Who else thinks Rockstar f*cked us?

[LanceLongstiff]

Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was?

[flyer2359]

Well minimum requirements normally guarantee 20fps+ gameplay but the min requirements posted will only provide about 8-17fps, so yeah everyone got screwed especially since no one can actually play it on max without any commandlines

[Goatman455]

They didn't screw us on the requirements, they screwed us on a crappy porting job.

[Lastsource]

yes I am feeling screwed for having a screen full of aliasing and dithering artifacts as well as extremly poor performance of the game while it is obviouse that it could be fixed easily (e.g. allow us to set shadow maps resolutions via commandline or menu).

 

Neither screenshots nor trailers have shown that it would flicker, z-fight, pixel-noise and geometry/texture pop-in all over the screen like it has not been seen anymore in games for ages. Advertising the great graphics means that you do the basic things first and then add some fancy features. R* thought it is enough to implement the fancy features without meeting the most basic requirements.

 

Yes, thats why I feel f*cked.

[flyer2359]

 

They didn't screw us on the requirements, they screwed us on a crappy porting job.

so technically we did get screwed on the requirements as well because a sh*tty porting/optimization needs higher requirements I would've put down Core 2 Duo 2.0GHZ as minimum

 

This game pretyt muhc had all of the files from Xbox 360 transfered onto a PC disk with little to no optimization and ta-dah they released something that barely works even on high-end systems

Edited January 12, 2009 by flyer2359

[nynth.plague]

i think R* didnt expect it to be this bad due to the lack of beta testing.

 

we all know it was a rush job to get it to PC... but im sure they didnt think it was as bad as it is.

 

 

[nitro_hedgehog]

this is what money does the people. R* has become greedy to the point of coming up with ANY excuse to not spend money to fix the damn game. we all saw the interview (read it here http://pc.ign.com/articles/936/936304p1.html) where R* spewed crap about "only 1% have any issues" or "If we had DirectX 10 support we could have had the AA in there" and lets not forget "the game is designed to run on hardware that is currently not widely available." that interview alone says that they no longer give a sh*t. not to mention it took SEVEN MONTHS to do a horrible port job

[CharmingCharlie]

I am just wondering are we getting an influx of new PC gamers or something ? I've been gaming on the PC for well over 10 years and I always took it as read that everyone knew the "specifications" were a complete and utter pile of horse sh*t. They don't mean anything, think about it for a second the developers release a minimum specification erm for what ?

 

What resolution ?

what settings ?

what frame rate ?

 

Just exactly how is a PC on minimum settings meant to run the game ? I have never yet seen this answered. We of course can come to our own conclusions what we think it should mean. I guess most people would say the minimum requirements is a playable frame rate of 15 - 20fps at the lowest resolution of 800 x 600 with all the settings on the lowest. If you can't get the game running on a 1.8ghz Duo2core with 7900 at those settings then you are doing something wrong. Even I can get the game running at better than minimum settings on a core2duo 2.4ghz and a 8600gt which is at least 50% slower than the 7900gt. So it is open to debate about whether they lied or f*cked us over with the minimum requirements.

 

Now again the recommended what do they mean ? I mean sure they give you a list of computer equipment but what does it mean for performance. Is recommended a PC that can play the game maxxed out ? If so then every single developer is lying their arse off and that includes people like Crytek. I would probably suggest the "recommended" is a PC running it at console settings and if that is the case then again they didn't lie, you can get console settings out of the recommended specs they listed. I will admit the 8600gt is being a bit cheeky and it would have been more accurate to put an 8800gt there.

 

At the end of the day the specifications that developers give you are absolute bullsh*t, I don't even know why you are trying to cause a controversy by saying "Rockstar f*cked us" if that is the case then every single developer since the first PC game came out has "f*cked us".

Edited January 12, 2009 by CharmingCharlie

[chngdman]

 

Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was?

Nope. You are wrong. Rockstar didn't f*ck anyone. I HAVE minimum specs and I RUN THIS GAME perfectly fine. Fix your PC, learn to run a PC, learn to configure a PC, whatever it is, it is on YOUR OWN END, sorry. That is the Fact.

 

If your ram is slower than 533mhz, there is your problem.

 

If your FSB is slower than 1066mhz, there is your problem.

 

If your upgrades were just plugged in and not properly configured, whenever you upgraded, years ago or now, there is your problem.

 

No, rockstar didn't f*ck us, complainers are doing that. If you need help, please, outline your problem...

 

 

Neither screenshots nor trailers have shown that it would flicker, z-fight, pixel-noise and geometry/texture pop-in all over the screen like it has not been seen anymore in games for ages.

 

How fast is your ram and your video card? and how fast is your FSB? The oNLY way I can produce those errors (except zfighting, which is apparently ATI's fault) is by slowing down my speeds to under the ones I suggested above.

Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman

[SativaHaze]

Since when were the specs ever bang on? GTA IV plays awesome. The latest NVIDIA drivers made a HUGE difference. Wow. I am running it at max resolution distance/detail settings 75 and its butter smooth now. SOme minor slowdowns but a step in the right directions.

 

Rockstar did a great job. This game is just unreal and the graphics are the best..

 

This guy should really Stop crying and build a gaming box....

[Pooscooper]

I am just wondering are we getting an influx of new PC gamers or something ? I've been gaming on the PC for well over 10 years and I always took it as read that everyone knew the "specifications" were a complete and utter pile of horse sh*t. They don't mean anything, think about it for a second the developers release a minimum specification erm for what ?

 

What resolution ?

what settings ?

what frame rate ?

 

Just exactly how is a PC on minimum settings meant to run the game ? I have never yet seen this answered. We of course can come to our own conclusions what we think it should mean. I guess most people would say the minimum requirements is a playable frame rate of 15 - 20fps at the lowest resolution of 800 x 600 with all the settings on the lowest. If you can't get the game running on a 1.8ghz Duo2core with 7900 at those settings then you are doing something wrong. Even I can get the game running at better than minimum settings on a core2duo 2.4ghz and a 8600gt which is at least 50% slower than the 7900gt. So it is open to debate about whether they lied or f*cked us over with the minimum requirements.

 

Now again the recommended what do they mean ? I mean sure they give you a list of computer equipment but what does it mean for performance. Is recommended a PC that can play the game maxxed out ? If so then every single developer is lying their arse off and that includes people like Crytek. I would probably suggest the "recommended" is a PC running it at console settings and if that is the case then again they didn't lie, you can get console settings out of the recommended specs they listed. I will admit the 8600gt is being a bit cheeky and it would have been more accurate to put an 8800gt there.

 

At the end of the day the specifications that developers give you are absolute bullsh*t, I don't even know why you are trying to cause a controversy by saying "Rockstar f*cked us" if that is the case then every single developer since the first PC game came out has "f*cked us".

How much did R* pay you to write that essay?

 

jk jk, just messin wit ya

[Vive La France]

Maybe the problem is that you guys don't have a 3K graphics card like yours truly does.

[pLaTaNo]

Well, i think this thread shouldnt have been created in the first place. Theres already loads of threads like this about "Rockstar f*cked us up""rockstar did a bad sh*tty port" etc. etc..

[TruXter]

I am just wondering are we getting an influx of new PC gamers or something ? I've been gaming on the PC for well over 10 years and I always took it as read that everyone knew the "specifications" were a complete and utter pile of horse sh*t. They don't mean anything, think about it for a second the developers release a minimum specification erm for what ?

 

What resolution ?

what settings ?

what frame rate ?

 

Just exactly how is a PC on minimum settings meant to run the game ? I have never yet seen this answered. We of course can come to our own conclusions what we think it should mean. I guess most people would say the minimum requirements is a playable frame rate of 15 - 20fps at the lowest resolution of 800 x 600 with all the settings on the lowest. If you can't get the game running on a 1.8ghz Duo2core with 7900 at those settings then you are doing something wrong. Even I can get the game running at better than minimum settings on a core2duo 2.4ghz and a 8600gt which is at least 50% slower than the 7900gt. So it is open to debate about whether they lied or f*cked us over with the minimum requirements.

 

Now again the recommended what do they mean ? I mean sure they give you a list of computer equipment but what does it mean for performance. Is recommended a PC that can play the game maxxed out ? If so then every single developer is lying their arse off and that includes people like Crytek. I would probably suggest the "recommended" is a PC running it at console settings and if that is the case then again they didn't lie, you can get console settings out of the recommended specs they listed. I will admit the 8600gt is being a bit cheeky and it would have been more accurate to put an 8800gt there.

 

At the end of the day the specifications that developers give you are absolute bullsh*t, I don't even know why you are trying to cause a controversy by saying "Rockstar f*cked us" if that is the case then every single developer since the first PC game came out has "f*cked us".

Well said.

 

I must add to that note.

Back in the days, our software was expected to exceed our hardware. And it did, we patched we modified we upgraded our hardware till it could handle the software we hoped to use, as the years rolled by we kind of saw hardware exceed the weight of software. it held out for many years. but as we see right now with all the latest game releases, Software is finally back in it's place. Software is setting hardware's goals.

 

 

When you think about it, hardware exceeding software might actually mean software being padded and skimmed and weight sheered off , so that anyone could use it. Why not aspire to the great potential the software offers? why should we get the skimpiest slimmed down versions because current hardware sucks?

 

If you have been around, you completely understand "future proof" and accept it.

[nvr2fst]

 

Well, i think this thread shouldnt have been created in the first place. Theres already loads of threads like this about "Rockstar f*cked us up""rockstar did a bad sh*tty port" etc. etc..

I agree, and Charmboy will lock others posts but he will argue with the bashers on post after post after post. Go figure.

[CharmingCharlie]

 

I agree, and Charmboy will lock others posts but he will join the bashers on post after post after post. Go figure.

I can't win can I ? If I lock a negative thread about GTA 4 I am "in the pay of Rockstar" if I don't lock it I am "guilty of bashing the bashers". I left this open because the topic creator wasn't "ranting" except for the topic title and I hadn't seen much debate about the requirements. I am not the only moderator here you know, this has also been viewed by a couple of other moderators yet they didn't lock it either.

 

I am a normal user just like you if I want to take part in a discussion I will take part in a discussion. I am curious as too why you seem to be developing some obsession with me ?

Edited January 12, 2009 by CharmingCharlie

[nvr2fst]

I agree, and Charmboy will lock others posts but he will join the bashers on post after post after post. Go figure.

I can't win can I ? If I lock a negative thread about GTA 4 I am "in the pay of Rockstar" if I don't lock it I am "guilty of bashing the bashers". I left this open because the topic creator wasn't "ranting" except for the topic title and I hadn't seen much debate about the requirements. I am not the only moderator here you know, this has also been viewed by a couple of other moderators yet they didn't lock it either.

 

I am a normal user just like you if I want to take part in a discussion I will take part in a discussion. I am curious as too why you seem to be developing some obsession with me ?

Certainly no obsession. Just giving my two cents worth. This post title has been beat to death. Just figured how quick you are to lock threads that have at least some merit, yet this type is let to go on. I figured you would hit this one quick. It just seams to me if you find interest in an arguement you become bias and throw your normal reasons to lock a post out the window.

 

 

 

Hey I am just like everybody else here and I have an opinion too.

 

 

Say no more......we wouldnt want to set this string off of its productive, new, and fresh course.....now would we?

 

 

 

 

[CharmingCharlie]

I agree the topic title is less than ideal, but the content of the topic was done in a "decent" manner. Now if you have NOTHING to say about what the topic creator said then please stop hijacking this thread. So far you have posted twice in here and neither post had anything to do with what the TC was asking.

[OabAli]

Yeah, it's true. R* f*cked us. Poor optimization, graphical issues, false claims, and all that.

 

I'm just happy they've finally released it. It's either play it in a slightly glitchy version or not play it at all until later. That's how I look at it. I'm also happy I can play it during the long school holidays, rather than when school comes back in February. Besides, future patches will eventually solve some of the issues (hopefully, still waitin'...)

 

 

this is what money does the people. R* has become greedy to the point of coming up with ANY excuse to not spend money to fix the damn game. we all saw the interview (read it here http://pc.ign.com/articles/936/936304p1.html) where R* spewed crap about "only 1% have any issues" or "If we had DirectX 10 support we could have had the AA in there" and lets not forget "the game is designed to run on hardware that is currently not widely available." that interview alone says that they no longer give a sh*t. not to mention it took SEVEN MONTHS to do a horrible port job

 

R* Toronto actually started porting the PC version in January last year. So it took them about 11 months.

Source: http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925105p1.html

[Drag_Drift]

R* will fix this. They can't afford to fail on this. They know by the time they get GTA 5 out the consoles would have paled in comparison to even the lowest gaming PC out by then. And they make so much money in the PC series. If they don't fix this, they could WILL lose out big on the next GTA because the fans and the soon-to-be fans will assume that it will suffer the same fate as IV.

[nvr2fst]

 

Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was?

Sure they knew. To what degree, none of us know. How could they not have known. This is their buisness, they make games and have for a long time. They know how PCs work and they know how to test them. There I answered his question. Ok we have established that......... over and over and over.

 

 

 

Besides, if they recomend a Quad I think they knew something....Ya think?

 

 

I wanted to play so I did what I had to do to play......I bought a Quad

Edited January 12, 2009 by nvr2fst

[Dungeoncrawler]

Regardless of how you feel about this particular game, in the end we have no one to blame but ourselves. Countless times

we knew that a game would not be worth a purchase at release and we continue to buy on day-one. The only thing the devs/publishers

understand is time and money. If we continue to lay our hard-earned money down on release day then no one has any

incentive to make sure the game is done right the first time. Ask yourself if you would care about release day bugs when you realize

the game will get purchased regardless. You want to be heard, stop buying games on the first day.

 

Dc

[bpx]

 

Besides, if they recomend a Quad I think they knew something....Ya think?

the funny thing is...i have a quad. and when i tried to play it it crashed at the legal screen (just as many others had) and that was due to false usage of my quadcore. i mean there was this tool needed which makes the game start with one core only and then in menu you had to tab out so make it work for all 4 cores. was fixed with the patch, but still...

[Dungeoncrawler]

I JUST purchased a quad for this game (Q9300) and it does not perform any better than my overclocked e8400. Matter-of-fact,

in certain areas it performs below the c2d. However, core utilization seems to be much better with 4-cores. But if there are no

real-life benefits does not make any difference if you have 100 cores.

 

Dc

[nvr2fst]

I JUST purchased a quad for this game (Q9300) and it does not perform any better than my overclocked e8400. Matter-of-fact,

in certain areas it performs below the c2d. However, core utilization seems to be much better with 4-cores. But if there are no

real-life benefits does not make any difference if you have 100 cores.

 

Dc

There is definately benefits. I went from a 2.4 duo to 9550 quad and the difference is unmistakable. What are your PC specs?

[ZaCkOX]

 

Rockstar knew long before they released this that the minimum and recommended requirements weren't enough to play the game properly. So do you think we were deliberately misled by Rockstar, or were they just unaware of how poorly GTA4 the game actually was?

Nope. You are wrong. Rockstar didn't f*ck anyone. I HAVE minimum specs and I RUN THIS GAME perfectly fine. Fix your PC, learn to run a PC, learn to configure a PC, whatever it is, it is on YOUR OWN END, sorry. That is the Fact.

 

If your ram is slower than 533mhz, there is your problem.

 

If your FSB is slower than 1066mhz, there is your problem.

 

If your upgrades were just plugged in and not properly configured, whenever you upgraded, years ago or now, there is your problem.

 

No, rockstar didn't f*ck us, complainers are doing that. If you need help, please, outline your problem...

 

 

Neither screenshots nor trailers have shown that it would flicker, z-fight, pixel-noise and geometry/texture pop-in all over the screen like it has not been seen anymore in games for ages.

 

How fast is your ram and your video card? and how fast is your FSB? The oNLY way I can produce those errors (except zfighting, which is apparently ATI's fault) is by slowing down my speeds to under the ones I suggested above.

You know, I am getting a little sick of bullsh*t like this.

 

If you are running fine you have no idea how the game should run. Your like one of those players that plays the game and misses "bugs". I would love to say this game runs fine but when you install it on 10 different computers with differents os, different speeds, video cards, ram, etc... and high specs, something tells me right off to not believe you. I don't think you completely understand how the game should run. I been playing it since the day it came out for the xbox 360 and again, I will say, it's f*cked to hell for the pc. Yes Rockstar did f*ck us, took our money, and if you believe they will fix this sh*t your wrong because the first patch and lies proves just that. It will take a long time to fix all of this. Not gonna happen.

 

The fact you say "perfectly fine = 100%" tells me you don't know where the crap is in the game, and I can't take what you wrote for real. That is a fact! You almost sound like a sales rep for gta 4 for pc. Ha Ha

 

I can't wait to see your sales down the line. I still haven't bought your Lost and Damn version and I never will, nor will I recommend any Rockstar titles to anyone. You took my 50 bucks along with everyone else, it's what you at least deserve.

Edited January 12, 2009 by ZaCkOX

[Blazur]

I'm convinced Rockstar knew this game underperformed on many computers because it was poorly ported, yet still released it at their target schedule to get the game out for 2008 holidays. Basically I feel cheated getting it early when it should have ran on my computer, and all I have is an unplayable game which sells for crap on ebay.

[TruXter]

I have installed this game on multiple machines.

socket A 1.1 g cpu, 6200 128 mb agp vid winxp 715 mb pc 2700 xp 32 17+ fps

3.2g 939 processor 2 gigs pc3200 nvidia 7600 gs agp xp32 17+fps

amd sempron 3400 1.8g , 2 gigs pc3200 nvidia bfg8500gt 512 mb xp32 20+fps

e2200 dcd 2 gigs pc5200 memory nvidia PNY9500gt 512 mb xp 32,vista32 30+fps

amd 5600+ am2 cpu 4 gigs pc 6400 nvidia evga9500gt 512 mb xp32,xp64,vista 34+ fps

 

THE GAME RUNS FINE!

 

You just have to know what you are doing

[ZaCkOX]

 

I'm convinced Rockstar knew this game underperformed on many computers because it was poorly ported, yet still released it at their target schedule to get the game out for 2008 holidays. Basically I feel cheated getting it early when it should have ran on my computer, and all I have is an unplayable game which sells for crap on ebay.

 

The article

 

Yea read this article, I found a lot of lies.

 

Not only did they not allow others to install it, those same system specs were not the same smooth gameplay as stated. Also if we all really believe this game was a PC game and not ported from the xbox 360 straight, well then we believe more lies.

 

From the article: October 30, 2008 - Have you played Grand Theft Auto IV yet? No? Well, on December 2nd the game's coming out on PC with some extra features and enhanced graphics, something we got to check out at a recent event in San Francisco. We didn't get the opportunity to actually install the game on our own computers; Rockstar had it set up on their own rig, so we can't say much about performance, other than what we saw and played at the demo.

 

According to Rob Nelson, producer at Rockstar Toronto, the PC version has been working on GTA IV PC since January with a team of around 50 members. He gave us some perspective as to why the PC version is coming out later than with Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions. "The earlier PC versions of Grand Theft Auto (since III) have always been put into production as soon as the console versions were complete; in this case, we've been working in concert with the console teams, and even a little before. The reason we're releasing six months later is due to the fact that we are building this as a pc game from the ground up and adding additional features to an already massive experience."

 

 

Even with all the graphics options cranked and the resolution set at a ridiculous 2560 x 1600 the game still ran well as we sped through the city and blew up as many things as possible. We checked out the specs on the rig and it turns out there was some pretty powerful hardware in there: a Core 2 Extreme X9650 CPU, GeForce GTX 280 graphics card, and 3 GB of RAM. At this setting, the game definitely looked better than the console versions, particularly with regards to the extended draw distance and less pop-up, though that shouldn't be all that surprising.

Edited January 12, 2009 by ZaCkOX

[ZaCkOX]

 

I have installed this game on multiple machines.

socket A 1.1 g cpu, 6200 128 mb agp vid winxp 715 mb pc 2700 xp 32        17+ fps

3.2g 939 processor 2 gigs pc3200  nvidia 7600 gs agp xp32                        17+fps

amd sempron 3400 1.8g , 2 gigs pc3200 nvidia bfg8500gt 512 mb  xp32            20+fps

e2200 dcd 2 gigs pc5200 memory nvidia PNY9500gt 512 mb  xp 32,vista32          30+fps

amd 5600+ am2 cpu  4 gigs pc 6400 nvidia evga9500gt 512 mb xp32,xp64,vista    34+ fps

 

THE GAME RUNS FINE!

 

You just have to know what you are doing

Ok, let me clearify.

 

THE GAME RUNS FINE!

 

Again, anyone believe that? What is fine to you? Have to enter in command lines? Make specific changes to your system to force GTA 4 to run fine?

 

Because I can say, the game runs fine. Means nothing. Even though I still don't believe you installed to all of those. Show some footage. I can show a lot of footage of it NOT BEING FINE. What about you?