Sorkenlol Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Sigh, three crashes in 30 minutes. Had to go drinking with roman three times so that he stops calling me every 5 minutes, and then it crashed again, I've had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Had to go drinking with roman three times so that he stops calling me every 5 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 No no, lets get your speeds FSB/Ram and see if we can find a fix. The "fix" you mean is called upgrade. It could be, but not if his FSB is 1066mhz and ram is matching it 1:1. Then I'll have other questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoreMaster Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Sigh, three crashes in 30 minutes. Had to go drinking with roman three times so that he stops calling me every 5 minutes, and then it crashed again, I've had it. Lol thats funny and really weird as well. Ive never actually experienced any crashing of any version of GTA 4 on the PC. Only ones that i had were CTD's due to bad scripting with Alice Mods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Well yeah they did a lot of f*cking some here up the arse. Others have made their opinions of this unwanted rape quite vocal, as have those that liked it rough have too, for some strange reason. Truxter and the other Rockstar catomites here have continually failed to provide anything veering remotely like evidence for their "Great performance". Truxter, well what can I say for someone who continually shouts ot loud how superior his PC configurating is, sure talks like a clueless c*nt that would be stuck when confronted by an abacus... but I digress. I run at 4,500MHz Core 2 duo, I get back 62-68 FPS(the latter with lots of tweaks on a driver level with NVidia drivers, but makes it look even more awful), in the benchmark. This translates at a fairly poor 35-40 outdoors until something seemingly quite innocuous comes along and then sudden drops below what would be considered acceptable to all but the most sycophantic lickspittles that we have present on this forum. How on earth Truxter could expect anyone to believe that he has installed this game on 10 + machines without a single difficulty is proof, if proof need be, that the man(?) is a complete lying c*nt, the others are seemingly on some kind of masochistic mission to prove the Earth is flat, for some reason only they could truly answer. Seriously a guy that has so limited an intellect that he feels he can query the ability of others. For the love of Christ, someone put him out of all our misery. I have been monitoring the thread asking for everyones benchmarks and was fascinated to see some of the liars here and elsewhere getting far less framerates than I have been, yet continually singing the praises of the performance ingame, which is clearly a load of bollocks. So all these people who are claiming absolutely smashing-great-fantastic-super performance, how come so many of you only get sub 60FPS in the benchmark, cos we all know that translates to sub 30FPS ingame. As far removed from smooth perfect performance, as truth is, from a lie. So either, a) They're lying c*nts b)You have absolutely no standards to speak of 3) You are prone to epilepsy and in between bouts you're oblivious to the slideshow effect that mirrors the cyclic roll of your neural activity. I plump for 'a' in the majority cases of these witless tubthumpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoreMaster Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Heres my latest benchmark Running at 1680x1050 Med Text High Rend 30 View 50 Detal 50 Vehicle 0 Shadow If you guys notice the difference between the Shadows between the 0 option and 1-16 option is this. 0 doesnt show shadows that are projected from your head lights. 1-16 does but in a very crappy performance and crappy textures. So i suggest all of you to set it 0 the only thing u'll lose is the shadows from the headlights and the distance shadows can be seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Truxter and the other Rockstar catomites here have continually failed to provide anything veering remotely like evidence for their "Great performance".Truxter, well what can I say for someone who continually shouts ot loud how superior his PC configurating is, sure talks like a clueless c*nt that would be stuck when confronted by an abacus... but I digress. So either, a) They're lying c*nts b)You have absolutely no standards to speak of 3) You are prone to epilepsy and in between bouts you're oblivious to the slideshow effect that mirrors the cyclic roll of your neural activity. And how could someone prove some "great performance" running a game ? In benchmark i get 56 FPS running HIGH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 at 1680 x 1050 using the VRAM tweak to enable 100 to view distance, in game all maxed i get 30 - 65 FPS, game runs smooth, no crash for 60+ hours of game play. No stuttering, or missing / pop textures. Edited January 12, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ah0i.bRAuSe Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 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. i agree but the fact is that gta4pc is one of the worst ports ever made looking at other ports like grid, dmc4 and so on says everything... sure.. these games doesnt simulate a whole life in a big city (gta doenst do that too, only in a circle around the player but ok lets take that as simulating a citylife) but these games also ran on consoles perfeclty like gta4. and they run on pcs much more better than on consoles with 8xfsaa and so on. and gta.. LOL.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ah0i.bRAuSe Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Truxter and the other Rockstar catomites here have continually failed to provide anything veering remotely like evidence for their "Great performance".Truxter, well what can I say for someone who continually shouts ot loud how superior his PC configurating is, sure talks like a clueless c*nt that would be stuck when confronted by an abacus... but I digress. So either, a) They're lying c*nts b)You have absolutely no standards to speak of 3) You are prone to epilepsy and in between bouts you're oblivious to the slideshow effect that mirrors the cyclic roll of your neural activity. And how could someone prove some "great performance" running a game ? In benchmark i get 56 FPS running HIGH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16 at 1680 x 1050 using the VRAM tweak to enable 100 to view distance, in game i get 30 - 65 FPS, game runs smooth, no crash for 60+ hours of game play. No stuttering, or missing / pop textures. ROFL.. these framerates on THAT RIG !! thats bad too.. 4ghz quad.. i dont think that you should be happy with those benches and ingame framerates.. be happy that the game runs quite smooth but rofl.. with that rig there shall be 150fps ingame without fsaa. o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 ROFL.. these framerates on THAT RIG !! thats bad too.. 4ghz quad.. i dont think that you should be happy with those benches and ingame framerates.. be happy that the game runs quite smooth but rofl.. with that rig there shall be 150fps ingame without fsaa. o_O Even without AA, game looks great and runs smooth, without any issue - would be better to get 60+ FPS in any situation ? Sure, but its ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastsource Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) 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. My PC is up to date to run any current game. Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6Ghz MB with P45 chipset FSB running @ 1600Mhz 4GB RAM running at 4-4-4-12 timings 800Mhz NVidia 9600 GT (Overclocked) with 512MB ~ Performance of a 9800 GT The only real limiting factor on my system are the graphics RAM and the CPU. The CPU just causes that I have to live with frame rates between 25-25 fps and I can't go higher. I knew that before I bought the game and I am perfect fine with it (although I still believe the game is that hardware hungry mainly because of low quality code). The pixel-noise from all the dithering and the shadows are NOT because of hardware limitations. They are bad by design and will never be better. The flickering and geometry/texture pop-in are not really due to the "limitations" of 512MB graphics ram. If I use high resolutions 1680x1050 to counter the missing AA filters I get terrible geometry/texture pop-in. That is because internally all the shadowmaps are scaled up as well. The GPU performance itself is no problem even for 1920x1200 resolutions. If I go with lower resolutions like 1440 x 900 it is not playable on my 24" screen, just too much of pixel noise, aliasing articfacts and flickering. The solution to this is easy, just reduce the shadow maps resolution while keeping screen resolutions high. Too bad this can only be tested with a glitch of the game which takes too much time to set up again and again for everyday use. I develop software myself, even with 3d graphics, and I am pretty sure that it would only take a few days of work to add at least a commandline option to set the shadow maps resolution manually. Same goes for shadows without dither (either they would have less soft borders or would require more GPU power, which is available on most systems). Thats why I feel f*cked. Edited January 12, 2009 by Lastsource Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) well after the patch the game ran better for me, I dunno if I did a benchmark before the patch but these are the results after. Statistics Average FPS: 36.24 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 85% System memory usage: 46% Video memory usage: 33% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 960 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 59 Detail Distance: 58 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: benchmark.cli I was having a lot of problems with the double speed issue before the patch came out... it's ok for me now though, I only get a crash to desktop every now and then. But I still get texture corruption also. And on high texture detail the game runs ok about the same FPS for about 60 seconds; and then hangs for about 30 seconds to 60 seconds. I'm not sure if that's a memory problem or something. Edited January 12, 2009 by Vert101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sh1zn3t Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Im amazed to see how many of you guys complain about the graphics, fps drop and lagg. Guys, the game is great. And correct me if im wrong, but the game offers so much more than just the graphics, does it not? Great gameplay, great story and wide aspects. Of course, if we could all play it with maxed settings that would be great too. But hey, I play at low settings, I also tweaked some settings in the shaders folder just to get the game to run "perfectly", and it does run pretty smooth and I enjoy playing like that, I dont mind. Show some appreciation, the game is still amazing. -Echo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Show some appreciation, the game is still amazing. x2, GTA 4 is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 LastSource, I get 30 average (33.something by benchmark on page 2 or 3 of this topic) and I only have HD3850 (I realize this is more powerful than your card) and my CPU is only 1.86ghz - maybe a new GFX card is all you need to gain some more performance The pixel-noise from all the dithering and the shadows are NOT because of hardware limitations. They are bad by design and will never be better. This will disappear at full resolution... P key already does it just fine at 1680. But it will not be noticable in full res, P key or not. The flickering and geometry/texture pop-in are not really due to the "limitations" of 512MB graphics ram. If I use high resolutions 1680x1050 to counter the missing AA filters I get terrible geometry/texture pop-in. I don't suffer this unless I turn my AGP into PCI (not express). Perhaps your video ram speed is doing more than you realize. I can say however that I have that 1.86ghz processor at only 1066mhz, 533mhz 2gig ddr2, and an hd3850 - average, again, 30FPS - I wonder if it's worth it to move Up to an HD3850 - they are very cheap nowadays and it will definitely last until the next few nvidia cards come (when we will all be drooling for upgrades ) Vert101: Drop that view distance to 21 - 30, you'll gain FPS, and 1280x960 is not that far off from 1280x720, try both higher resolutions and 720 (I realize you will lose 240 pixels vertically, but give a try, even just to test for all of us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Like I said... I'm happy with the performance of the game now. It's just that there are a few issues I've been having. But yes I agree... I've finished the game and it's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Your detail and view are both way too high for your resolution - you can't even see that far to see the difference on cars or peds, they are like 8 by 10 pixels and 2 by 1 by the time they get that far. Turn that sh*t way down, both of them, or bring resolution up If anything, you'll be able to raise resolution, or gain FPS, wont hurt either way, and it is overkill for your current screen size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 ok I changed the settings a couple of times and heres the results. Statistics Average FPS: 39.51 Duration: 37.18 sec CPU Usage: 88% System memory usage: 44% Video memory usage: 32% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 720 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 58 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Statistics Average FPS: 41.67 Duration: 37.12 sec CPU Usage: 89% System memory usage: 45% Video memory usage: 32% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 720 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 30 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: Benchmark.cli Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: benchmark.cli I really dunno if this is helping anyone The only difference between those two was the detail settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 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.... STFU. Money doesn't grow on trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 ok I changed the settings a couple of times and heres the results. Statistics Average FPS: 39.51 Duration: 37.18 sec CPU Usage: 88% System memory usage: 44% Video memory usage: 32% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 720 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 58 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Statistics Average FPS: 41.67 Duration: 37.12 sec CPU Usage: 89% System memory usage: 45% Video memory usage: 32% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 720 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 30 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: Benchmark.cli Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: benchmark.cli I really dunno if this is helping anyone The only difference between those two was the detail settings. helps me, thanks vert! Did you notice any real difference in visuals when you gained those FPS? At higher res, it will be noticable with the draw distances lower, but at resolutions up to *about* 1680, 30 is all you need on view, and detail can go to like 50 and view to 1 and you're still butter You can tell "how far" you can see in any given resolution when you look far in the game and turn up the view and detail until they "seem to not do anymore" - that means changes are smaller than a few pixels big and you can't see it - back it off until something you actually notice is seen, then you will be really cooking And we wil lall be really jealous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) sweet thanks man ok this is the new data in 1680x1050 Statistics Average FPS: 40.15 Duration: 37.11 sec CPU Usage: 87% System memory usage: 46% Video memory usage: 37% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 30 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6891 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: Benchmark.cli you're right man, FPS did not drop that much Edited January 12, 2009 by Vert101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazur Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The game will only get better as time passes. Just be patient. The more patches and more updates for our GPU's the better it will be. By this time next year we "should" be running this game at some what 100% full speed. Since when has that become acceptable in PC gaming? "Just wait a bit, and by this time next year you should be able to run a game whose specs indicate you should be able to run in now." Bullsh*t. If the game won't run well for us now then why should we buy it now? Shouldn't Rockstar have held on to it a bit longer until it runs okay on most machines who are well over the minimum requirements? To claim every PC game is flawless out of the box is only margionally true. While some games are buggy or has their share of exploits, GTA IV is downright unplayable for a good chunk of the audience. That to me means it's not ready. I've never had this many problems just getting a game to run a few weeks after release. And don't give me the argument that system specs are bogus because it's simply naive to state that. Most games who are accurately benchmarked and tested have realistic sys requirements. I'm convinced those sys requirements were falsified just to get more people to buy the game. If they had stated "System requirements: A PC built in 2010" then clearly nobody would have bought it. No sir, I'm not buying your argument. You can defend R* all you want but the only obvious thing here is they f*cked us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacMaan Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The game is great, despite it being sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Since when has that become acceptable in PC gaming? Since when are GTA titles in the lower-class of other games and what is required? And, one more time for you blazur... Again... I have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo. 2 gigs ram. hd 3850. 30FPS steady - higher and rarely lower - at 1680x1050. I have minimum specs aside from my GFX card, and my GFX card is over a year old (I haven't had it that long though...), yet I still have a very playable, very smooth, very enjoyable experience... We'll figure out what is going on the more we discuss it, but I am running an AGP gfx card from mid 2006 iirc... 533mhz old ass ram... 1066mhz modest budget CPU... Better performance than most... Vert! Glad to see you still achieve 40FPS on 1680! Lucky bastard! Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazur Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And, one more time for you blazur... Again... I have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo. 2 gigs ram. hd 3850. 30FPS steady - higher and rarely lower - at 1680x1050. I have minimum specs aside from my GFX card, and my GFX card is over a year old (I haven't had it that long though...), yet I still have a very playable, very smooth, very enjoyable experience... That's great. My specs are as follows: # Intel Core2 Duo T600 2.33GHz # 4GB DDR2 SDRAM # 512MB Nividia GeForce 7950GTX # BluRay Disc Reader/Writer Right out of the box the textures were all F'ed up, and that was a computability issue with the 7950GTX vid card. While it's great NVidia released new drivers to specifically address the texture issues these drivers were not compatible with my laptop. Since Dell only releases drivers they approve I had to search on alternate websites to find a hack to even get the drivers to install. Well, the drivers borked my computer to the point where I couldn't play games which normally run fine (Left 4 Dead, TF2, Battlefront 2, etc). So I spent 2 afternoons just trying to roll back the drivers and get my computer running as normal. On top of that I use a dock with dual screens. While in-game my mouse would move outside of the game onto the other monitor, and I'd inadvertently click the desktop which would alt-tab out of the game. Well guess what? Any time you alt-tab out of the game it would crash it. So I was FORCED to run the game in a windowed mode, which at 800x600 looks ridiculous on a larger resolution. I had to squint to see any detail since the game was so small. That wouldn't have been such a problem if I were able to get my PS2 joystick working, but the game has no native support for that controller, and after spending at least 2 afternoons dicking around trying to get the keys mapped to my satisfaction I finally gave up. I hope you can see my frustration with this game. Don't piss me off further by bragging about how you can run it because I don't give a sh*t. I've been waiting for this game for years, and just recently bought an expensive gaming laptop in the hopes I would be able to play, and SHOULD be able to play. Plenty of other comparable games run fine for me. This wouldn't be so bad if the game actually held any value on Ebay because I would have re-sold it a long time ago, and repurchased it a year later when they've patched to acceptable standards or my rig has improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 [ And, one more time for you blazur... Again... I have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo. 2 gigs ram. hd 3850. 30FPS steady - higher and rarely lower - at 1680x1050. I have minimum specs aside from my GFX card, and my GFX card is over a year old (I haven't had it that long though...), yet I still have a very playable, very smooth, very enjoyable experience... Complete cockrot and it's utter pricks like you that boost up all the responses of outrage and anger here. How the f*ck are you expecting us to believe your sh*t, you seem to think a system with 30FPS+ in benchmark indicates flawless performance, that's why you seem so oblivious to the fact the game is so badly ported only a c*nt could be happy. Which you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) [ And, one more time for you blazur... Again... I have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo. 2 gigs ram. hd 3850. 30FPS steady - higher and rarely lower - at 1680x1050. I have minimum specs aside from my GFX card, and my GFX card is over a year old (I haven't had it that long though...), yet I still have a very playable, very smooth, very enjoyable experience... Complete cockrot and it's utter pricks like you that boost up all the responses of outrage and anger here. How the f*ck are you expecting us to believe your sh*t, you seem to think a system with 30FPS+ in benchmark indicates flawless performance, that's why you seem so oblivious to the fact the game is so badly ported only a c*nt could be happy. Which you are. f*ck You for that then, eh? Really not trying to piss people off, but no one goes into detail and they think the numbers in the specs they post matter - they do, but only with another set of numbers: Speed. I run this game on MINIMAL setup, and I get the expected minimum: 30 FPS. Game is not badly ported. Period. The game runs at 30FPS for me, yet we are supposed to believe people with quads are having issues that ARE NOT their own fault, whether they know it or not? That, my friend, is the cock rot. This game is not poorly ported, and your PCs have never in their dusty lives been tested like GTA IV tests them. The issue is not the game, it's your PC. I'd like ONE of the crybabies to let someone remote into their box and look around - I bet something is found and laughed at, I know it. Like, even something as small as a f*cked up drive state or windowblinds or some crap registry cleaner you got on a warez site - something is wrong, and it isn't the game. Still, I never said I was 100 percent right... But my box is low end, and I run at 30FPS AVERAGE, with no complaints, unless I turn my ram speed down to 400 or below... then I see slowness. Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert101 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'm not saying you should defend R*'s first release to the PC... I mean, I sure as hell didn't. But what I am saying is that they made the game stable and playable to me within 2 weeks of my purchase. That's not bad in my books. But the first time I tried to play the game was on a 2.8Ghz single core machine... which was about six years old; 1gig ram. I was not happy. So I bought a new system. Dual core 3.0Ghz machine with 4 gig ram and a vid card with 1 gig ram. I was still extremely unhappy with the results. All I'm saying is that after their first patch it helped me play the game without problems. There still are problems for me with the latest patch but they are minimal. Lets say this last patch puts them at version 1.0 . Which is what it should have been when they first released this game. However it did not take them long to get to Version 1.0 . Which is a plus in my books. Look at most games for PC today, and if you ever play Version 1.0 of any game there are bugs galore. I don't like this fact; but this is a fact among PC Gamers today. Even if the game is great we still burn it... why? because we are perfectionists. We know how our PC performs and what we want out of our games... but it takes developers to much time to catch up with us. I think maybe we should learn some patience. I hate being a beta tester too.. but it comes with the package of being a PC Gamer. Get used to it, because we're going to get screwed by a lot of other companies and their new releases, just because of the diversity of our systems. And whether we like it or not... when the first version of a game comes out... we as a community are going to be beta testers. And our fast response of our problems with the game to the developer may fix it. It may not... straight away... but it will over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Complete cockrot and it's utter pricks like you that boost up all the responses of outrage and anger here.How the f*ck are you expecting us to believe your sh*t, you seem to think a system with 30FPS+ in benchmark indicates flawless performance, that's why you seem so oblivious to the fact the game is so badly ported only a c*nt could be happy. Which you are. Its your fault, GTA 4 runs smooth and looks like this to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) And, one more time for you blazur... Again... I have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo. 2 gigs ram. hd 3850. 30FPS steady - higher and rarely lower - at 1680x1050. I have minimum specs aside from my GFX card, and my GFX card is over a year old (I haven't had it that long though...), yet I still have a very playable, very smooth, very enjoyable experience... That's great. My specs are as follows: # Intel Core2 Duo T600 2.33GHz # 4GB DDR2 SDRAM # 512MB Nividia GeForce 7950GTX # BluRay Disc Reader/Writer Right out of the box the textures were all F'ed up, and that was a computability issue with the 7950GTX vid card. While it's great NVidia released new drivers to specifically address the texture issues these drivers were not compatible with my laptop. Since Dell only releases drivers they approve I had to search on alternate websites to find a hack to even get the drivers to install. Well, the drivers borked my computer to the point where I couldn't play games which normally run fine (Left 4 Dead, TF2, Battlefront 2, etc). So I spent 2 afternoons just trying to roll back the drivers and get my computer running as normal. On top of that I use a dock with dual screens. While in-game my mouse would move outside of the game onto the other monitor, and I'd inadvertently click the desktop which would alt-tab out of the game. Well guess what? Any time you alt-tab out of the game it would crash it. So I was FORCED to run the game in a windowed mode, which at 800x600 looks ridiculous on a larger resolution. I had to squint to see any detail since the game was so small. That wouldn't have been such a problem if I were able to get my PS2 joystick working, but the game has no native support for that controller, and after spending at least 2 afternoons dicking around trying to get the keys mapped to my satisfaction I finally gave up. I hope you can see my frustration with this game. Don't piss me off further by bragging about how you can run it because I don't give a sh*t. I've been waiting for this game for years, and just recently bought an expensive gaming laptop in the hopes I would be able to play, and SHOULD be able to play. Plenty of other comparable games run fine for me. This wouldn't be so bad if the game actually held any value on Ebay because I would have re-sold it a long time ago, and repurchased it a year later when they've patched to acceptable standards or my rig has improved. omfg. LAPTOP is the key word there. LapTop is Not For Games. And THIS GAME is specifically DENIED support for laptops. In fact, that means, you have NOTHING to complain about and you're lucky you get what you do. Because this game requires a Desktop PC, and as far as rockstar and take 2 support are concerned, you can't even install it to a laptop You can get games running? COOL! But it's not made for that. And a dock??? You know how much you are using to run both of those monitors? in that puny GeForce 7950GTX? Listen, I know the card is not that bad, but dude... come on... what do you expect on a laptop and a 7 series card? This tells me this much at this point: "Hi, I got denied when rockstar found out my hardware isn't even supported, so now I'm going to rage here until I get help". Oh, and by the way, you have a laptop. Not a rig. You do not have a rig. You don't even have a PC. You have a Laptop. Just because it runs windows dont make it a PC, dude. And please, don't blame me, blame the marketing from Dell - which is DEFINITELY the LAST laptop you can game on and thats why THEY make alienware... I'd return that "gaming" laptop and instead get a PC. Edited January 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts