The reality about FUTURE PROOF game

[ClearDark]

 

You don't even know what's the difference in pushing your finger up your nose, or your ass? Or... in eating and taking a dump. 

I just think it dont make much difference on the end... however... lets take other that 3d person: Mass effect. Much better graphics (like real PC game), and not "state of art" Pixelated graphics of 2006.

A game where you fight mostly indoors, Outdoors you get HORRIBLE skips and FPS drops. Lest not forget about the very matured Unreal engine which is utilized for this game. Most animations are weak and the grainy effects truely f*ck this game up.

 

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

 

[pinky]

Not to mention in fallout 3 characters can't "walk" through doors, they just kinda disappear. I personally thought fallout 3's graphics were complete ass in some places. The GTA franchise has never been about graphics although us PC users have always had the luxury of being able to play the game better than the consoles if you have better hardware than them (as is the case here). However a game like GTA cannot have graphics to the same quality as Crysis unless you want 0.89fps.

 

However I am open to be proven wrong so please show me a game that has 30 - 40 cars on screen at once with dozens of pedestrians there too and it has better graphics than GTA 4. In reality all PC games are future proof when I bought GTA SA I could only run it at 1024 x 768 now I can fire it up at 1680 x 1050 and it looks great. With GTA 4 I can only play the game at 1280 x 720, but in the future when it comes to my next PC upgrade in 2ish years time I will be able to max the game out and enjoy it all over again. Whereas the console version will always be the same running at 1280 x 720 even if the next Xbox or Playstation supports backwards compatibility it will still only play GTA 4 the same as the old console did.

Bingo.

[postem]

 

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

 

Also why i should remove? You only accept fanboys here?

Edited December 16, 2008 by postem

[ClearDark]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

[noid449]

i think gta iv will grow it will look beautiful on high high high end machines ..look how we raved when we saw screenies before it came out. i think playing with settings adjusted and all that works to get it smooth "now". its a new game its young give it a chance .... unfourtunatley its just kinda lame that a game cant be dropped down so easily to playable now ... why not wait to bring it out if its so advanced?

 

[postem]

i think gta iv will grow it will look beautiful on high high high end machines ..look how we raved when we saw screenies before it came out. i think playing with settings adjusted and all that works to get it smooth "now". its a new game its young give it a chance .... unfourtunatley its just kinda lame that a game cant be dropped down so easily to playable now ... why not wait to bring it out if its so advanced?

How can badly dithered shadows look good?

[noid449]

mods updates re work .. cmon how ugly is san andreas

with out anything on it?

 

and i think the gta seris is more about playability and mood than alot of other things yes it would be great to have crysis effects on gta but maybe just not yet huh ?

 

[postem]

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Just fake. Or badly implemented. I heared a lot about a same kind of "Promess" when the engine of Revolution was released: "thousand of Ai independent people" so so...

 

Just because people eventually ring cellphones on street they are smart? I see a lot of crashes and people hit by car on gta4.

[sonofhendrix]

i even read some users here talking about GTA 4 having superior graphics to crysis warhead. Claiming that GTA 4 renderes thousonds of buildings in massive detail and has greater draw distance detail and physics. Im sorry but thats utter BOLLOCKS.

 

Crysis renders every blade of grass, entire mountains with forests on them for several Km view distance and has complex physics, AA, Depth of field, Motion Blur, DX 10 on and on .

Its an order of magnitude above GTA 4. Comon GTA 4 only looks slightly better than San Andreas on the pc.

[postem]

 

i even read some users here talking about GTA 4 having superior graphics to crysis warhead. Claiming that GTA 4 renderes thousonds of buildings in massive detail and has greater draw distance detail and physics.  Im sorry but thats utter BOLLOCKS.

 

Crysis renders every blade of grass, entire mountains with forests on them for several Km view distance and has complex physics, AA, Depth of field, Motion Blur, DX 10 on and on .

Its an order of magnitude above GTA 4. Comon GTA 4 only looks slightly better than San Andreas on the pc.

Yep thats the true. On some places i feel almost like on SA with the blocky building with bad texture; other times i feel on gta 2 with the dithered textures.

 

EDIT

 

Im still playing it because the plots and story on the game rocks, really. Gameplay is very nice, its gta after all. Im playing well on 35+ fps, i just i could disable the shadows. At night the game looks great.

[FredFredrickson]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

[ClearDark]

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Just fake. Or badly implemented. I heared a lot about a same kind of "Promess" when the engine of Revolution was released: "thousand of Ai independent people" so so...

 

Just because people eventually ring cellphones on street they are smart? I see a lot of crashes and people hit by car on gta4.

You cant be serious.

 

The engine IS IMPLEMENTED in the game. The physics you see in-game NOW are EUPHORIA.

 

Jesus,you are an idiot.

[noid449]

i love gta all of them i want to be able to fight for its cause .. but .. i think your right it just is lacking something .. yes the shadows blow yes its kinda dull and yes its a little long winded in the controls of multiplayer signing in and out, but im happy to have it. i waited along time im sure i can wait some more for it to be bastardised by the faithful modders heres hoping

[ClearDark]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

[postem]

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Just fake. Or badly implemented. I heared a lot about a same kind of "Promess" when the engine of Revolution was released: "thousand of Ai independent people" so so...

 

Just because people eventually ring cellphones on street they are smart? I see a lot of crashes and people hit by car on gta4.

You cant be serious.

 

The engine IS IMPLEMENTED in the game. The physics you see in-game NOW are EUPHORIA.

 

Jesus,you are an idiot.

Fake is the way "super realistic physics" work; its not anything supernatural, or anything that justify such horrible performance.

[weedking]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

Physics effects use CPU so you just answered your own statement.

[pinky]

i even read some users here talking about GTA 4 having superior graphics to crysis warhead. Claiming that GTA 4 renderes thousonds of buildings in massive detail and has greater draw distance detail and physics. Im sorry but thats utter BOLLOCKS.

 

Crysis renders every blade of grass, entire mountains with forests on them for several Km view distance and has complex physics, AA, Depth of field, Motion Blur, DX 10 on and on .

Its an order of magnitude above GTA 4. Comon GTA 4 only looks slightly better than San Andreas on the pc.

All of those share the same AI though, each piice of grass etc is the same as the other, each tree is the same as the other. At no moment is any of them going to whip out a mobile phone or run over a pedestrian, like happens in real life BTW postem. Get out more, see some accidents and sh*t.

All they do is sway here, sway there. Get bits shot off them occaisionaly, breakable like IV objects.

You also have up to and over 20 independent cars driving around, at least for me on max anyway, and all these have individual agendas and mood settings.

The Ai in Crysis is barely any better than the IV cops also, they just follow you till the ends of the earth to kill you.

Vehicle physics in Crysis, pfff don't make me laugh. Pretty clunky to say the least.

Don't get me wrong though, the shotgun in Crysis should be by law put in every game ever created as it is simply the best I have used ever.

[kazuni]

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Just fake. Or badly implemented. I heared a lot about a same kind of "Promess" when the engine of Revolution was released: "thousand of Ai independent people" so so...

 

Just because people eventually ring cellphones on street they are smart? I see a lot of crashes and people hit by car on gta4.

You cant be serious.

 

The engine IS IMPLEMENTED in the game. The physics you see in-game NOW are EUPHORIA.

 

Jesus,you are an idiot.

Fake is the way "super realistic physics" work; its not anything supernatural, or anything that justify such horrible performance.

not only you're stupid, you're illiterate as well? Please look up the dictionary on what "fake" means next time before you talk again.

 

People crashing and hit by cars are PART of the game itself. It's a city full of corruption, sh*ts and mistakes, duh? If you see the whole city starting to hold guns and shoot each other all the time, or if you see them fighting each other all the time, THEN it's badly implemented.

[CharmingCharlie]

Ok lets cut the flaming and name calling out, if you can't talk about things in a mature manner then don't bother at all. I don't want to close this thread because so far it has been a pretty decent discussion but if some people don't watch what they post I will.

[Allonzo]

...I think its retarded that people even have to debate this, ofcourse its a lame excuse I mean come on..buying a game NOW to play in 10 years is something a mental patient wouldnt do, let alone u (in)sane forummembers...

 

if the graphics were like AMAGAWD then maybe I wouldnt give a sh*t but compared to SA it isnt all that graphically updated

 

 

 

ofcourse there are the fanboys who cant get enough of r* and would even worship the crap of a r* dev but that aside

[FredFredrickson]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

I'm actually relatively surprised, that despite my low performance (almost 30 fps at lowest settings), running over batches of people don't actually affect my fps.

[pinky]

...I think its retarded that people even have to debate this, ofcourse its a lame excuse I mean come on..buying a game NOW to play in 10 years is something a mental patient wouldnt do, let alone u (in)sane forummembers...

 

if the graphics were like AMAGAWD then maybe I wouldnt give a sh*t but compared to SA it isnt all that graphically updated

 

 

 

ofcourse there are the fanboys who cant get enough of r* and would even worship the crap of a r* dev but that aside

that's just it though, the graphics aren't sh*t. Not on a decent rig anyway.

Sure a couple of AA wouldn't go amiss but Farcry 2 and Crysis don't look any better with AA off.

 

Also, someone always has to pull off the fanboy comment. Ju are teh winna my fr3ind because there is no wayz I can beat something constructive like that comment.

[ClearDark]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

I'm actually relatively surprised, that despite my low performance (almost 30 fps at lowest settings), running over batches of people don't actually affect my fps.

I thought it was a bad port?

 

 

Apparently not that bad, admitted by your own words.

[Allonzo]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

I'm actually relatively surprised, that despite my low performance (almost 30 fps at lowest settings), running over batches of people don't actually affect my fps.

I thought it was a bad port?

 

 

Apparently not that bad, admitted by your own words.

30 fps at lowest settings isnt bad?/?

 

 

[FredFredrickson]

Regardless, the amount of data ME has to calculate comes near to nothing the amount of data you have to calculate during a fast driving sequence in GTA 4. Hell. I dont think ANY game these days except very complex simulators use the amount of calculation GTA 4 uses. Hence why its CPU hefty and not so much a GPU overkill.

 

Whatever you continue posting here will get easily debunked since you got an argument of a 10 year old idiot. Please, remove thyself from these forums.

 

Thank you.

Flight simulator X doesnt is a sh*t like gta iv. The "intense" amount of data to calculte is just fake, as it was already done same way on gta3 engine with much less resources. This is not a simulator, it will spawn data just in a small area.

Ever heard of Euphoria?

 

Educate yourself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(gaming_software)

 

Nuff said.

Euphoria is a phsyics engine, not a simulator. People on the other side of the city aren't being considered.

No, but when you run over 3 people at once it takes enough of your CPU to choke an elephant.

I'm actually relatively surprised, that despite my low performance (almost 30 fps at lowest settings), running over batches of people don't actually affect my fps.

I thought it was a bad port?

 

 

Apparently not that bad, admitted by your own words.

Dude, it's a horrible port. Driving fast gets me down to 15 fps. But running over people doesn't seem to have [much of an] effect. Maybe a drop in a few fps, but nothing compared to driving fast (in the rain).

 

BTW, I wouldn't trade Euphoria for anything. The way people fall when hit is the real reason this game kicks san andreas' ass.

[GamerShotgun]

...I think its retarded that people even have to debate this, ofcourse its a lame excuse I mean come on..buying a game NOW to play in 10 years is something a mental patient wouldnt do, let alone u (in)sane forummembers...

 

if the graphics were like AMAGAWD then maybe I wouldnt give a sh*t but compared to SA it isnt all that graphically updated

 

 

 

ofcourse there are the fanboys who cant get enough of r* and would even worship the crap of a r* dev but that aside

then clean yoour glasses... Oh my.

 

If you can't see the difference between GTA IV and SA... Ah, I don't care anymore...

[creat3d22]

Blah blah blah, get the f*ck out if you don't like it and stop spamming the boards with your juvenile ranting because you either can't play the game on your rig or you too f*cking thick to get it to run.

 

If AA is so important for you, go play a game that has AA... hell San Andreas had AA! Go play that and then post in the SA forum, because there's nothing in this thread that hasn't been said a thousand times already,

[Allonzo]

 

...I think its retarded that people even have to debate this, ofcourse its a lame excuse I mean come on..buying a game NOW to play in 10 years is something a mental patient wouldnt do, let alone u (in)sane forummembers...

 

if the graphics were like AMAGAWD then maybe I wouldnt give a sh*t but compared to SA it isnt all that graphically updated

 

 

 

ofcourse there are the fanboys who cant get enough of r* and would even worship the crap of a r* dev but that aside

then clean yoour glasses... Oh my.

 

If you can't see the difference between GTA IV and SA... Ah, I don't care anymore...

Ofcourse I do

 

 

The point im trying to make is its not THAT advanced like comparing far cry (2004) to far cry 2 (2008) now THATS a graphical change but not GTA SA (2004)/GTA 4 (2008)

 

 

Even FC2 runs good on PC's that meet the minimum recommendations unlike GTA 4

 

 

 

 

Blah blah blah, get the f*ck out if you don't like it and stop spamming the boards with your juvenile ranting because you either can't play the game on your rig or you too f*cking thick to get it to run.

 

If AA is so important for you, go play a game that has AA... hell San Andreas had AA! Go play that and then post in the SA forum, because there's nothing in this thread that hasn't been said a thousand times already,

Luckily I dont have to waste a lot of words on this, your avatar text says it all [email protected]

[GamerShotgun]

You are right, but the game itself has to render much more detailed stuff and other things than San Andreas did..

 

[camdean]

Ok, I have a decent machine but not the best CPU around here ..

 

 

Q6660 @ 3.24Ghz

6Gb Crucial RAM @ 900Mhz

ATI HD4870x2 2GB GDDR5

 

 

The first thing I done when I got my new GFX was re-install crysis warhead and tried to max it, it didnt work, it was actually realy slow and 'didn't work properly' I tried the second highest setting and that was smooth enough, I had to actually turn of the AA to get a normal FPS.

 

 

GTA4: I cant run it at full, I can use highest texture/render settings if I want, but like on crysis I opt for better FPS, I use High textures and very high render settings, I can't use the draw/distance options to full if I want the game looking nicer, it just won't work.

 

 

This is not a problem, it's the games being very demanding, I undertsand this and don't get all annoyed because I can't play on highest settings. I am not trying to compare these games, First Person Shooters use much less system resources than GTA, a couple of AI, a few very nice looking tree's don't actually take up that much resource so they have more chance to make things looks nicer, in GTA they have to balance it because it's not a First person shooter, it's also a very good driving game as well as a shooting game, flying game. I think they done well in the balance issue.