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

[ZaCkOX]

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

[chngdman]

Ok enough of the damn poker faces. I'm laying my winning hand out on the table.

 

You can delete my post, ban everyone that has complaints, and constantly lock the threads. But your damn a idiot believing all this sh*t will go away.

 

1.) Rockstar did this to themselves.

2.) No one is lying about their performance problems, bugs, other glitches, and etc. etc. etc.

3.) The game is a port and a very very very bad one at that.

4.) Don't believe all the code was changed for a PC, your an idiot otherwise.

5.) It seems I had to read a lot of non-sense and less experienced crap from these four -> CharmingCharlie, ExitiumMachina, TruXter, chngdman.

 

And they are pretty much the backbone to believing GTA 4 isn't f*cked up. But here's why I don't believe them.

 

1.) Some of the stuff posted IS NOT TRUE.

2.) You try to get me to read bullsh*t to say your smart, it doesn't work when I know it's a lie.

3.) They flat haven't got any idea how the game SHOULD BE WORKING.

4.) IT'S NOT f*ckEN FINE 100%, GREAT GAME IF IT REQUIRES TWEAKING WHICH YOU ALL DO, SO STFU AND STOP BEING STUPID.

 

I'm sorry for being an asshole, but someone has to tell them the truth.

 

You can try everything above, and even flood the forums with more unbelievable crap but 1 thing for you.

 

YOU WILL NOT INCREASE ANY POSITIVE FEELINGS FOR ME ABOUT THIS GAME. Everyone that knows it's f*cked knows it is. You might be able to convince some idiots. But you will not get the rest of us with any positive feelings. So continue with your research and post it here. I love to see the responses.

 

batta BAM.... poor bastards.

Well then kindly piss off and get the f*ck out if that's really truly honestly how you feel about it then? I mean, I'd much rather see you find whatever is wrong with yours then help others, because, you are *gasp* incorrect, but you are talking some mighty big funk there.

 

You really are, and I won't waste my breath trying to convince you of that.

 

Anyone who actually feeds into you has the option to click on any of our four names and read every post we've ever made and read yours and make their own decision on who they listen to - if they listen to anyone at all - free will, man. And the beauty is it's kinda like Jesus - he doesn't give a f*ck if you listen or not. lol. He's having a good time regardless of if you are saved or not. I'm not religious, but you can surely see the point?

 

Talk your sh*t - you lost a whole lot of respect with this post, at least in my eyes, and if you really knew me (can't speak for the others), you'd be asking me more questions than you are currently are accusing of my answers to them being lies.

 

It's pretty out of line for you to talk this or that, I understand you may be mad, move on then, go buy EA games. Whatever. One face. I'm sure Rockstar will miss you?

[mkey82]

 

1: Your resolution settings are pathetic. When you are playing at intended resolutions, with intended DOF, the shadows are the best I have ever seen real-time in my ENTIRE life :

So, what is the res where those shadows don't make me puke? I'm on 1680x1050 and they are killing me. Also, DOF is bullsh*t. I would rather suck donkey balls then have that ugly blur turned on.

 

 

How about real vector and sh*t? Can we get vestor? You would never even want to antialias a vector image - they are not pixels... (SO there AA whiners)

Aahh, now I see. So GTA IV uses all this new texh and we will just have to wait for the new technology to come out? why didn't the system reqs state so? Why didn't they say "You can't play this game right now because the required hardware is not out yet".

 

Also ,you're buying in into that "future PSs talk" a bit too much, pal. Toronto guy himself said on the forums that the only thing they referenced with that pathetic statement was - VIDEO RAM. Nothing more. In the future GPUs (which you deem worthless) will have more vram and as such GTA IV will be able to run "better" if that is at all possible. Bad technology knows no time (look for Boiling Point for an example).

 

 

We're going back to Software rendering sooner than later, and I think IV is built to last through that, even if the modules would need to be rebuilt and patched or something.

Sure. I believe in fairies and Peter Pan. In fact, I'm meeting him for a pint of lager after work.

 

It makes sense why a lot of things are done in 'proprietary' ways for this game. However, NOW you see why Rockstar can do a game that you cannot do on a 360 (PS3 exclusive). And if you still don't see, read on:

 

 

We're a little behind, but why do you think PS3 used the cell and a weak 7900?

To cut the production costs?

 

 

Cell is going to be the reason why PS3 outlasts the next xbox.

Sure.

 

 

And this is exactly why xbox only has 10mb video memory as well... Well, there are a lot of things to point out about the return to software rendering,

X360 has inbuilt 2xAA. With all that future tech why the f*ck does it need AA?

 

 

the 'Sleeping Giant/Waiting Dragon' strategy of Sony PS3 team, and why Japan has the last laugh.

If they will laugh as I'm laughing now, I hope they will have a spare set of underwear at hand.

 

 

It's a new way of programming an old way of doing things, one that Sony jumped on too fast by our eyes, but will work out just fine as it was "the plan" ever since GPU started extorting game developers. f*ck GPU.

Well... Sony really caught me by surprise. Bravo.

 

 

What you all who say this fail to realize is that .net is a runtime.

Are you sure the actual game uses .net framework? I think it's only there for RGSC and/or Xlive. Nothing more.

 

 

And, Note to yourself, that cmd window (it hasn't been dos for nigh on 10 years...) is not an emulator, it is a copy protection guardian application provided by Sony.

Finally something I agree 100% with. It boggled me until I used a third party loader and then it finally hit me. I know, I'm slow sometimes.

 

Also, all of you attacking the OT, I think you are very stupid and/or have no sense of humor. It's obvious the guy was only joking and now he's having a laugh on your account.

[pinky]

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

[chngdman]

@mkey:Did you even read the interview? You don't know sh*t. It was all software up through until the first GPUs because of limitations on processors. GPUs need AA because they work specifically with pixels. If you do vectors, something you could not do on any graphically stunning level and still can't yet, you don't even need any damn anti aliasing. Vectors don't alias. (and DO NOT neglect that hints of going back toward Vector have been in GTA III artwork and drooled for in VC posters since day one - vector, not cartoons. Please look up vector and why MANY of us have been waiting AGES for fast processors for realtime vector to be more than just Astroids)

 

Mkey - I'm going to tell you point blank - your post against my post is uneducated and you definitely have not been gaming since before GPU came and f*cked up the industry. The things they improve do not outweigh the extortion of the companies and the laziness of technology which could be faster and more affordable if money went into beefing the processors years ago instead of tacking on another component that - yes - will be useless soon enough besides for legacy or hobbyist use.

 

And I'm not even saying I'm 100 percent accurate on every thing that comes out of my mouth - and I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong as well - but I operate in giving people the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - something you and many other trolls (in regards to this subject, its trolling, its nothing against you or them, its just best word for the constant negativity against a very well made game) have no concept of, because they did it "on purpose" and "thats that"...

 

Plus, @Zack, didn't you defend LAPTOPS for gaming? WTF! Dude, you helped defend a DELL laptop when dell makes a whole different BRAND for people who want games (alienware) and even those are NEVER guaranteed to work for ANYTHING that isn't out the day the SKU is released for sale.

 

I will never argue the validity of laptops for gaming in most situations, but I will also never be shocked or surprised that a game doesn't work on one either... You install a game on a laptop with expectations of problems, that's a fact of life... Not expecting problems is pretty silly and inexperienced, to say the least, buying a DELL to game on is quite uneducated...

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[mkey82]

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

I don't agree. There are to many people with machines that would kill GTA SA whom can't run GTA properly.

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up. Also, I get my setting playable one day and it runs OK. Then the next day it start to lag and jitter like mad. Guess what happens the day after? It's back to "normal" and again playable. WTF is with that?

[chngdman]

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up.

HAHAHAHAH NOW you are f*cking making it EASY for them to decide who is warranted for discussion and who is not!!!!

 

SCALED DOWN? YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE RES TO SCALE AT ALL! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!

 

AND ALL OF YOUR GFX SETTINGS SHOULD BE SET DIFFERENT ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE GAME!!!!!!

 

 

haha this motherf*cker is trying to put view on 100 at 1680 and 1280 LOLOLOL

 

 

 

/end maniacal loss of composure in laughter - you should drop your hostilities and open your ears

 

With the exception of the shadows, this game is not made to ommit or include features - it is made to scale well - and it does, but you are expecting miracles or something more than what is implied by that...

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[ZaCkOX]

 

2: We will not even be using GPUs for as long as you think and they were a temporary solution to a problem that CPUs are finally [close to being] able to surpass. GPUs, if anything, have completely held graphics back.

 

Let me help you C. Do you know why there is a GPU? Do you know they once tried to get rid of it? Did you also know that holding the cpu back is a absolute WRONG statement. Yes I can read between the thin-lines. All you do is read and print. Come on man if I did that I wouldn't have nearly as much experience as I do now.

 

If anything reading that line shows you don't have as much experience as you claim.

[mkey82]

 

@mkey:Did you even read the interview? You don't know sh*t. It was all software up through until the first GPUs because of limitations on processors. GPUs need AA because they work specifically with pixels. If you do vectors, something you could not do on any graphically stunning level and still can't yet, you don't even need any damn anti aliasing. Vectors don't alias.

Did I contest any of that stuff? Have you even read what I wrote?

 

I merely said that current consoles still use the technology you crapped all over. That's all. I too believe GPU's will be phased out as processors get more powerful (i.e. as they breed more and more cores) but how the f*ck does that rely on current consoles and more specifically GTA IV?

 

 

and DO NOT neglect that hints of going back toward Vector have been in since the GTA III artwork days and still exist

OMG, you really believe this crap? R* is a pathetic game developing company, nothing more, nothing less. Only tech they know is usually outdated and is the one that brings them the MONEY.

 

 

Mkey - I'm going to tell you point blank - your post against my post is uneducated and you definitely have not been gaming since before GPU came and f*cked up the industry. The things they improve do not outweigh the extortion of the companies and the laziness of technology which could be faster and more affordable if money went into beefing the processors years ago instead of tacking on another component that - yes - will be useless soon enough besides for legacy or hobbyist use.

Ok, you really need to go back and read what I wrote. And nope, I wasn't gaming back then on PC's, my first PC had a GPU, so what?

 

 

And I'm not even saying I'm 100 percent accurate on every thing that comes out of my mouth - and I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong as well - but I operate in giving people the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - something you and many other trolls (in regards to this subject, its trolling, its nothing against you or them, its just best word for the constant negativity against a very well made game) have no concept of, because they did it "on purpose" and "thats that"...

"Well made game"? And I'M a troll? I'm trying to find an alternative to blasphemy, but I can't so I'll just move on.

[pinky]

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

I don't agree. There are to many people with machines that would kill GTA SA whom can't run GTA properly.

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up. Also, I get my setting playable one day and it runs OK. Then the next day it start to lag and jitter like mad. Guess what happens the day after? It's back to "normal" and again playable. WTF is with that?

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

Adjusting draw settings and texture quality does change the performance.

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

[chngdman]

 

2: We will not even be using GPUs for as long as you think and they were a temporary solution to a problem that CPUs are finally [close to being] able to surpass. GPUs, if anything, have completely held graphics back.

 

Let me help you C. Do you know why there is a GPU? Do you know they once tried to get rid of it? Did you also know that holding the cpu back is a absolute WRONG statement. Yes I can read between the thin-lines. All you do is read and print. Come on man if I did that I wouldn't have nearly as much experience as I do now.

 

If anything reading that line shows you don't have as much experience as you claim.

Should I make it clearer? It'll be more like:

 

Needed GPU to take on the things that CPU couldn't do so well real time in the past ---> GPU has gotten faster and faster and money thrown at it while it held back GRAPHICS as a whole (read: Options in how you do your games) instead of throwing money at the CPU --> AMD buys ATI and kicks Intel into competition mode when they start plans for powerhouse CPUs ---> Intel, as always, waits and milks your money, but crushes AMD and the race is on ---> No longer is the battle for the fastest GPU, with ATI dominating the AGP market as Nvidia doesnt even make those anymore (even though mine's just as fast as your under-used PCIe slot), no no, friend, right now it is about the CPU ---> Moore's Law ---> GPU and CPU will amalgamate, but it won't have it's own ram anymore, and will use system, and... read up for the rest, I've already said where it's going.

 

 

I merely said that current consoles still use the technology you crapped all over. That's all. I too believe GPU's will be phased out as processors get more powerful (i.e. as they breed more and more cores) but how the f*ck does that rely on current consoles and more specifically GTA IV?

 

I also noted that they use those *weak versions* (like ps3's 7900, and the xbox's 2900 descendant...) to help bridge the gap and when xbox720 is out with a quad or i7 (most likely i7) the PS3 will last a little into it's life before sony needs to move forward... But that's another topic etc, not for this thread, as I also noted. And I know, for a fact, and apologize, that a lot of things you read me saying you literally Heard it Here First, but I can't help it. Blame God. or NDA's lol.

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[mkey82]

 

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

I don't agree. There are to many people with machines that would kill GTA SA whom can't run GTA properly.

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up. Also, I get my setting playable one day and it runs OK. Then the next day it start to lag and jitter like mad. Guess what happens the day after? It's back to "normal" and again playable. WTF is with that?

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

Adjusting draw settings and texture quality does change the performance.

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

Look man, I really respect you work and opinion, but you are full of sh*t.

 

C2Q9300 2.5 GHz (not one core EVER gets to 100%, no matter what settings)

4870 512 MB

4 GB RAM

Vista Ultimate SP1 32 bit / XP SP3 32 bit / Windows 7 64 bit (7000 build)

 

I can change my settings all I want, but overall performance is affected by +/- 5 FPS (depending on how many test I run). The only thing that changes is pop-up. If I set high textures, my card VRAM can't handle it, but I get more stable performance.

 

Also, did you just call me the single individual who has problems scaling the setting for this game? Are you insane?

Edited January 16, 2009 by mkey82

[ZaCkOX]

 

Plus, @Zack, didn't you defend LAPTOPS for gaming? WTF! Dude, you helped defend a DELL laptop when dell makes a whole different BRAND for people who want games (alienware) and even those are NEVER guaranteed to work for ANYTHING that isn't out the day the SKU is released for sale.

Hmm if you want to believe I defended him like that sure. But I guess you didn't read the posts very well.

 

All I said was that a lot of games work for laptops and if they made GTA 4 right, it may have worked for it as well. But sure if I am defending I guess I am making the right statement? Sounds good to me.

 

Oh and yea, if your so experienced start up programming and make something. Then once you give it to me I'll crack it for you and add some code along with it to be more efficient.

 

 

Pull some more articles out, show us all the timings, I love to see that sh*t all over again.

 

 

You still want me to believe I should borrow your computer so I can play the game?

 

Oh help me chngdman, I don't know how to fix my computer or increase the performance.

 

I bet you look like this right now...

 

Ya I would be that way too... IF I WAS YOU!!!

[ZaCkOX]

 

2: We will not even be using GPUs for as long as you think and they were a temporary solution to a problem that CPUs are finally [close to being] able to surpass. GPUs, if anything, have completely held graphics back.

 

Let me help you C. Do you know why there is a GPU? Do you know they once tried to get rid of it? Did you also know that holding the cpu back is a absolute WRONG statement. Yes I can read between the thin-lines. All you do is read and print. Come on man if I did that I wouldn't have nearly as much experience as I do now.

 

If anything reading that line shows you don't have as much experience as you claim.

Should I make it clearer? It'll be more like:

 

Needed GPU to take on the things that CPU couldn't do so well real time in the past ---> GPU has gotten faster and faster and money thrown at it while it held back GRAPHICS as a whole (read: Options in how you do your games) instead of throwing money at the CPU --> AMD buys ATI and kicks Intel into competition mode when they start plans for powerhouse CPUs ---> Intel, as always, waits and milks your money, but crushes AMD and the race is on ---> No longer is the battle for the fastest GPU, with ATI dominating the AGP market as Nvidia doesnt even make those anymore (even though mine's just as fast as your under-used PCIe slot), no no, friend, right now it is about the CPU ---> Moore's Law ---> GPU and CPU will amalgamate, but it won't have it's own ram anymore, and will use system, and... read up for the rest, I've already said where it's going.

 

 

I merely said that current consoles still use the technology you crapped all over. That's all. I too believe GPU's will be phased out as processors get more powerful (i.e. as they breed more and more cores) but how the f*ck does that rely on current consoles and more specifically GTA IV?

 

I also noted that they use those *weak versions* (like ps3's 7900, and the xbox's 2900 descendant...) to help bridge the gap and when xbox720 is out with a quad or i7 (most likely i7) the PS3 will last a little into it's life before sony needs to move forward... But that's another topic etc, not for this thread, as I also noted. And I know, for a fact, and apologize, that a lot of things you read me saying you literally Heard it Here First, but I can't help it. Blame God. or NDA's lol.

Thanks, nice post for nothing. You still didn't answer my question correctly... if you knew the answer.

 

Must be you <--- You.

 

The gpu increased the rapid growth of the cpu. Let's say it didn't. And that it held back the cpu. Now who do I sound like? Hmm let's review:

 

This picture? Who is it?

 

Ok if you reply, it is you!

 

And yes I would "read" up the rest, IF I WAS YOU. READ READ READ. Doesn't really improve your experience. Get a little hands-on training there kid.

[chngdman]

 

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

I don't agree. There are to many people with machines that would kill GTA SA whom can't run GTA properly.

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up. Also, I get my setting playable one day and it runs OK. Then the next day it start to lag and jitter like mad. Guess what happens the day after? It's back to "normal" and again playable. WTF is with that?

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

Adjusting draw settings and texture quality does change the performance.

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

Look man, I really respect you work and opinion, but you are full of sh*t.

 

C2Q9300 2.5 GHz (not one core EVER gets to 100%, no matter what settings)

4870 512 MB

4 GB RAM

Vista Ultimate SP1 32 bit / XP SP3 32 bit / Windows 7 64 bit (7000 build)

 

I can change my settings all I want, but overall performance is affected by +/- 5 FPS (depending on how many test I run). The only thing that changes is pop-up. If I set high textures, my card VRAM can't handle it, but I get more stable performance.

 

Also, did you just call me the single individual who has problems scaling the setting for this game? Are you insane?

In your last post before this, you justified the last flaw in your argument with 'when CPUs breed more cores'. But that is not even a big deal now, it's only front side bus and heat in those terms. It's like - remove any thought in your head at all that I am arguing with you. Just remove those thoughts of argument.

 

Because I'm not arguing with you, no argument you can pose is going to sway what I'll gladly elaborate on as long as I receive questions. If I am saying something in a way that sounds fishy to you, or that you do not understand, or that contradicts something you believe (rather than something you know), please, by all means, ask for more information.

 

At the same time, just stop trying to say the opposite of me every time you reply to my sharing on this I guess? It's a bit confusing, but not like it's anything new... It's just one of those things the "internet is good for" maybe? I know that some of the things I say may sound a bit alien or hard to swallow, or maybe I even rush sometimes (believe me, it is nothing new for people to tell me I skipped details or jumped to far ahead in the story, so I sympathize that I might need to clear sh*t up, feel free and if it isn't on the first page of google when I type it in, I'll answer it. If it is, I'll probably link you to a wiki page

 

And also I have heavily admitted and retracted a few things in my theories about FSB/DRAM frequency "cure all" as well. I'm humble enough, I just ask that you give the benefit of the doubt when you think someone is "wrong", and on the same token, I as well as anyone can always try to remember is that it's easier for text to work you up because you can't hear the friendly and reassuring tone in my voice

 

And for what it is worth, your settings+reliable/steady performance is to be expected on your rig, but there are people who can not turn it up, and only get what you get on lower settings. Please tell me how it works out with -framelimit 0 and -novblank? Maybe you will begin to see differences then (and it would not be fair to even mention my tests were before I even knew of the frame limiter in this one, hence my steady 30fps (33.something in that bench lol)

 

 

The gpu increased the rapid growth of the cpu

 

No, the GPU company ATI was bought by AMD and things started getting under control again and now more attention has been put back where it should have been in the first place - the CPU. We'd have games like IV a good three or four years ago if the GPU never came, we just wouldn't have had GTA 1 until like 2000 In other words, GPU was a shortcut to a place we would have been WAY better off just taking the slow road to...

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[pinky]

You can't expect the same computer that played San Andreas on medium to play IV on medium.

Who said we should?

Exactly, it's stupid to say such a thing. All these people think I am stupid, but their own posts show they are lol.

Why is it a stupid thing to say, I bet most of the people with problems expected just that.

I don't agree. There are to many people with machines that would kill GTA SA whom can't run GTA properly.

 

You all seem to forget one little fact - this game can not be effectively scaled down. It has the same performance on all settings (at leas for me). The only thing I haven't changed is my res and they only difference I noticed between various settings is the pop-up. Also, I get my setting playable one day and it runs OK. Then the next day it start to lag and jitter like mad. Guess what happens the day after? It's back to "normal" and again playable. WTF is with that?

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

Adjusting draw settings and texture quality does change the performance.

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

Look man, I really respect you work and opinion, but you are full of sh*t.

 

C2Q9300 2.5 GHz (not one core EVER gets to 100%, no matter what settings)

4870 512 MB

4 GB RAM

Vista Ultimate SP1 32 bit / XP SP3 32 bit / Windows 7 64 bit (7000 build)

 

I can change my settings all I want, but overall performance is affected by +/- 5 FPS (depending on how many test I run). The only thing that changes is pop-up. If I set high textures, my card VRAM can't handle it, but I get more stable performance.

 

Also, did you just call me the single individual who has problems scaling the setting for this game? Are you insane?

I am getting sick of explaining this simple maths but here goes.

My CPU only uses around 70 to 75 percent also.

But it stays the same whether it is at 3.0 GHz or 4.2GHz. So tell me what is faster, 70% of 3.0 or 70% of 4.2 ?

The game must have a CPU percentage limit to improve stability, if you could say that about the game.

 

And no, I did not say you were the single person who has scaling problems. But did you just say I was the only person who doesn't?

Can you can see where this sh*t is going yet?

Everyone is having different results with IV and you can't just keep calling bullsh*t on others because it is different for you.

[thales100]

The game must have a CPU percentage limit to improve stability

Interesting point.

[Kurgen]

you can't just keep calling bullsh*t on others because it is different for you.

Any chance you could relay that wisdom to chngdman and the rest of the "I don't have any problems, therefore your PC sucks" squad?

 

 

[chngdman]

Basically, Zack, the GPU and more importantly the Games drove the huge money needed to be able to do what we will with CPUs very very soon. A GPU, no one will argue (maybe some will ), is simply a glorified CPU, and some say it's a mobo all it's own (indeed, as time moves on... anyway...) the point is that the games industry, just like it helps to create huge funds (sony games is all really for military technology funds and studies etc, what do you think the zombie disease is for?) man, im saying way too much here to remain on topic. But yea, the GPU has held us back, but not more than money would have without it........... it would be a sad world if we didn't have choice of fun for our money instead of huge technology and information taxes... but we'd probably have a stronger economy (worldwide) with a better lack of laziness the only thing needed to consider... Either way, I'm glad it's a gamer nation in 2000's and not a militant one... (and that is arguable too, eh? true that!)

 

 

Any chance you could relay that wisdom to chngdman and the rest of the "I don't have any problems, therefore your PC sucks" squad?

 

It's really not even like that... it's very interesting and exciting to see this happening... if you think this is bad, this is only the first in what is to come to the PC world over the next few years.... Unless such a large title was chosen to do this with to gain more information that will make it much easier than it will be without what we can learn with IV....

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[LSD T]

Ok enough of the damn poker faces. I'm laying my winning hand out on the table.

 

 

Well then kindly piss off and get the f*ck out if that's really truly honestly how you feel about it then? I mean, I'd much rather see you find whatever is wrong with yours then help others, because, you are *gasp* incorrect, but you are talking some mighty big funk there.

 

You really are, and I won't waste my breath trying to convince you of that.

 

Anyone who actually feeds into you has the option to click on any of our four names and read every post we've ever made and read yours and make their own decision on who they listen to - if they listen to anyone at all - free will, man. And the beauty is it's kinda like Jesus - he doesn't give a f*ck if you listen or not. lol. He's having a good time regardless of if you are saved or not. I'm not religious, but you can surely see the point?

 

Talk your sh*t - you lost a whole lot of respect with this post, at least in my eyes, and if you really knew me (can't speak for the others), you'd be asking me more questions than you are currently are accusing of my answers to them being lies.

 

It's pretty out of line for you to talk this or that, I understand you may be mad, move on then, go buy EA games. Whatever. One face. I'm sure Rockstar will miss you?

In all honesty, you are the last person to direct such insults to anyone else here, your prose is of an agressive stance but when challenged you wilt like the insignificant shill you are.

 

Tell us about your insane made-up-on-the-spot theories on anti-aliasing again...

Tell us about your monolithic performance without a single stutter with your 37FPS benchmark scoring system...

Tell us about your supreme IQ... sorry gotta compose myself at that last one... Jesus wept!

Tell us about the respect you engender among your common man, Truxter being a supporter of you is merely confirmation of your utter witlessness and not supporting evidence of your ill-perceived mantle of resident genius.

 

In all honesty, the fact you are allowed to post here with your absolute bullsh*t, deviating from the matter in hand at will, repeating like some strange voodoo mantra your specious dishonest appraisals does not make you admired but despised from the general gauge of the posters responses here.

 

Perhaps you oh sniveling lickspittle, perhaps it is you that should be cast out for the ugly troll you are.

 

Go on one last chance for redemption, explain away your thoughts on anti-aliasing once more for comedy value alone, it just makes you slightly less hateful when we laugh at you.

 

You have been proven to be at best a delusional insecure moron, at worst a devious dishonest little sh*t of a troll.

I'm plumping for the latter.

 

Of course this appalling port should be criticised, as often and as loudly as possible, with shills like you here trying to convince us that the Emperor's clothes are of the finest silk, we are needed to redress balance with the lying bullsh*t you peddle, seriously, you damage the reputation more than the awful 'efforts' of Rockstar Toronto .

 

 

To qualify, those shadows you speak of why is it at 1920x1200 they look actually worse then ingame shadows of circa 1995 at 800x600?

The jaggies (reference to anti-aliasing, look it up) at 1920x1200 in GTAIV look worse than doom at 1024x768 on all monitors from CRT, LCD to plasma.

The game benchmarking at 60 FPS will always return sub 30FPS performance ingame, yet you get, with sh*t settings too I'll add, 37 FPS in benchmark and yet you claim perfect unsullied performance ingame.

The list is endless you are one of a number of devious little turds here that are hell bent on distorting reality, yet the facts remain, you are an insignificant troll whose lies are undone by the fact we all can see for ourself.

 

I tried to enter debate with you before, you chose to deviate and and lie you way around it, I simply haven't the desire to waste any more time with you, your bullsh*t is available from the search function for anyone else to disseminate and form the same conclusions as any intelligent lifeform will deduce.

 

 

You issues are so great that would take a time machine and pliers to your mothers' womb to correct.

 

I just felt it only fair to point out and offer some recourse to your systematic dishonest flag-waving for your employers...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you could always go running to daddy and reporting me again...

[mkey82]

And I know, for a fact, and apologize, that a lot of things you read me saying you literally Heard it Here First, but I can't help it. Blame God. or NDA's lol.

Dear lord, you are one sorry little stuck up git.

 

Sorry for your loss...

[chngdman]

 

blah blah blah

I might as well tell you the same thing, Because I'm not arguing with you, no argument you can pose is going to sway what I'll gladly elaborate on as long as I receive questions. If I am saying something in a way that sounds fishy to you, or that you do not understand, or that contradicts something you believe (rather than something you know), please, by all means, ask for more information.

 

At the same time, just stop trying to say the opposite of me every time you reply to my sharing on this I guess? It's a bit confusing, but not like it's anything new... It's just one of those things the "internet is good for" maybe? I know that some of the things I say may sound a bit alien or hard to swallow, or maybe I even rush sometimes (believe me, it is nothing new for people to tell me I skipped details or jumped to far ahead in the story, so I sympathize that I might need to clear sh*t up, feel free and if it isn't on the first page of google when I type it in, I'll answer it. If it is, I'll probably link you to a wiki page ph34r.gif

 

And also I have heavily admitted and retracted a few things in my theories about FSB/DRAM frequency "cure all" as well. I'm humble enough, I just ask that you give the benefit of the doubt when you think someone is "wrong", and on the same token, I as well as anyone can always try to remember is that it's easier for text to work you up because you can't hear the friendly and reassuring tone in my voice wink.gif

 

 

Or you could always go running to daddy and reporting me again...

 

That is interesting though. Because the only report I have made at all on this forum were both made public in the network support section they have here and were death threats and apparently many people got them and they were from GTA Detractors (read: jack thompson's peeps or some sh*t), so iF it was you, that definitely sums up your position in this discussion!

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[Jc84144]

 

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.

Yes, because they started with nothing. They had to make all the art, all the audio, write the story AND program it.

 

All Rockstar Toronto had to do was program it. Using the same art, audio, story, controls, engine etc. that was already made.

[chngdman]

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.

Yes, because they started with nothing. They had to make all the art, all the audio, write the story AND program it.

 

All Rockstar Toronto had to do was program it. Using the same art, audio, story, controls, engine etc. that was already made.

IV was in development since 2003 to some extent or another and that was before anyone even knew what the consoles were going to end up being. The game has a PC folder, and a common folder.

 

There are parts of the game that were easily portable console to console to PC, those are the Common data files. The PC folder is comprised of things that had to be done specific to this platform, and there's probably more goodies in there than the PS3 and 360 folders... But someone would have to check I suppose...

[mkey82]

 

And I know, for a fact, and apologize, that a lot of things you read me saying you literally Heard it Here First, but I can't help it. Blame God. or NDA's lol.

Dear lord, you are one sorry little stuck up git.

 

Sorry for your loss...

OK, firstly I have to quote myself. You are one sorry little bastard. You offer yourself as a source of knowledge?

 

BWAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

 

 

I tried to enter debate with you before, you chose to deviate and and lie you way around it, I simply haven't the desire to waste any more time with you, your bullsh*t is available from the search function for anyone else to disseminate and form the same conclusions as any intelligent lifeform will deduce.

This one made me chuckle. Well done.

 

 

The game must have a CPU percentage limit to improve stability, if you could say that about the game.

I could bet my ass there is some other reason.

 

 

And no, I did not say you were the single person who has scaling problems. But did you just say I was the only person who doesn't?

You did say this?

 

 

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

You see how you emphasized that "YOU" bit?

 

 

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

You can do it? Are you one single person or a hive?

 

 

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

I'm not assuming anything, are you blind, forums are full of people complaining. Would they complain that much if they could scale the game down? I'm guessing not.

[pinky]

Still didn't answer me about the CPU speeds yet, why quote sh*t you already quoted earlier?

 

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Jan 16 2009, 11:41)

And no, I did not say you were the single person who has scaling problems. But did you just say I was the only person who doesn't?

 

You did say this?

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Jan 16 2009, 11:19)

It maybe doesn't scale down for you because it is already way past your machines performance and therefore is struggling at all settings so going higher wont be much different to you on lower settings.

 

You see how you emphasized that "YOU" bit?

The you was emphasized because the post was quoting you and aimed at you. It wasn't however saying that it only happens to you, you were reading between the lines to make an assumption that I thought only you have the problems. Can you read minds from anywhere in the world, if so you could have forewarned us about the problems with IV?

 

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Jan 16 2009, 11:19)

Thats BS, I can scale it down and get 70+FPS benchmarks.

 

You can do it? Are you one single person or a hive?

And there you go again, doing the exact same to me as you have accused me of doing. So I am again the only person not having problems?

 

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Jan 16 2009, 11:19)

You can't assume what happens for yourself is gospel for everyone else, like I can accept that I can play it but others cannot.

 

I'm not assuming anything, are you blind, forums are full of people complaining. Would they complain that much if they could scale the game down? I'm guessing not.

Are you blind, the forums are full of people not having problems either? Should I have emphasised the word everyone more perhaps, because that does mean everyone who plays the game?

 

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Jan 16 2009, 11:41)

The game must have a CPU percentage limit to improve stability, if you could say that about the game.

 

I could bet my ass there is some other reason.

Probably is another reason but it doesn't alter the fact that 70% of 4.2GHz is faster than 70% of 3.0GHz.

 

Now lets not turn this into a personal flame war as that was not my intention, I am merely trying to point out the hypocrisy on both sides of the argument as both the lovers and haters seem to be suffering from tunnel vision and refuse to take in what the other side says.

I am just sick to f*cking death of reading topics about IV haters vs lovers trying to force their views on the other side.

 

I want to actually come in the PC forum and read about something other than this sh*t for a change, it really is getting f*cking old.

We know the game has problems, Rockstar know the game has problems, the whole world surely now knows the game has it's problems. So lets stop flogging the horse that is not just dead but almost completely decomposed and move on.

Edited January 16, 2009 by pinky

[mkey82]

OK...

 

I understand there are loads of people that have problems with this game, some of them do know what they are doing, so it's not down to them or hardware/software setup, some of them don't know jack sh*t and they expect to be running GTA IV on ancient machines.

 

I also understand there are loads of people that can run the game "just fine". What does this "just fine" mean, when you think about it? Low med settings @ 20 FPS? I'm not saying anything against that, I played an loved SA for the first time on 1024x768, everything on low with some 20ish FPS. All I'm saying is we should gain better perspective through objective thought and facts. And the fact is that built in benchmark isn't doing it's job well (will you agree on this point?) and people should use some third party benchmark tool.

 

All in all, I know for a FACT there are many *educated* people having issues. Now, when you point your finger at me and say"YOU" it makes me a bit cranky because it seems to me as you want to make it about me. Like if I was some stupid kid who based all of his opinions on his own personal experience. Like if the world revolved around me. It doesn't. I'm not that person and I'm not doing that. You also tried to make it about my supposedly slow and weak machine, which in fact it isn't. Even if the CPU load scaling theory is correct (oh god), are the minimum settings in GTA IV too much for my machine to handle? Shouldn't I be getting better performance on minimum no matter what (as opposing some low med settings, if my machine is really to weak to handle medium)? Come on!

 

What I'm really sick of is people who have everything running well (be it luck or a lot of brute force hidden inside their machines) telling me that GTA IV doesn't run well because I don't know what I'm doing or my machine is weak. I don't know a lot, but I have successfully played and tweaked various games up to new. It doesn't take a genius (like chngdman over there) to do so. Also, my PC should not be considered as weak. I.e. if I could pull 30 min FPS with average of about 35 without jitter, lag and stutter on 1680x1050 with med textures and 20ish draw distance I would be happy and would definitively whine a lot less about it. But I can't and it's not my fault. Well OK, I DID buy the game so I guess if anyone is to blame it's me as nobody forced my hand.

[chngdman]

Reporting in for all: So far, on the first run in vista, it runs like ass on my system. That should make a few people happy

 

XP SP3 it was awesome, this literally plays like ass in vista.

 

Anyone who is serious about enjoying this game on vista and is not already enjoying it on said vista, you can't. lol.

 

I'm off to see if i can make it work better, i'll share my findings, anyone who can speed me up tell me what you know, save me some time. If I can't do it then I guess I can't, then for people with similar specs to me I say xp is your only choice

 

It really is running like sh*t. 1 - 10 FPS VS the 30 steady I get outside without any commandlines or anything liek that in XP (means I might get more in XP if I try -framelimit 0...).

 

I also had the "command line, then disapears", ok, installed dependancies. then I had the "command window, then stays, but nothing happens." I troubleshot(?) that for a few minutes and then said f*ck it, launch it and leave it be. Left it be and it stole the screen, loaded relatively fast, but is offline because secureom wouldn't activate online (wtf? I have the steam version!) which I found out as I removed securerom and re-activated, this time offline since it wouldnt go online, which actually got my command window to hang until it finally loaded.

 

No problems in XP, and now I've had a ball of sh*t on vista. Needless to say, I'm treating this as a test install so if there is anything anyone on vista was scared to try, now is your chance, because I won't be using it long...

Edited January 16, 2009 by chngdman

[noVa]

 

The PC version of Bully: Scholarship Edition was heavily criticized by many, being found by end users to contain problems including textures which were either disappearing or were slow to load, memory leaks, and an endless loop after the initial cut scene in which player speaks with the headmaster[49]. Bully also reportedly suffers from the same Field of view issues which were seen in another PC title, Bioshock, which was developed by 2K Games - a subsidiary of Rockstar parent company, Take Two Interactive. As a result, people on Steam's forums have been critical of Rockstar. People were also critical of the Vertical synchronization feature in the title as Bully runs at 30 frames per second, causing some parts of the game to be problematically too slow or too fast. It is also reportedly subject to frequent crashes in addition to mouse drift. To date, there is no patch available, although there is a workaround to the endless loop and disappearing graphics bugs using msconfig to set the total available system ram to 2048mb or under, although the game will still be prone to crashing and framerate/performance issues will still remain on some Vista 32-bit users.

 

completely different engine (Gamebryo) but some of the ailements sound rather familiar!

[ExitiumMachina]

I'm not going to defend myself as I see no need for it. All I can say is hopefully one of you listen and lower your bloody resolution down, this has a nice jump performance wise...if not, well, continue to bitch and moan about a game that seems to work otherwise fine when you don't expect your PC to be able to run it like a dream at some high ass resolution.