IGN interviews Rockstar about tech. problems

[DipolaredBoose]

i wouldn't care if there were all these lag problems if the game actually looked amazing

 

But the fact is at max settings, which i can do on my 4870 x2 but lags lol, doesnt even compare to crysis etc.

 

If it was Dx10 maybe i could understand but its f*cking dx9 without any AA and it lags!

 

Its not people's hardware its : sh*t OPTIMIZATION PORTING A CONSOLE GAME.

 

Even on the console it f*cking lagged lol!

 

I like GTA IV (multiplayer etc) but the whole game (iv) not 3, vc and sa has been a complete failure.

no, it doesn't lag on the 360 version at least. it's smooth as f*ck.

no. each time i fought on street, with flame , blast etc, it lag like an slim. XB360 is clearly not enough "nextgen".

[number1fanny]

i wouldn't care if there were all these lag problems if the game actually looked amazing

 

But the fact is at max settings, which i can do on my 4870 x2 but lags lol, doesnt even compare to crysis etc.

 

If it was Dx10 maybe i could understand but its f*cking dx9 without any AA and it lags!

 

Its not people's hardware its : sh*t OPTIMIZATION PORTING A CONSOLE GAME.

 

Even on the console it f*cking lagged lol!

 

I like GTA IV (multiplayer etc) but the whole game (iv) not 3, vc and sa has been a complete failure.

no, it doesn't lag on the 360 version at least. it's smooth as f*ck.

oh right well it did at the beginning and still doed on ps3 - stutters sometimes and generally is sh*t, i gave up with it after 2 weeks.

 

Still bottom line is the pc version is a terrible port with sh*t optimization.

I agree with that. Maybe your consoles are the problem for the laggy games?

[Jonny2410]

i wouldn't care if there were all these lag problems if the game actually looked amazing

 

But the fact is at max settings, which i can do on my 4870 x2 but lags lol, doesnt even compare to crysis etc.

 

If it was Dx10 maybe i could understand but its f*cking dx9 without any AA and it lags!

 

Its not people's hardware its : sh*t OPTIMIZATION PORTING A CONSOLE GAME.

 

Even on the console it f*cking lagged lol!

 

I like GTA IV (multiplayer etc) but the whole game (iv) not 3, vc and sa has been a complete failure.

no, it doesn't lag on the 360 version at least. it's smooth as f*ck.

oh right well it did at the beginning and still doed on ps3 - stutters sometimes and generally is sh*t, i gave up with it after 2 weeks.

 

Still bottom line is the pc version is a terrible port with sh*t optimization.

I agree with that. Maybe your consoles are the problem for the laggy games?

guess so

[siapnar]

 

"The Game doesn't have AA becuase its not DX10"

 

Now I see why this game is such a sh*t port, it was coded by a bunch of stupid f*ckwads. AA was in DX8 for christ sake.

Holy sh*t . . . this has to be QFT

You two fail hard. It's the deferred rendering that prohibits the use of AA. AA can be used with deferred rendering in DX10, but not in DX9. Nevertheless, Rockstar should have made the game support DX10 in this case.

Can't you turn that rendering on or off with "P"? Or is that something else.

 

 

In any case.. @ everyone: hope is not lost

 

Look at my sig and get to it.

[nicotin3]

AA is just a blurring of detail, it hides flaws. it does not make the image any better

it just burrs the image. In about 4 years when we have better video cards than what are out now

the game will look perfect.

 

this means they put in to much for us to handle right now.

 

this is a great thing.

 

 

I am not much one for blur and aa lag.

 

 

AA blurs the jagged edges making the picture sharp, not blurry.

 

And R* did their traditional dirty port job, not programed to make efficient use of PC hardware and technology.

R* did a great job with the console versions, figuring out how to throw all of this on a platform with limited system/video memory and antiquated GPU's and they even delayed to achieve a quality product.

 

Everything about this game and RAGE was build around the consoles and their specifications/capabilities were pushed to the limit. If the game was developed properly for the PC it would perform properly and it would scale properly too, the way it is it relies on brute force and doesnt even look anywhere near special.

This game is not "for the future", it doesnt have a D3D10 render mode, it doesnt make use of unified shadder architecture, it doesnt even support SLI. This game was made for the past and by that i mean the PS3 and the xbox 360, just how GTA SA was made for the PS2. R* does not invest in PC development, period.

 

4 (IV lol) years from now nobody will give a f*ck about this old, jagged console port and theres a big probability it wont even run in W7.

This port didnt reach GOLD status, i bet R* started working on a patch when the master copy was sent for mass production, they would never release a product like this on the ps3 or xbox 360 because they cant afford to.

 

So stop fooling yourself, R* didnt even manage to port that 5 year old looking Bully game well, or do you think Bully was made "for the future" too?

 

[amdinga]

These guys are a joke... right off the bat saying this BS:

 

"IGN: Just to start out could you give us a sense of how widespread the problem actually is because it's difficult to tell from looking at message boards.

 

Kevin Hoare: I guess that's really hard to determine. The only thing we really have to go on in that regard is support calls we've been getting which have been quite low or as expected, which I think is roughly around one percent…It seems like maybe these forum posters are the more outspoken percentage of the players. That's really the only thing we have to go on as far as numbers go. "

 

one percent? huh?

That's some pretty thick logic on the part of R*. The reason nobody calls tech support is because phone tech support sucks. Always. Forums are almost always a better source of information for tech solutions.

[xrk]

 

 

And R* did their traditional dirty port job, not programed to make efficient use of PC hardware and technology.

 

Lol, the best versions of the last three Gta games are on the pc!

 

 

This game is not "for the future", it doesnt have a D3D10 render mode,

 

 

Maybe Vista is crap and not "for the future" either?!?

 

 

 

This port didnt reach GOLD status

 

lmao

[S1LV3R_W0LF]

Damn so disappointing ...

 

Come on M$ this is your opportunity to sell VISTA ... make them allow DX10 features on it ... I bought that crap for what?

 

Yah I'm waiting for WINDOWS 7 now, but other then the looks has hardcore gamer it's useless.

 

Has for the "light thing" they talked about ... I think the first CRYSIS had it (I didn't play warhead) and I remember that someone made a patch that actually made the DX9 look very similar to DX10, I know I tried it myself.

 

And if this is for the future ... well the future is DX10.1 (not even DX10), DX 11 (already announced) ... So how this will look like in the future? It's the same has having my GTA III siting in my desk and b able to play it now (some years later) ... well yah it's fast and I can run on better resolution then in the time I had to use 800x600 ... but graphically is no longer pleasant.

 

I think you will regret it, when EA launches MAFIA II, and we will see those stunning graphics, or even SAINTS ROW 2 (yah I'm hyped for that one) and I hope they watching peoples complain and even if they have to change the release date to include new stuff I don't mind ... they should even do a new video like the "Would you rather" ... and then show their graphics compared to your "future-proofed cartoons", AA, and other stuff ... this is their opportunity.

 

Ok I'll stop to shot on you now, but just a friendly tip from someone that always supported you and made you win a a lot of money in the past years (Yah I recommended your games to like 50 people during that period, all original no pirate crap) ... actually I'm on hold too, and at least 7 people waiting for what I'll say ... think that there are a few other like me around here and multiply them ...

 

So my tip is this, in your next reunion with the R* and M$ wolves, tell them to change strategy, instead of making game to consoles then port it to us, make the game on PC then compress to consoles, or even better make a launch for all 3 platforms same time ... you can implement all protections you want, even FBI scanning your game login or a Russian satellite sniffing the IP, I don't care ... just make it properly.

 

And you will see who will sell more, and how many pirated copies there will be ... I know a few people running pirated copies now because they don't buy the game unless it is fixed. And I'm not talking about little kids with low-end PC's that don't know the difference between HDD and HDTV...

 

Oh and if you worried about how less the consoles might sell, don't worry ... if you get a work well done the PC version will outsell the consoles in some MILLIONS, and even if they sell for cheap you will get a lot more. But if you keep giving the exclusive for the plastic toys, then the trash to the real gamers ... you will have:

 

The daddy's that bought the game to their little kid (that's illegal, because they are minors... if the law was applied correctly you wouldn't sell half), and the pirate hunters that will blow your work even after release (30 peoples in my brothers LIVE account don't have a single original game, including GTA4 of course, some of them had played over 130 games), and the forgotten PC fans, that waited so much and get the same BS and give up once and for all, and of course the little kids with consoles that get pirated too, because they think they have the right to use it, since they have it on console.

 

I don't believe you will read this or forward it to your superiors, but since you scanning the forums i have some hope you might ... if YOU LOVE THE PC platform, don't give us the back of the stick. We've been here for years supporting you and you dumped us ...

 

Thanks for your time ...

[number1fanny]

It's much better just being able to pop in the disk and play.

 

*plays gta4 on xbox 360 and loves it*

[S1LV3R_W0LF]

It's much better just being able to pop in the disk and play.

 

*plays gta4 on xbox 360 and loves it*

Well ... good for you ... go there then and leave us alone. We don't care.

 

It's because of lazy people like that, that we are in this bucket full of ...

[DexX]

 

The shadows, at least from the forums and what I'm seeing, I think a lot of people don't understand that the shadow density is only designed for a certain type of light in the game. In the daytime there's a general shadow that covers the entire world. That is hooked up directly to the video mode. It scales automatically with resolution. So the higher the resolution you set the game, the higher your shadow, mirrors, water, reflection, everything automatically scales.

<insert string of obscene words here, a mile long>

You don't tie a bunch of variables to the screen resolution. Ever. Thats almost as stupid as the comment about AA. And confusion? What confusion? We're too stupid to understand what sliders concerning shadowmap and reflection resolution mean (well, could have meant), BUT, we're smart enough to run the exe with a command line to disable vsync? Wtf?

They essentially cock-blocked anyone who can't run this game at a top-end resolution. So i guess i'll have to keep dealing with sh*t-quality shadowmaps, and lo-res reflections because my monitor supports only 1280*1024. Jesus christ, that makes no sense at all...

 

 

When we were designing it it was with the intent of having future growth with the game.

Assholes - we buy games to play on the hardware we have NOW - not what we might have in 1-2 years!

 

That article did all kinds of nasty things to my blood pressure. God damn, these guys haven't got a clue about making PC games.

[ArecBalrin]

The DX9 comment is especially odd as this month's UK PC Gamer review seems to be under the impression that the game is DirectX 10 enabled.

 

Given how accurate PCG is about this stuff generally, did R* really decide to not have DX10 'long ago' or have PCG made a mistake in their review?

 

The comment about no AA is patently false; Crysis, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia 2 and 3, H-L 2: Episodes 1 and 2, Fable TLC, Knights of The Old Republic, Company of Heroes and even the shoddy-ported Devil May Cry 4 are all games on my shelf which I can turn on AA with HDR either from their own menues or in the nvidia driver options.

 

DirectX 9 can run AA with HDR, it just has some known issues, but it isn't impossible and often isn't even a great performance or stability hit. Developers sometimes choose simply to not allow them together because they don't want to have to deal with those people that do have issues when they turn both on.

 

From what I've heard, the XBox 360 render applet is actually based somewhat on DirectX 9 and most 360 games use AA at a crappy resolution to get their results. GTA IV is almost certainly running in a built-in emulator rather than being properly coded for PC. It is *not* more advanced than Crysis, or Far Cry 2, or even Bioshock and Company of Heroes, yet going by what people are reporting it runs worse.

 

Given how awful the Bully PC port was and how R* are commited to not even sorting that out(GTA IV has been added to their support page, but Bully for PC has not), their commitment to GTA IV has to be questioned. It will simply never be fit for PC, so I will never buy it unless they create a miracle, make a public apology and fire these useless arrogant developers that are allergic to responsibility.

[Vicetopia]

Didn't the console versions of GTA4 use 2x AA?

[rud]

I've been trying to keep a cool head, but that interview made me angrier than anything else I had read. There are so many things I can say but we're all already thinking them.

[mva5580]

I've been trying to keep a cool head, but that interview made me angrier than anything else I had read. There are so many things I can say but we're all already thinking them.

Agreed. That was very frustrating to read.

 

I seriously have to wonder what type of PC's they tested this game on. Were they ALL the highest end CPU/GPU/RAM on the market? Because I mean my God, ANY QA tester worth a damn probably should have noticed this game suffers pretty bad on anything other than the absolute newest technology available right now. And this is coming from someone who owns a quad core cpu, 4gb of RAM, and an ATI 4850 gpu.

[DexX]

 

The DX9 comment is especially odd as this month's UK PC Gamer review seems to be under the impression that the game is DirectX 10 enabled.

I don't doubt it. If you poke in the game files, there are some hints. The biggest one is in common/shaders;

"win32_30_atidx10"

I haven't thoroughly examined the files, but they are compiled effect files. And, based on the name of the folder, my guess would be that they are for dx10. They even left the build log for the shaders in the shader folder. Which is funny, because i could have swore this game was build from the ground up for DX9..

[antimonitor]

I can sum up that interview in much faster time

 

" We aren't admitting to any faults, we will continue to use vagueness when describing issues and do our best to divert the attention toward something entirely other than us, which has nothing to actually do with the said issues at all. We are releasing a patch that will do absolutely nothing but make us say we did give it some sort of support. And finally, we have proven first hand, the whole "Games for Windows" insignia/branding and how it's supposed to represent games like ours not making it the door in these exact types of conditions are 100% BS, just like us."

 

[skeeter780]

 

Their 1% comment is just BS propaganda. Just because the volume of calls to their tech support is only 1% of total sales, doesn't mean that's the only people having problems. In this day and age, most people are on the internet, and knew or quickly found out the game runs like a steaming pile on anything but the best of the best.

 

 

Exactly! I've had numerous issues but never called support.

 

Why would I call a support line that probably knows even less than me about pc's and will just blame all the problems on my pc anyway?

[spaceeinstein]

If you don't want to trust them then who do you want to trust? You have to support Rockstar if you want a fix for GTA4. Rockstar is clearly working on it so be optimistic on this.

[nitro_hedgehog]

i dunno what rockstar will avoid with this "interview" they are just digging a ridiculously deep hole. i have lost all respect for them. this reminds me why i'm a valve fan. they do stuff right. and if they screw up (like on the left4dead server system_) they fix crap fast because microsoft's red tape isn't stuck to the inside of their asses.

 

i DO like the game itself. great storyline, great fun running over peds and launching yourself on the swingset of death. its rockstars implementation onto the pc that dropped the

 

ball big time. sometimes i wonder why software that can't run properly for the majority is released in the first place.

Edited December 7, 2008 by nitro_hedgehog

[antimonitor]

If you don't want to trust them then who do you want to trust? You have to support Rockstar if you want a fix for GTA4.

Actually rocksuck needs to support their game if they want our money, we support them by buying the game, not by trusting their cheesy pr @ a bought off game site that makes their idiotic answers sound plausible.

 

You can't go based on phone calls alone? Why? It's NOT 1990!!! See, we live is this really crazy age with this thing called the internet, where most pc gamers go now, cause it sorta makes MORE SENSE. Hmmm....call or just hit up their website....hmmm....speak to some jerkoff with broken english reading off useless tweaks from a monitor or go on a board and talk to other gamers who have a clue...gee....tough decision making there...

[spaceeinstein]

Valve is a completely different company. They have more experience on the PC than Rockstar. And they are building games on an engine that has been used many times before while this game hasn't.

 

Rockstar IS supporting the game, and for the first time is directly supporting us in this forum.

[ceedj]

 

Valve is a completely different company. They have more experience on the PC than Rockstar. And they are building games on an engine that has been used many times before while this game hasn't.

 

Rockstar IS supporting the game, and for the first time is directly supporting us in this forum.

That's good to see, but there IS this...

 

(Gamespot.com, Oct 30, 2008 - http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandthe...00321&mode=all)

 

 

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.

 

That wouldn't be the same guy, would it? BTW, Bully was a HORRIBLE port (I lost $30 on that one), so if it's the same people who ported THAT (R* Toronto) porting IV, I'm can say not entirely surprised by any of this...

[The_Cheese_Man]

Did that rockstar staffer just say that GTAIV ran perfectly on 3 year machines?

 

LOL that just made me laugh more than get me angry

[nicotin3]

Valve is a completely different company. They have more experience on the PC than Rockstar. And they are building games on an engine that has been used many times before while this game hasn't.

 

Rockstar IS supporting the game, and for the first time is directly supporting us in this forum.

That's good to see, but there IS this...

 

(Gamespot.com, Oct 30, 2008 - http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandthe...00321&mode=all)

 

 

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.

 

That wouldn't be the same guy, would it? BTW, Bully was a HORRIBLE port (I lost $30 on that one), so if it's the same people who ported THAT (R* Toronto) porting IV, I'm can say not entirely surprised by any of this...

I almost forgot about that article, that was when everyone was optimistic about the game dispite the long wait, good times...

[spazmaster666]

It's funny how they say that only 1% of the people who bought the game are having issues (i.e. are calling customer support) and hence not "that big of a deal." Yet this is the first game in the past few years that I couldn't even get to start without immediately popping up an error message and then shutting down. And I've played dozens and dozens of games on my current PC (and I have pretty good hardware as well). If it were just some texture issues or slow performance, fine I can deal with that. But paying $50 for a game I can't even play is another matter . . .

 

As for the no AA, if the game uses 64-bit floating point HDR, then I can understand why AA is not available (DX9 can't probably handle 64-bit HDR+AA, while DX10 can which is why games like Gears of War for the PC only allow AA when using the DirectX10 version)

Edited December 7, 2008 by spazmaster666

[antimonitor]

Valve is a completely different company. They have more experience on the PC than Rockstar. And they are building games on an engine that has been used many times before while this game hasn't.

 

Rockstar IS supporting the game, and for the first time is directly supporting us in this forum.

That's good to see, but there IS this...

 

(Gamespot.com, Oct 30, 2008 - http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandthe...00321&mode=all)

 

 

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.

 

That wouldn't be the same guy, would it? BTW, Bully was a HORRIBLE port (I lost $30 on that one), so if it's the same people who ported THAT (R* Toronto) porting IV, I'm can say not entirely surprised by any of this...

HA, this thing can't run on today's hardware and they claimed it would run on 3-year old hardware...

 

That's classic.

[corvettelover]

 

Valve is a completely different company. They have more experience on the PC than Rockstar. And they are building games on an engine that has been used many times before while this game hasn't.

 

Rockstar IS supporting the game, and for the first time is directly supporting us in this forum.

That's good to see, but there IS this...

 

(Gamespot.com, Oct 30, 2008 - http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandthe...00321&mode=all)

 

 

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.

 

That wouldn't be the same guy, would it? BTW, Bully was a HORRIBLE port (I lost $30 on that one), so if it's the same people who ported THAT (R* Toronto) porting IV, I'm can say not entirely surprised by any of this...

HA, this thing can't run on today's hardware and they claimed it would run on 3-year old hardware...

 

That's classic.

HAHA!,

 

Maybe they meant 3-Month or 3-Week old hardware? ..cause that is all it sounds like it runs on (I have yet to try it on my X1300 system)..but, who cares?, whining isn't going to fix anything, we have a patch coming (and one coming alot sooner than any other game I can think of has gotten, let's just calm down and wait for the patch.)

Edited December 7, 2008 by corvettelover

[antimonitor]

I think what they meant to say is they're ensuring hardware that exists 3 years from now will handle it well.

[ArecBalrin]

Rockstar are still quiet on the issues plaguing Bully on PC, so how does 'supporting' them make any difference when their attitude as we can see it, stinks?

 

Accurate and clear criticism is what improves things, not praise or faith; Rockstar has already recieved exactly what should motivate them to excellence; your money. Instead, three senior members of staff who apparently weren't informed by PR to avoid making evidence-less claims about their customers went on the record to do just that. Possibly they did decide to listen to Finance, who told them that any admission of error on Rockstar's part could effect the share-price.

 

But this matter won't go away and unless extensive changes are made, that share-price will take a hit as it has managed to get on the front-page of even game websites which have their tongues in Rockstar's backside and mainstream connected blogs like Rockpapershotgun.