Allonzo Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 You are right, but the game itself has to render much more detailed stuff and other things than San Andreas did.. Ofcourse but now the average PC is much more powerfull then in 2004/2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerShotgun Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Yep, but please keep in mind that we've waited 6 months for this port... And even when the game released back then, it weren't really up-to-date because of the delays. So basicly it's not comparable to a game which've been released 3-4 month ago in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camdean Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Future proof means it wont be playable to most people on high settings, and unplayable to some people with their older computers, it's time to accept the facts and update, move on or get a new hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allonzo Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Yep, but please keep in mind that we've waited 6 months for this port... And even when the game released back then, it weren't really up-to-date because of the delays. So basicly it's not comparable to a game which've been released 3-4 month ago in my opinion. Thats just it..they had 6 months to make it and outstanding port but instead they released it just in time for xmas, broken and buggy. Hell, other companies do it in less time and deliver it more stable then this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurf Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Some people are saying that GTA isnt faulty, its just a game "made for future" or "futureproof", as the higher options just only work on non released systems. Well just lets talk about the level of quality of a high quality game of PRESENT time: Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support A game with such still can run very well on a top machine, like with 4870x2 or 280. Now lets talk about the gta 4 (the game from the future) - No AA (yeah on future will not be nneed) - Ugly bugged shadows - Lack of sli support - Horrible fps, even on sh*t settings So how in hell they can say that the problem the game perform horrible is that it is a "future game"???? I played on my old machine some months ago Crysis at full settings, the game was very very slow, but very beautiful. Now with my new machine i play Gtaiv, it looks like an 2006 game, but perform even worse than crysis! Hell, if you have some future machine, lets take nearby i7 and 2x280, the game could run faster, like 50fps, but the game will still look UGLY!!!! This is he sh*ttest explanation i found for a sh*tted port. Its not a port, its a pork. The complexity of GTA is exhibited in other ways than graphical wonders. This game is much more extensive and "open world" like than any other. This translates in to high CPU requirements, higher than currently available. Granted some of your points are valid (they shoulda added AA support etc), however not for this argument. You made a list of some things current games have and GTA doens't. Now then, shall I make a list of all the things these other games don't have that GTA does? Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukkit Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support GTA has HQ textures GTA has depth of field (motion blur too) GTA has real great looking softshadows (proof : http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7250/shadowsch3.jpg ) GTA runs great on mine year old pc (35-40fps on high) so ''only future pcs can run it on high'' is a bullsh*t GTA also has revolutionary euphoria physic engine , and real time car damage physics only major issue is the lack of AA (and thats because of those sh*tty consoles , and lazy R* coders) to sum it all GTA 4 is a truly next gen game , with amazingly detailed enviroment. like no other game out there yet Edited December 16, 2008 by bukkit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpux Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 You guys take everything out of context... What R* meant with "future hardware" was regarding full view, draw distance and traffic density at steady frame rates, settings that drain current CPU's. It has nothing to do with AA, shadows or DX10... Yeah, a game that is aimed to run on fast on newer computers, because its so badly done that it have 2006 graphics but need deep blue to deliver 60fps. Come on, the game doesnt even support AA or SLI, its just lame. Point me a TPS game which had sandbox gameplay with these kind of graphics my friend, and I'll believe you. Fallout 3....now believe him! (Except that Fallout is primarily a FPS...however, the graphics are FAR superior to those of GTA 4) Look.. I agree the game's PC port is a piece of sh*t.. But saying it has graphics which were apparent in 2006 isn't true. Fallout 3 isn't a sandbox TPS as I see, so it's understandable why it has better graphics. BTW, that's just not really what I wanted to get as answer... so, which uses euphoria, has lots of on-screen things going on, etc. You dont want to hear because Oblivion of 2006 is much better both graphically and fps than this crap? I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. There is currently not any pc game that has this level of performance for the level of graphics delivered. Sincerely, no one can say that the gta iv graphics are "state of art" of current tech, let alone say of the "future"; crysis was a game developed for future, and it remain as solid benchmark. Can't you read? I said a SANBOX TPS! Not FPS you tard.. Just because the game uses the first person camera perspective for default doesn't mean you can't play it in third person view mode you just have to use a developer command. the same applies to all game engines, even COD4 and COD5 can be played in third person view mode but that's not how the designers of game wanted it to be experienced. Crysis is the definitive game when it comes to technology, I'll bet GTA 4 doesn't even have a third of the amount of shaders which are present in that game. oh and the draw distance in Crysis is equal to or even higher then that of GTA 4 not to mention the high resolution textures and....... hence the reason why everyone is Pi**ed at Rockstar and their crappy port of GTA 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allonzo Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support GTA has HQ textures GTA has depth of field (motion blur too) GTA has real great looking softshadows (proof : http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7250/shadowsch3.jpg ) GTA runs great on mine year old pc (35-40fps on high) so ''only future pcs can run it on high'' is a bullsh*t GTA also has revolutionary euphoria physic engine , and real time car damage physics only major issue is the lack of AA (and thats because of those sh*tty consoles , and lazy R* coders) to sum it all GTA 4 is a truly next gen game , with amazingly detailed enviroment. like no other game out there yet If THAT is nextgen, what is this? http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2Nq_HAgf7Rk/R52He7xr...23-33-57-36.jpg far cry 2 http://www.explorecrete.com/nature/images/olive-tree.jpg http://www.2-worlds.com/temptation/Screens/2W_TT_03_1280.jpg Edited December 16, 2008 by Allonzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukkit Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support GTA has HQ textures GTA has depth of field (motion blur too) GTA has real great looking softshadows (proof : http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7250/shadowsch3.jpg ) GTA runs great on mine year old pc (35-40fps on high) so ''only future pcs can run it on high'' is a bullsh*t GTA also has revolutionary euphoria physic engine , and real time car damage physics only major issue is the lack of AA (and thats because of those sh*tty consoles , and lazy R* coders) to sum it all GTA 4 is a truly next gen game , with amazingly detailed enviroment. like no other game out there yet If THAT is nextgen, what is this? http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2Nq_HAgf7Rk/R52He7xr...23-33-57-36.jpg far cry 2 http://www.explorecrete.com/nature/images/olive-tree.jpg not found , but i guess u mean far cry 2 ROFL !!!! FC2 looks absolutely crap , it has no motion blur , no depth of field , the country look auwfull, the vegetation also. its absolutly crapy console crysis wannabe. + it has stupid story and gameplay and its really really boring and repetitive ...enormous CRAP! my opinion... technologically its miles behind GTA IV and btw : the tree isnt from the game its a real photo geez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allonzo Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support GTA has HQ textures GTA has depth of field (motion blur too) GTA has real great looking softshadows (proof : http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7250/shadowsch3.jpg ) GTA runs great on mine year old pc (35-40fps on high) so ''only future pcs can run it on high'' is a bullsh*t GTA also has revolutionary euphoria physic engine , and real time car damage physics only major issue is the lack of AA (and thats because of those sh*tty consoles , and lazy R* coders) to sum it all GTA 4 is a truly next gen game , with amazingly detailed enviroment. like no other game out there yet If THAT is nextgen, what is this? http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2Nq_HAgf7Rk/R52He7xr...23-33-57-36.jpg far cry 2 http://www.explorecrete.com/nature/images/olive-tree.jpg not found , but i guess u mean far cry 2 ROFL !!!! FC2 looks absolutely crap , it has no motion blur , no depth of field , the country look auwfull, the vegetation also. its absolutly crapy console crysis wannabe. + it has stupid story and gameplay and its really really boring and repetitive ...enormous CRAP! my opinion... technologically its miles behind GTA IV and btw : the tree isnt from the game its a real photo geez That FC2 was wrong image, thats a REAL shadow, I ment the second pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukkit Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) http://www.2-worlds.com/temptation/Screens/2W_TT_03_1280.jpg this isnt far cry neither .... have u noticed that huge ant ? btw : the link says two worlds. i bet u never played FC2 am i right ? u just think how great it looks. but no , its an absolutly auwfull game , console crap. graphically its no challange to the gta IV visuals but u know it better dont u ? u just typed into google 'far cry 2 shadows' and there u go , two screens , none of them has nothing to do with the game. u convinced me Edited December 16, 2008 by bukkit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasil Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 i bet u never played FC2 am i right ? u just think how great it looks. but no , its an absolutly auwfull game , console crap. graphically its no challange to the gta IV visuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modred73 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Fact. The game was not properly optimized for the PC. It seems more like a poorly emulated port of the console versions and instead of optimizing it properly, they spent all their time making a video editor for the game.... Maybe they should have optimized the game properly and then released the video editor as a post release update...That would have been too clever I guess. Fact. The game was not properly tested across the various hardware configurations that make up the minimum to recommended requirements. This fact is further illustrated by the fact that the patch broke more than it fixed. How M$ missed the problems with it we may never know (my cynical mind tells me that they actually sabotaged the patch because they stood to lose revenue on 360 controllers). We, the people who bought the game at release are no more than beta testers who paid for the 'privilege'. Suck it up, we were conned...Call it "Grand theft retail" if you want. Fact. The game is full of bugs and performs badly regardless of your hardware configuration. This may not be true for everyone, but it is true for most people. By 'performs badly' I mean that compared to just about every other big, new releases that not only perform much better, but have much higher resolution textures, lighting etc. Maybe by future proof they mean "In the future we will get around to fixing/optimizing the game you foolishly bought from us in an unfinished state". If this game had have been optimized properly, the minimum requirements (now) could have been the recommended and anyone meeting the recommended would have absolutely no bother at all, but this just isn't the case. It was a lazy port, don't defend it. It only makes you look like a dumbass. QFT I just feel lied to....If my computer meets and/or exceeds the requirements for a game I expect to be able to play the game with no performance issues. I don't mean at the highest possible settings I just mean where it looks good and plays good.(medium) The recommended specs should have been the minimum and the recommended should have said "you don't even come close." I would not have bought the game if I knew I would have to play it in 800x600 with everything on low to have semi-acceptable fps. I don't understand why they even put a low option in there(people say the low is equiv to the console, that's just not true...the 360 looks better than this game on low settings....period) I'm not arguing that GTA4 is not worthy...it's a beautiful game and the physics are the greatest thing ever...I just wish they would have been more honest about the requirements and spent a little more time optimizing for the PC. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerShotgun Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) You guys take everything out of context... What R* meant with "future hardware" was regarding full view, draw distance and traffic density at steady frame rates, settings that drain current CPU's. It has nothing to do with AA, shadows or DX10... Yeah, a game that is aimed to run on fast on newer computers, because its so badly done that it have 2006 graphics but need deep blue to deliver 60fps. Come on, the game doesnt even support AA or SLI, its just lame. Point me a TPS game which had sandbox gameplay with these kind of graphics my friend, and I'll believe you. Fallout 3....now believe him! (Except that Fallout is primarily a FPS...however, the graphics are FAR superior to those of GTA 4) Look.. I agree the game's PC port is a piece of sh*t.. But saying it has graphics which were apparent in 2006 isn't true. Fallout 3 isn't a sandbox TPS as I see, so it's understandable why it has better graphics. BTW, that's just not really what I wanted to get as answer... so, which uses euphoria, has lots of on-screen things going on, etc. You dont want to hear because Oblivion of 2006 is much better both graphically and fps than this crap? I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. There is currently not any pc game that has this level of performance for the level of graphics delivered. Sincerely, no one can say that the gta iv graphics are "state of art" of current tech, let alone say of the "future"; crysis was a game developed for future, and it remain as solid benchmark. Can't you read? I said a SANBOX TPS! Not FPS you tard.. Just because the game uses the first person camera perspective for default doesn't mean you can't play it in third person view mode you just have to use a developer command. the same applies to all game engines, even COD4 and COD5 can be played in third person view mode but that's not how the designers of game wanted it to be experienced. Crysis is the definitive game when it comes to technology, I'll bet GTA 4 doesn't even have a third of the amount of shaders which are present in that game. oh and the draw distance in Crysis is equal to or even higher then that of GTA 4 not to mention the high resolution textures and....... hence the reason why everyone is Pi**ed at Rockstar and their crappy port of GTA 4. OH MY f*ckING GOD! HOW MANY f*ckING TIMES I NEED TO f*ckING TELL YOU THAT AN FPS GAME IS DESIGNED TO BE AN FPS GAME, AND NOT A f*ckING TPS GAME WHICH HAS A COMPLETE BREATHING CITY, WITH DETAILED MODELS AND LOTS OF ON-SCREEN ACTIVITY AT THE SAME TIME? A SANDBOX TPS IS ABOUT FREEDOM, AND NOT ABOUT SHOOTING SOME NAZIS OR ALIENS FROM THE EYES OF A SOLDIER! Sorry for the caps.... And just to let you know... Crysis uses the same models all over the map, not every one of them is different. Whereas in GTA IV, you have different buildings, road models, pedestrian sets, and cars all over the place in real time. That's mainly a reason why this game is different from that crappy useless piece of FPS crysis. I don't know why you need to be a totally ass and talk about "crysis" in every f*cking post, and use that as an example. People should keep in mind that GTA IV and Crysis couldn't be compared graphically, because they are two completely different genres. If you can't understand that, then how the hell would you understand what I'm trying to say? As I said, I agree Rockstar f*cked up the pc port badly, but that's not a reason to blame the game's graphics... Why don't you compare it to Saint's Row 2 instead? That game is a TPS, and came out after GTA IV... so basicly it should have better graphics than this game. Edited December 16, 2008 by MasterK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zefra Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) Euphoria is not a physics engine..... It's a higly cpu eating animation system. Q: Is euphoria a physics engine? A: No, euphoria is not a physics engine. euphoria simulates the human (or animal) motor nervous system on Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3 and PC. One can think of it as biology meeting robot control theory. euphoria integrates with a game's existing physics engine, which provides the basic body physics (commonly known as 'ragdoll physics'). euphoria adds life to the dead physics simulation. In short, ragdolls are dead, floppy bodies. euphoria characters instead are alive and adaptive. However this FAQ is actually for euphoria version 2.0. Euphoria 1.0 compared to 2.0 is not as optimised. 1.0 also wasn't created PC gaming either. Starwars: The force Unleashed like gta 4 uses euphoria 1.0 that's why SW: TFU isn't being released on the pc as it would have the same sh*tty performance. You people need to realise that it's not the graphics wich are causing the low FPS. The guilty one is euphoria. It's way more complex then a physics engine. This however is not taking away the fact gta 4 can be optimised alot and should be. Edited December 16, 2008 by Zefra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukkit Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) Euphoria is not a physics engine..... It's a higly cpu eating animation system. Q: Is euphoria a physics engine? A: No, euphoria is not a physics engine. euphoria simulates the human (or animal) motor nervous system on Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3 and PC. One can think of it as biology meeting robot control theory. euphoria integrates with a game's existing physics engine, which provides the basic body physics (commonly known as 'ragdoll physics'). euphoria adds life to the dead physics simulation. In short, ragdolls are dead, floppy bodies. euphoria characters instead are alive and adaptive. However this FAQ is actually for euphoria version 2.0. Euphoria 1.0 compared to 2.0 is not as optimised. 1.0 also wasn't created PC gaming either. Starwars: The force Unleashed like gta 4 uses euphoria 1.0 that's why SW: TFU isn't being released on the pc as it would have the same sh*tty performance. You people need to realise that it's not the graphics wich are causing the low FPS. The guilty one is euphoria. It's way more complex then a physics engine. This however is not taking away the fact gta 4 can be optimised alot and should be. its just a mater of nomenclature. since ragdol physic is just a collision between the enviroment and the mesh of the simulated human euphoria adds to that behavior and virtual muscles and such stuff, acording to that it interact with the enviroment much like human being. and real time. and since im using euphoria within endorphin i know how powerfull that system is. its not like common rag doll or even prerendered animations (like in crapy cod) stuff as i said , its a matter of nomenclature. i think it can bravely be called a physics engine , cause it doesnt need an existing engine to get to work, it can work autonomous. and it realy pushes the gameplay a giant step forvard imo it defines the future of npc simulation. it should become a standart, cause if there will be a new game without this powerfull engine , itll be a disapointment for me persofnaly Edited December 16, 2008 by bukkit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogdanM Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. QFT... It will whipe the floor with R* & GTA. //On the subject... I'm tired tilting at windmills...srsly...do whatever you want to do R*. I just don't care anymore. *singing* Que Sera, Sera.... Whatever Will Be, Will Be.... Edited December 16, 2008 by BogdanM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postem Posted December 16, 2008 Author Share Posted December 16, 2008 ...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. Well despiste all, i think that between dithered shadows and a blurred image, it would be much better to have soft shadows and AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postem Posted December 16, 2008 Author Share Posted December 16, 2008 You guys take everything out of context... What R* meant with "future hardware" was regarding full view, draw distance and traffic density at steady frame rates, settings that drain current CPU's. It has nothing to do with AA, shadows or DX10... Yeah, a game that is aimed to run on fast on newer computers, because its so badly done that it have 2006 graphics but need deep blue to deliver 60fps. Come on, the game doesnt even support AA or SLI, its just lame. Point me a TPS game which had sandbox gameplay with these kind of graphics my friend, and I'll believe you. Fallout 3....now believe him! (Except that Fallout is primarily a FPS...however, the graphics are FAR superior to those of GTA 4) Look.. I agree the game's PC port is a piece of sh*t.. But saying it has graphics which were apparent in 2006 isn't true. Fallout 3 isn't a sandbox TPS as I see, so it's understandable why it has better graphics. BTW, that's just not really what I wanted to get as answer... so, which uses euphoria, has lots of on-screen things going on, etc. You dont want to hear because Oblivion of 2006 is much better both graphically and fps than this crap? I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. There is currently not any pc game that has this level of performance for the level of graphics delivered. Sincerely, no one can say that the gta iv graphics are "state of art" of current tech, let alone say of the "future"; crysis was a game developed for future, and it remain as solid benchmark. Can't you read? I said a SANBOX TPS! Not FPS you tard.. Just because the game uses the first person camera perspective for default doesn't mean you can't play it in third person view mode you just have to use a developer command. the same applies to all game engines, even COD4 and COD5 can be played in third person view mode but that's not how the designers of game wanted it to be experienced. Crysis is the definitive game when it comes to technology, I'll bet GTA 4 doesn't even have a third of the amount of shaders which are present in that game. oh and the draw distance in Crysis is equal to or even higher then that of GTA 4 not to mention the high resolution textures and....... hence the reason why everyone is Pi**ed at Rockstar and their crappy port of GTA 4. OH MY f*ckING GOD! HOW MANY f*ckING TIMES I NEED TO f*ckING TELL YOU THAT AN FPS GAME IS DESIGNED TO BE AN FPS GAME, AND NOT A f*ckING TPS GAME WHICH HAS A COMPLETE BREATHING CITY, WITH DETAILED MODELS AND LOTS OF ON-SCREEN ACTIVITY AT THE SAME TIME? A SANDBOX TPS IS ABOUT FREEDOM, AND NOT ABOUT SHOOTING SOME NAZIS OR ALIENS FROM THE EYES OF A SOLDIER! Sorry for the caps.... And just to let you know... Crysis uses the same models all over the map, not every one of them is different. Whereas in GTA IV, you have different buildings, road models, pedestrian sets, and cars all over the place in real time. That's mainly a reason why this game is different from that crappy useless piece of FPS crysis. I don't know why you need to be a totally ass and talk about "crysis" in every f*cking post, and use that as an example. People should keep in mind that GTA IV and Crysis couldn't be compared graphically, because they are two completely different genres. If you can't understand that, then how the hell would you understand what I'm trying to say? As I said, I agree Rockstar f*cked up the pc port badly, but that's not a reason to blame the game's graphics... Why don't you compare it to Saint's Row 2 instead? That game is a TPS, and came out after GTA IV... so basicly it should have better graphics than this game. You only forgot that only the small area around the player have populated content - view distance. All the rest, distant buildings, doesnt have any ai running on, and distant building need to rely on dithering filter to hide poor textures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukkit Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. QFT... It will whipe the floor with R* & GTA. //On the subject... I'm tired tilting at windmills...srsly...do whatever you want to do R*. I just don't care anymore. *singing* Que Sera, Sera.... Whatever Will Be, Will Be.... true. but still , itll be gr8 to see euphoria also in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EntropicLqd Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 You guys take everything out of context... What R* meant with "future hardware" was regarding full view, draw distance and traffic density at steady frame rates, settings that drain current CPU's. It has nothing to do with AA, shadows or DX10... You are absoloutely correct. However, based upon the sorts of figures I'm seeing in benchmarks I'd say that their city culling algorithm doesn't scale well. In fact, it looks like it might be as horrible as an exponential increase (4 times increase in processor speed to get twice the performance). Which has nothing to do with future proofing something, and everything to do with lazy coding or bad design. I'll be the first to admit that the problems they are trying to solve are not trivial; however their answers are cop-outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelated Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Some people are saying that GTA isnt faulty, its just a game "made for future" or "futureproof", as the higher options just only work on non released systems. Well just lets talk about the level of quality of a high quality game of PRESENT time: Current gen PC top games have: - AA Suport - High Quality textures - Depth of field - Real Shadows (not sh*t dithered shadows) - SLI support A game with such still can run very well on a top machine, like with 4870x2 or 280. Now lets talk about the gta 4 (the game from the future) - No AA (yeah on future will not be nneed) - Ugly bugged shadows - Lack of sli support - Horrible fps, even on sh*t settings So how in hell they can say that the problem the game perform horrible is that it is a "future game"???? I played on my old machine some months ago Crysis at full settings, the game was very very slow, but very beautiful. Now with my new machine i play Gtaiv, it looks like an 2006 game, but perform even worse than crysis! Hell, if you have some future machine, lets take nearby i7 and 2x280, the game could run faster, like 50fps, but the game will still look UGLY!!!! This is he sh*ttest explanation i found for a sh*tted port. Its not a port, its a pork. As much as I want to scream enough ripping Rockstar and GTA IV PC goddammit! Everything you have said is undeniable. I read somewhere that Rockstar had said they are looking into adding AA since everyone seems to want it. But until I hear a press release on an upcoming monster size patch I'd say it's not going to happen. I really hope so though. I mean at least offer the option to turn off deferred lighting\HDR, shadows, post processing, water, reflections, etc. Hell at least give us some more options than we have now. That way even if they don't incorporate AA\AF in the game settings we can still force it on through the cards control panel. I can't imagine that the GTA IV play testers that were confused by the graphics options were PC gamers. I just can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerShotgun Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 You guys take everything out of context... What R* meant with "future hardware" was regarding full view, draw distance and traffic density at steady frame rates, settings that drain current CPU's. It has nothing to do with AA, shadows or DX10... Yeah, a game that is aimed to run on fast on newer computers, because its so badly done that it have 2006 graphics but need deep blue to deliver 60fps. Come on, the game doesnt even support AA or SLI, its just lame. Point me a TPS game which had sandbox gameplay with these kind of graphics my friend, and I'll believe you. Fallout 3....now believe him! (Except that Fallout is primarily a FPS...however, the graphics are FAR superior to those of GTA 4) Look.. I agree the game's PC port is a piece of sh*t.. But saying it has graphics which were apparent in 2006 isn't true. Fallout 3 isn't a sandbox TPS as I see, so it's understandable why it has better graphics. BTW, that's just not really what I wanted to get as answer... so, which uses euphoria, has lots of on-screen things going on, etc. You dont want to hear because Oblivion of 2006 is much better both graphically and fps than this crap? I bet Mafia 2 if released will pown this gta iv. There is currently not any pc game that has this level of performance for the level of graphics delivered. Sincerely, no one can say that the gta iv graphics are "state of art" of current tech, let alone say of the "future"; crysis was a game developed for future, and it remain as solid benchmark. Can't you read? I said a SANBOX TPS! Not FPS you tard.. Just because the game uses the first person camera perspective for default doesn't mean you can't play it in third person view mode you just have to use a developer command. the same applies to all game engines, even COD4 and COD5 can be played in third person view mode but that's not how the designers of game wanted it to be experienced. Crysis is the definitive game when it comes to technology, I'll bet GTA 4 doesn't even have a third of the amount of shaders which are present in that game. oh and the draw distance in Crysis is equal to or even higher then that of GTA 4 not to mention the high resolution textures and....... hence the reason why everyone is Pi**ed at Rockstar and their crappy port of GTA 4. OH MY f*ckING GOD! HOW MANY f*ckING TIMES I NEED TO f*ckING TELL YOU THAT AN FPS GAME IS DESIGNED TO BE AN FPS GAME, AND NOT A f*ckING TPS GAME WHICH HAS A COMPLETE BREATHING CITY, WITH DETAILED MODELS AND LOTS OF ON-SCREEN ACTIVITY AT THE SAME TIME? A SANDBOX TPS IS ABOUT FREEDOM, AND NOT ABOUT SHOOTING SOME NAZIS OR ALIENS FROM THE EYES OF A SOLDIER! Sorry for the caps.... And just to let you know... Crysis uses the same models all over the map, not every one of them is different. Whereas in GTA IV, you have different buildings, road models, pedestrian sets, and cars all over the place in real time. That's mainly a reason why this game is different from that crappy useless piece of FPS crysis. I don't know why you need to be a totally ass and talk about "crysis" in every f*cking post, and use that as an example. People should keep in mind that GTA IV and Crysis couldn't be compared graphically, because they are two completely different genres. If you can't understand that, then how the hell would you understand what I'm trying to say? As I said, I agree Rockstar f*cked up the pc port badly, but that's not a reason to blame the game's graphics... Why don't you compare it to Saint's Row 2 instead? That game is a TPS, and came out after GTA IV... so basicly it should have better graphics than this game. You only forgot that only the small area around the player have populated content - view distance. All the rest, distant buildings, doesnt have any ai running on, and distant building need to rely on dithering filter to hide poor textures. And you forgot that the game still has a pretty decent view distance. Although you may be correct about that "small area" statement, you still don't really get that if a dynamic model has good quality (pedestrians and vehicles in GTA IV are pretty realistic), it takes much more to render those. Not to mention that pedestrians have assigned events and other stuffs, which the game generates dynamically, when you drive around in the city. And the way GTA IV scales every single effect in the game is still causing performance issues, simple as that. But please prove me wrong... IS there a TPS game with SANDBOX styled gameplay which has similar, or better graphics than GTA IV? If there isn't any, then what we are talking about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now