GTA IV is not a bad port. Not even a port.

[Slotter]

I did just found out!

 

GTA IV is not a bad port from ps3/xbox360. Instead it's the same game!

 

Installmenu is f*cked up with lots of "???" characters = Windows can't read Xbox360 files correctly

 

You need RGSC so start the game = It uses RGSC to emulate a Xbox360 game, thats why you can skip login. The login part is just a cover so people don't understand it's an emulator.

 

You need Microsoft XLive games to play "online" = PC-Version don't have their own master-servers to find games. Instead it uses XLive as an emulator to be able to use Xbox360 Live server list.

 

It finally makes sense!

[JeddyH]

Dude, its a port.

[mkey82]

Dude, its a port.

Dude, it's not a port. It's a bad port

[Slotter]

Dude, its a port.

It's the same game. I sh*t you not

[mkey82]

Dude, its a port.

It's the same game. I sh*t you not

Well, it definitively isn't a ground-up PC build like they claimed some months back. There is that strange command prompt window, very strange stuttering effect (which doesn't correlate to actual framerate), those xbox buttons that pop-up if you have your gamepad plugged in after the update.

[JeddyH]

Dude, its a port.

Dude, it's not a port. It's a bad port

True, but it is defiantly not like a Xbox360 emulator or a completely direct port

[Bob-o]

impossible.

for arguments sake let's we're all defying the laws of computer physics and are playing a game coded for a 360 on a pc, don't you think somebody would have cracked the emulator to play any 360 game by now?

[cant remember]

Not sure what the OP is talking about? The '???' characters was an error in the installation with non-english versions of windows. The Xbox version had no installer.

 

You don't need XLive to play online, I just have to make a GFWL account and I could play online.

 

Dunno what CGLK or whatever is, but I doubt it's an Xbox360 emulator. Do you realise the amount of cpu power you would need to emulate the Xbox360's hardware? Even PS2 emulation is slow and buggy as crap.

[noVa]

 

You need RGSC so start the game = It uses RGSC to emulate a Xbox360 game, thats why you can skip login. The login part is just a cover so people don't understand it's an emulator.

 

You need Microsoft XLive games to play "online" = PC-Version don't have their own master-servers to find games. Instead it uses XLive as an emulator to be able to use Xbox360 Live server list.

 

It finally makes sense!

except for you can close rgsc once you have the game open so that theory fails.

 

and uses the xbox server list?

 

so how come you can't play people on xbox's huh?

 

 

tin foil hat time for you me thinks.

[Ahm3dS]

Port =P

[mkey82]

Not sure what the OP is talking about? The '???' characters was an error in the installation with non-english versions of windows. The Xbox version had no installer.

 

You don't need XLive to play online, I just have to make a GFWL account and I could play online.

 

Dunno what CGLK or whatever is, but I doubt it's an Xbox360 emulator. Do you realise the amount of cpu power you would need to emulate the Xbox360's hardware? Even PS2 emulation is slow and buggy as crap.

Yes, BUT x360 has a lot simpler architecture then PS3 does. Most port these days get ported from x360.

 

Of course, I'm not suggesting GTA IV on PC is being emulated. It's just that some things do make me wonder - like the inability of the game to scale the settings for lower end machines. Consoles don't need such a feature, so maybe they thought PC won't need it neither? Maybe people at R* develop games on consoles

[thales100]

GTA IV is not a bad port from ps3/xbox360. Instead it's the same game!

 

 

And how do you explain the much higher GFX quality of the game when running on PC ? If it was the same game being emulated it should look very similar, at most.

[R.F.]

Actually its not a port. Rockstar Toronto said that they build gta iv for the pc from the ground up and took over a year. They rearanged all the animations etc and made a pc version so its not a port...

[GamerShotgun]

Dude, its a port.

It's the same game. I sh*t you not

Well, it definitively isn't a ground-up PC build like they claimed some months back. There is that strange command prompt window, very strange stuttering effect (which doesn't correlate to actual framerate), those xbox buttons that pop-up if you have your gamepad plugged in after the update.

That's the SecuROM loader mate -.-

[noVa]

Actually its not a port. Rockstar Toronto said that they build gta iv for the pc from the ground up and took over a year. They rearanged all the animations etc and made a pc version so its not a port...

from the ground up.

 

hmm. in a year, i doubt it, how many years was GTA 4 in development for the consoles? f*cking ages.

 

They are using an engine they built from the ground up that was probably optimised first for the consoles and then converted to be used on a PC - that would make it a port.

 

for it not to be a port it would have to have a complete re-write of everything including the base game engine which would damn well take more than a year.

[LSD T]

 

Thales100 - And how do you explain the much higher GFX quality of the game when running on PC ? If it was the same game being emulated it should look very similar, at most.

 

 

Much higher?

You clearly have no standards.

 

The texture resolution increase is the most basic of things to implement, the optimisation, now that's wjhere the work is, however they have done nothing to suggest any work was put into that.

Of course we now have a supa-dupa video editor, an advertising device where we the mugs/customers create the ads on Rockstars behalf.

 

 

At best this game is badly ported, and there is nothing in the 'quality' of PC version that disproves the theory of it being emulated.

At worst it's a badly poorly constructed emulation, it's just that the game runs so badly when the machine is so powerful that people feel its emulated, anyone can see that.

 

Not exactly a dramatic leap in thought process from the sh*t game performance we have to the conclusion it may be a cheap emulation, it's certainly cheaply done whether port or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, unfortunately for me, I don't get a massive 40FPS like the others here who claim great performance in the strangely sparse benchmark... so I clearly don't know what it's like to have this smooth trouble free game running, I only get 62+FPS in benchmark, I probably need a better PC or need to work on my configuration skills of the OS et cetera

Edited January 15, 2009 by LSD T

[Drag_Drift]

I call bullsh*t. Until OP can provide evidence. REAL, UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE that RGSC is just an Xbox360 emulator and all other sh*t.

[ron123]

IF the RGSC is a amulator then why you can close it while in game???

[chngdman]

That's the most ridiculous bad port theory in all of the land. Give this man a badge.

[Drag_Drift]

That's the most ridiculous bad port theory in all of the land. Give this man a badge.

Better yet, give the troll a cookie. Oh no, wait. What's that on the refrigerator door?

 

DO NOT FEED TROLL

 

Hmm. Okay.

[ExitiumMachina]

Let me get this straight, it is a bad port because it doesn't work on certain high end machines? Well my machine is probably mid-range for the requirements being a Core2Duo at 2.2Ghz, rather good GPU with a 9800GT at 1Gb, and a massive harddrive which I may add is not clogged by useless crapware such as iTits or Limetire or other crap (aside from a massive library of music taken from CD's)...and this game runs pretty damn good!

 

So in end, more than likely it is your machine and/or some crapware you have on your machine (this isn't always the case as the game could be crudely programmed for some PC's...but not all.).

[LSD T]

 

Let me get this straight, it is a bad port because it doesn't work on certain high end machines?  Well my machine is probably mid-range for the requirements being a Core2Duo at 2.2Ghz, rather good GPU with a 9800GT at 1Gb, and a massive harddrive which I may add is not clogged by useless crapware such as iTits or Limetire or other crap (aside from a massive library of music taken from CD's)...and this game runs pretty damn good! 

 

So in end, more than likely it is your machine and/or some crapware you have on your machine (this isn't always the case as the game could be crudely programmed for some PC's...but not all.).

Oh do f*ck off.

 

It has been more than proven that the zippiest streamlined stripped down XP that will return the top 5% benchmarks in all other games returns poor results due to the simple base fact the game is ported very badly.

 

My best run benchmark returned 68FPS, average 63, this translates to sh*t in-game performance, your low standards or absolute lack of, is no justification for this.

 

Then again your lazy witless response is typical of many of the automatons here, just happy to have the game run at 20fps, some of us however, have far higher standards.

Edited January 15, 2009 by LSD T

[nvr2fst]

Thales100 - And how do you explain the much higher GFX quality of the game when running on PC ? If it was the same game being emulated it should look very similar, at most.

 

 

Much higher?

You clearly have no standards.

 

The texture resolution increase is the most basic of things to implement, the optimisation, now that's wjhere the work is, however they have done nothing to suggest any work was put into that.

Of course we now have a supa-dupa video editor, an advertising device where we the mugs/customers create the ads on Rockstars behalf.

 

 

At best this game is badly ported, and there is nothing in the 'quality' of PC version that disproves the theory of it being emulated.

At worst it's a badly poorly constructed emulation, it's just that the game runs so badly when the machine is so powerful that people feel its emulated, anyone can see that.

 

Not exactly a dramatic leap in thought process from the sh*t game performance we have to the conclusion it may be a cheap emulation, it's certainly cheaply done whether port or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, unfortunately for me, I don't get a massive 40FPS like the others here who claim great performance in the strangely sparse benchmark... so I clearly don't know what it's like to have this smooth trouble free game running, I only get 62+FPS in benchmark, I probably need a better PC or need to work on my configuration skills of the OS et cetera

If you get 60+ in benchmark you should be playing it very well. You got some issues going on. You need to take a closer look at your system. Something is going on there.

[LSD T]

Nope the point is, the benchmark bears little relation to actual in-game performance.

Running a framerate monitor in the background will answer how precisely this game is running, nobody with a benchmark score sub 60fps will get above 30FPS at ALL times.

 

My performance on my various systems seems to be running impeccably with every other benchmark only GTAIV performs badly on all these test rigs, yet your conclusion is "poorly configured system".

 

To think, there is a belief that this forum is swamped under with witless shills...

[ExitiumMachina]

Let me get this straight, it is a bad port because it doesn't work on certain high end machines?  Well my machine is probably mid-range for the requirements being a Core2Duo at 2.2Ghz, rather good GPU with a 9800GT at 1Gb, and a massive harddrive which I may add is not clogged by useless crapware such as iTits or Limetire or other crap (aside from a massive library of music taken from CD's)...and this game runs pretty damn good! 

 

So in end, more than likely it is your machine and/or some crapware you have on your machine (this isn't always the case as the game could be crudely programmed for some PC's...but not all.).

Oh do f*ck off.

 

It has been more than proven that the zippiest streamlined stripped down XP that will return the top 5% benchmarks in all other games returns poor results due to the simple base fact the game is ported very badly.

 

My best run benchmark returned 68FPS, average 63, this translates to sh*t in-game performance, your low standards or absolute lack of, is no justification for this.

 

Then again your lazy witless response is typical of many of the automatons here, just happy to have the game run at 20fps, some of us however, have far higher standards.

My game runs at 37fps, and I did say some machines...funny how you can't seem to read much more than the first sentence of a complete paragraph. Most games are capped at 60fps, so I wouldn't be surprised if GTAIV is the same as the lot of them in that sense. That and 60fps isn't even terrible, as I said I get 37fps and the game performance is decent enough to play with...apparently not all of us are as spoiled like yourself and can't make monster machines and expect everything to run at bloody 100fps.

 

So what are your benchmarks for these "other" games? So far I see you get 60 some odd fps in GTA which translated to bloody f*cking better than mine yet I'm not the one complaining...be happy with what you have or be pissed at it, either or I am happy with the performance I get from the game.

[Frakkon]

 

Thales100 - And how do you explain the much higher GFX quality of the game when running on PC ? If it was the same game being emulated it should look very similar, at most.

 

 

Much higher?

You clearly have no standards.

 

The texture resolution increase is the most basic of things to implement, the optimisation, now that's wjhere the work is, however they have done nothing to suggest any work was put into that.

Of course we now have a supa-dupa video editor, an advertising device where we the mugs/customers create the ads on Rockstars behalf.

 

 

At best this game is badly ported, and there is nothing in the 'quality' of PC version that disproves the theory of it being emulated.

At worst it's a badly poorly constructed emulation, it's just that the game runs so badly when the machine is so powerful that people feel its emulated, anyone can see that.

 

Not exactly a dramatic leap in thought process from the sh*t game performance we have to the conclusion it may be a cheap emulation, it's certainly cheaply done whether port or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, unfortunately for me, I don't get a massive 40FPS like the others here who claim great performance in the strangely sparse benchmark... so I clearly don't know what it's like to have this smooth trouble free game running, I only get 62+FPS in benchmark, I probably need a better PC or need to work on my configuration skills of the OS et cetera

I second that. Just because the game have better textures, that dont make the ugly sh*t shadows and lack of AA much more good than the console.

 

Its true it have high textures and high res, but the game is sh*t aliased and shadows looks like cat vomit.

 

Note im getting 40+ fps, 1440x900, but even on higher res the shadows still look sh*t and flicker a lot. Its not that beauty as an nice shadow filter.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Frakkon

[Smiler-Online]

This games biggest problem seems to be loading the city...

 

whenever I look towards the city, the frame rate goes to single digits...

 

but when I drive to the edge of an island the frame rate goes to playable frame rates, (or even when I go far out to sea in a boat, the fps goes playable too)

 

 

 

 

So I think that R* Toronto need to improve the way that the game loads the islands *BIG TIME!!*

[Frakkon]

This games biggest problem seems to be loading the city...

 

whenever I look towards the city, the frame rate goes to single digits...

 

but when I drive to the edge of an island the frame rate goes to playable frame rates, (or even when I go far out to sea in a boat, the fps goes playable too)

 

 

 

 

So I think that R* Toronto need to improve the way that the game loads the islands *BIG TIME!!*

Duh that is because the game is rendering almost nothing!

[chngdman]

That's the most ridiculous bad port theory in all of the land. Give this man a badge.

Better yet, give the troll a cookie. Oh no, wait. What's that on the refrigerator door?

 

DO NOT FEED TROLL

 

Hmm. Okay.

This topic is an inaccurate trolling of a well made game.

[Goatman455]

I have said it before and I'll say it again, this is one of the worst ports I have ever seen coming off the heels of the best PC port of all time (San Andreas), no excuses Rockstar.