer from the graphics, but since your 8800gts only has 320 mb of Vram, the game may be trying to access more video memory than you have, which can lead to problems.

I don't work for R*, wouldn't want to unless it was in the corporate setting and unrelated to game development, but you show that you entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted what I wrote completely.

I'm always going to stick up for GTAIV the game. It has provided me with hours of entertainment that many other games could not come close to doing. I believe what you meant is sticking up for the GTAIV PC release.

In that case, I'm not doing that. I'm doing this as an exercise in intellectual debate and for fun only. I don't have it on PC, although I expect I could run it ok (but from what I hear from many of you, I wouldn't want to), but I don't plan on purchasing it

anytime soon. Don't let me get y'all all worked up, although it puts a smile on my face, because this is a nice diversion from the normal tedium of my weekdays. My only goal here is to get people worked up, and it seems it has worked,

and it would serve most of you well if you went back to what seems to me to be a pressing issue, getting your $50 purchase to run

But you've changed your tune man

 

Remember this

 

 

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

 

This is neither high budget nor extremely technically inclined, what it is is a poor job done by a company with so much money it feels it can do a half assed job and still get a bundle of cash.

Bear in mind I'm far from a game developer or programmer, but I would expect porting a game the size of GTAIV to the PC and trying to make it up to snuff for current PC

technology is likely a difficult, but seeing as how I'm not in the R* offices, I can't say.

 

However, if your point is right, which I think it is, why are we surprised that they were successful at accomplishing their goal? People should realize by now that most ports

are done in the interest of profits, not customer satisfaction, although the mere fact of creating a port tends to increase customer satisfaction, so neither are mutually exclusive.

[poncratias]

playing with current technology IS possible !

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=380014

[skating101]

To all those calling me an idiot, if you had took the time to read my last post, I made it very clear the point I was trying to make.

 

If you have the hardware; the processing power, the memory, the graphics capability, to handle GTAIV and the game isn't working, I don't blame you for being mad.

My vitriol was directed towards those with complaints about the DRM and complaints about gameplay who systems are thoroughly inadequate for running a game

the size and scope of GTA.

 

However, seeing as how many of you didn't take the time to read, to call me an idiot for making clear and logical points is really a reflection on yourselves, and the fact

that I'm taking the time to explain my points in response to the responses levied by a bunch of people who are going off older posts after I made it clear the group I was targeting

and not reading the updated post that has the point I'm trying to make suggests to me that I shouldn't take the time, nor use the effort, to educate some of you.

 

They say ignorance is bliss, and if y'all are unwilling or unable to read what I wrote and see that I wholeheartedly agree with those whose computers are up to snuff and still can't play the game,

then that explains to me why so many people are having issues with the game that are unrelated to their PC hardware.

 

To Psycold: In my last post, I said that I was appalled at that the fact that R* had left out AA, which is a major factor why the graphics are disappointing even on high-end systems. So, this retarded

f*cking face agrees with you, and has just made you look like a blithering fool who is using conjecture and word-of-mouth in a feeble attempt to spite me.

 

To Deepered: Seeing as how I don't have the game and never had an intention of buying the game, I have nothing at stake in this argument. The people who waited for months

and dropped their $50 to be the early-adopters of this software have stuff at stake, so it is them, not I, who have to deal with this situation. I can happily go play my 360 copy in all it's glory

if I felt, but this is just too much fun to let go.

 

To Proh1: I'm guessing you're one who didn't read my post before this and went by what I said earlier (which didn't accurately explain my position), but with your system, you theoretically

should be able to play the game smoothly and on the highest settings no problem. The fact that you don't is very disappointing and I can see where you coming from. The fact you called me a f*cking idiot

is disappointing for someone who has such a nice computer system, but I guess that goes to show that even rasclots can have taste.

 

To Psycold: Your earlier post is really disappointing, so let me do a little informing for you. You have a 8800gts, the 320mb version, which is a very good card and can run most games at good settings no problem.

However, some games require a great deal of Vram and memory buffer from the graphics, but since your 8800gts only has 320 mb of Vram, the game may be trying to access more video memory than you have, which can lead to problems.

I don't work for R*, wouldn't want to unless it was in the corporate setting and unrelated to game development, but you show that you entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted what I wrote completely.

I'm always going to stick up for GTAIV the game. It has provided me with hours of entertainment that many other games could not come close to doing. I believe what you meant is sticking up for the GTAIV PC release.

In that case, I'm not doing that. I'm doing this as an exercise in intellectual debate and for fun only. I don't have it on PC, although I expect I could run it ok (but from what I hear from many of you, I wouldn't want to), but I don't plan on purchasing it

anytime soon. Don't let me get y'all all worked up, although it puts a smile on my face, because this is a nice diversion from the normal tedium of my weekdays. My only goal here is to get people worked up, and it seems it has worked,

and it would serve most of you well if you went back to what seems to me to be a pressing issue, getting your $50 purchase to run

But you've changed your tune man

 

Remember this

 

 

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

 

This is neither high budget nor extremely technically inclined, what it is is a poor job done by a company with so much money it feels it can do a half assed job and still get a bundle of cash.

Bear in mind I'm far from a game developer or programmer, but I would expect porting a game the size of GTAIV to the PC and trying to make it up to snuff for current PC

technology is likely a difficult, but seeing as how I'm not in the R* offices, I can't say.

 

However, if your point is right, which I think it is, why are we surprised that they were successful at accomplishing their goal? People should realize by now that most ports

are done in the interest of profits, not customer satisfaction, although the mere fact of creating a port tends to increase customer satisfaction, so neither are mutually exclusive.

We actually agree on something Blackmamba but none on this forum is surprised that they succeeded my making buckets of cash the thing is we are looking for Rockstar to

acknowledge their fault and provide patches rather than just lie and say the game was built for future PCs

 

In fact we even know why they are not doing this because admission of guilt will only affect Take 2's (Rockstar's parent company, a publicly listed company) share price

[Skroting]

What's with this fucking quote fest!? There's no point in quoting half a novel just to make a comment!

[skating101]

What's with this fucking quote fest!? There's no point in quoting half a novel just to make a comment!

sorry lol

[Psycold]

LOL @ mamba writing full novels to try and defend himself against the entire board, I like how he said I made myself look like a fool when he just admitted he doesn't even have GTA IV for PC, I'm sure if he was trying to run it on his home machine, he would be whistling quite a different tune

 

If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him.

 

[BlackMamba47]

LOL @ mamba writing full novels to try and defend himself against the entire board, I like how he said I made myself look like a fool when he just admitted he doesn't even have GTA IV for PC, I'm sure if he was trying to run it on his home machine, he would be whistling quite a different tune

 

If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him.

Haha, I made it clear in my initial post that I didn't have the game and didn't plan on purchasing it, especially after hearing about the issues that so many people are having. My not having the game does not preclude me from making and sustaining a debate on the merits of some of these complaints levied by my fellow posters. I also said that if I was trying to play it on my PC and it wouldn't work, considering I have a OC E6300 Processor, a 9800gt thats also OC'd, and 2.5gb of memory, and a small monitor (17in), I'd be very much whistling a different tune. If I had a much worse PC or was complaining about the validation and activation process in contrast to those with valid reasons for complaints, I'd be doing a disservice to myself and the other posters who'd have to read through complaints that have no real value.

[Drunk Russian 9]

 

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

@"If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him. "

Please, in order to avoid future 4 page arguments over nothing, learn how to read.

[BlackMamba47]

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

@"If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him. "

Please, in order to avoid future 4 page arguments over nothing, learn how to read.

Ty, and I resent being called a console fanboy. I've spent far more money and time on PC gaming than anything near I've spent on consoles. The fact that I've not purchased what seems to be a mess of a game (a sentiment espoused by others) should not suggest that I'm not a fan of the PC or am a console fanboy. To make that leap is logically unsound and silly.

[strojio]

woah that SUCKS, 25fps?? jesus.

[Drunk Russian 9]

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

@"If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him. "

Please, in order to avoid future 4 page arguments over nothing, learn how to read.

Ty, and I resent being called a console fanboy. I've spent far more money and time on PC gaming than anything near I've spent on consoles. The fact that I've not purchased what seems to be a mess of a game (a sentiment espoused by others) should not suggest that I'm not a fan of the PC or am a console fanboy. To make that leap is logically unsound and silly.

What I meant is that you play it on the 360, not the PC. Thus you have no reason to be making these arguments.

[gta4freakk]

Wtf? Leave it mamba. You see they're not bothering to read everything you write. So stop arguing with them. You don't need to prove that to someone you don't even know. Keep it for yourself

 

P.S.- And stop with this quoting session. This is worse then Dan Brown novels lol.

[SandmanX]

My 256MB 7800 GTX could manage very good fps with highest/high display settings in 1280x1024 -

 

Crysis Warhead

CoD4: Modern Warfare

Assassin's Creed

Mercenaries 2

Far Cry 2

Crysis

CoD: World at War

 

but running GTAIV in 1024x768 almost completely fries my PC. What gives??? Is it to tempt us into buying a 1GB 280GTX or something?

[MMhardKy]

Yes, higher settings are for future PCs. One day, PCs might be able for example use two GTX280 graphic cards to double the performance! Maybe GTA4 will use it and you will get amazing FPS!

 

Wait.......

[GamerJerome]

i have a nvidia 9600gt and as processor a inteldual core 2 e8500 3.16 ghz i can run render settings on highest and texture setting on medium but i cant change it to highest my texture settings how can i do that? do i then need a better grafical card or somting?

[number1fanny]

sorry, double post

Edited December 6, 2008 by number1fanny

[BlackMamba47]

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

@"If I knew he never even played it on PC, I wouldn't have bothered with him. "

Please, in order to avoid future 4 page arguments over nothing, learn how to read.

Ty, and I resent being called a console fanboy. I've spent far more money and time on PC gaming than anything near I've spent on consoles. The fact that I've not purchased what seems to be a mess of a game (a sentiment espoused by others) should not suggest that I'm not a fan of the PC or am a console fanboy. To make that leap is logically unsound and silly.

What I meant is that you play it on the 360, not the PC. Thus you have no reason to be making these arguments.

Well if that's the case, you're entirely right. I said before that my only reason for jumping into this debate was to piss some people off and for me to have some fun, intellectual debate. I have accomplished both of those goals, so all is well in the jungle.