Anti Aliasing....

[CharmingCharlie]

tell me which bit of "yes there is a difference but NOT ENOUGH in my view to warrant the use of AA". I mean at least do the decency of reading people's posts. If I can play a game maxxed out at the highest resolution I can and get 60fps continuously THEN I might think "hm might be nice to have a bit of AA" but as it stands we can't do that, hell you can't even do it on Crysis.

 

So to say for the 2,000th time, yes there is a difference but in MY VIEW not enough to warrant the frame rate hit. I would much rather use the power for improved FPS, higher resolutions or pushing the settings up a notch. If GTA 4 had AA right now I wouldn't use it because I would rather have better frame rates.

[JohnZS]

Perceptual difference of FSAA does depend a lot on the game, and the resolution you game at.

For example, I do not really notice FSAA on Crysis as @ High Details the game engine uses some sort of FSAA for the vegetation (similar to transparency FSAA), this is @ 1920*1200 resolution, now if I lower to 1680*1050 then I NOTICE the jagglies and FSAA becomes important.

 

Having said all of that Half-Life 2 loves FSAA 8xCSAA @ 1920*1200 with Transparency FSAA turned on looks lovely.

 

The problem with GTA IV is that there are a lot of complex bridges and fences and lamp posts etc which are literally screaming out for FSAA. The very least Rockstar could do is provide us with an adjustable level of Definition or improve their texture filtering/edge detection with the current blur filter.

 

John

[ikt]

tell me which bit of "yes there is a difference but NOT ENOUGH in my view to warrant the use of AA". I mean at least do the decency of reading people's posts. If I can play a game maxxed out at the highest resolution I can and get 60fps continuously THEN I might think "hm might be nice to have a bit of AA" but as it stands we can't do that, hell you can't even do it on Crysis.

 

So to say for the 2,000th time, yes there is a difference but in MY VIEW not enough to warrant the frame rate hit. I would much rather use the power for improved FPS, higher resolutions or pushing the settings up a notch. If GTA 4 had AA right now I wouldn't use it because I would rather have better frame rates.

Pardon me, but in that picture you can clearly see lines not aliased, but almost as straight as you would see it on a photo.

 

And for me, other things are more important. If i am not able to get nice settings with aa on, i leave it off. When i'm able to play games at settings that makes me "yay" (medium/high like GTA IV is NOW), i want AA, because othwerwise it would look like crap. Take the example above me. IV has a low of things that are small but detailed, and the loss of AA makes those things ugly for the eye. And the filters make them disappear.

 

(And newer ATI cards don't mind AA, no or very little FPS hit)

[Kurgen]

 

 

No I am not blind, even with the highest AA you can have you can still clearly see jaggies.  At the end of the day if you want the comfort blanket of AA then that is your problem I would much rather use the power for increased res or better fps.

 

Again, nonsense. You must be using app-pref AA in games that require specific AA, or vice-versa, or... you are visually impaired. That is not an insult, it is an observation based on your apparent ignorance of what anti-aliasing is or does. Comfort-blanket? WTF are you on about? Are you seriously saying that the vast majority of gamers the world-over have deluded themselves into thinking that AA does as it's supposed to, in reducing (vastly in many cases) jagged lines on polygonal edges? Please think carefully before answering.

 

 

So there is precious little point to AA all it does is suck up power which could be used for better things like a higher res or better frame rates.

 

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Try playing something like Silent Hunter 4 with and without AA to see just how pronounced is the improvement when you enable it.

[CharmingCharlie]

Typical of Kurgen to try and pick a fight with me. The vast majority of PC gamers are NOT USING AA at all get that into your head. Why are they not using AA ? because they haven't got a bloody PC powerful enough to do it. I have a quad with a GTX260 and that still isn't powerful enough to play Crysis maxxed with AA. So guess what I do ? that's right I don't play with AA just like a hell of a lot of other bloody people.

 

No one here has a PC that could play GTA 4 maxxed out with AA yet here people like you are bitching and whining about a facility very few people will ever use. As I have said I really couldn't give a stuff about AA because I have never used it in ANY game I would much rather the power go towards a HIGHER resolution or FASTER frame rates. To me that is a damn sight more important than having a hissy fit over some pathetic jaggies which STILL EXIST even with AA on they just aren't as "noticeable".

[Kurgen]

Typical of Kurgen to try and pick a fight with me. The vast majority of PC gamers are NOT USING AA at all get that into your head. Why are they not using AA ? because they haven't got a bloody PC powerful enough to do it. I have a quad with a GTX260 and that still isn't powerful enough to play Crysis maxxed with AA. So guess what I do ? that's right I don't play with AA just like a hell of a lot of other bloody people.

 

No one here has a PC that could play GTA 4 maxxed out with AA yet here people like you are bitching and whining about a facility very few people will ever use. As I have said I really couldn't give a stuff about AA because I have never used it in ANY game I would much rather the power go towards a HIGHER resolution or FASTER frame rates. To me that is a damn sight more important than having a hissy fit over some pathetic jaggies which STILL EXIST even with AA on they just aren't as "noticeable".

That you interpret having your erroneous ideas pointed to to you as a "fight" is your problem mate. Continue to spout unsubstantiated nonsense and people will continue to correct you for it. The problem is yours, whether you like it or not.

 

Fact : Anti-aliasing has nowhere near the level of performance hit as it used to, and on a vastly increasing number of video cards, not just the uber-spec cards.

 

Fact : Anti-aliasing does have a huge effect on image quality when you use 4X or above, regardless of your personal opinion. Opinions do not come into it.

 

 

[CharmingCharlie]

FACT Crysis runs on my QUAD with GTX260 at 20fps with all settings on max.

FACT Crysis runs at 13fps with 4xAA.

FACT that is nearly a 30% hit on frame rates.

FACT most people would call a 30% reduction in framerates a pretty f*cking big hit.

FACT even with 4xAA you can still clearly see jaggies in Crysis

FACT a GTX260 isn't a low end card

 

But you still keep spouting your nonsense because I will be here to correct you.

 

[Kurgen]

 

 

But you still keep spouting your nonsense because I will be here to correct you.

 

Kindly point out what I said that qualifies as "nonsense"?

[ikt]

Anti-aliasing does have a huge impact on the FPS.

CoD4 on max with 4x aa: 65~91FPS

CoD 4 on max with 0x aa: 91FPS (never drops below that, but also never goes above.)

[Kurgen]

Of course it affects performance... I never said it didn't. Charlie's just decided to use that as his reason for getting on my case, when my initial argument; that his "AA doesn't fix jaggies" is a load of rubbish, is the one thing he cannot disprove. He's been shown evidence of the vastly improved image quality with AA enabled, but chooses to ignore it. Like I said, his problem.

[DKT70]

There are many games I just couldn't play without AA, simply because AA eliminates that horrible texture shimmering and crawling you see when you move towards a lot of detail.

Games like Trackmania, would not be the same without AA. Oblivion looked day-and-night better the minute both nvidia and ATI worked out how to do both HDR + AA, and now it's a given in Fallout 3, especially if you have the GPU power to handle transparency AA, it makes such a difference in IQ.

 

Today, even though I have a more mid-level PC, I now use 8xQ MS + Enhance the Application, in almost every game I can use it, or where it's applicable. 8xQ, looks amazing, and doesn't really take that much of a hit on my slightly aging G92 9800GT.

While I'm not too fussed about GTAIV, as it's such a great game anyway, there are many games that could do with AA, but sadly can't due to the renderer. GRAW 1 & 2 screams out for AA, Halo could do with some, even though it's not really that great.

[ikt]

Trees look horrible without AA in CoD4.

[MonkeyMhz]

Yea thats good for you, and me. Ive started to use AA now in most the games, except Crysis I leave it at 2x. But really, think about it. Maybe you are obsessed with having smooth edges.

 

But still the majority of people don't use it , plain and simple. I see you beef with it, and I accept it but heres something thats pretty obvious.

FACT R* wouldn't have made more money by putting AA in as it would cost to put AA in.

 

 

If there was AA we would just by all complaining why it doesn't run well and the game would still be looked at like a POS from you guys.

 

Its just not viable for them, and that's why its not done. If it bothers you that much use the tweaked blur filter from the ultimate graphics tweak, its not too bad.

 

If both annoy you, do whatever annoys you less or stop playing the game. GTAIV does not have AA, not on the consoles not on anything.

Edited June 24, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[Jc84144]

But you still keep spouting your nonsense because I will be here to correct you.

 

Kindly point out what I said that qualifies as "nonsense"?

All of it.

[supermortalhuman]

GTA IV is not even that bad. Most of your complaints are due to your tiny resolution and resolution based per-pixel lighting judging by my skim through this. When your monitor can play GTA at the right resolution, you won't care. The game was made to last, meaning, the same way GTA III lasted through to SA. You won't miss AA in a few years, and the industry hates AA anyway because it is fake when really we just need better ability to crank up the resolution. GTA III came out on CD, we didn't even use CD anymore by the time SA came out. That came on DVD. DVD is on it's way out the door. Technology changed a lot, but GTA stayed "pretty much" the same game and still looked better each time and was definitely better than most everything else out there.

 

While DlDVD dies, and monitors become more sophisticated for their price, and eMachines and Dell start selling consumer-priced computers that can crunch GTA IV's numbers, you won't care anymore. This is a case of a really hardcore bunch of true gamers expecting a certain bit of quality, but not really realising what is going on and how lucky we are to be playing GTA IV on PC, nor how awesome it will be when all games are observing the standards that GTA IV prepared early for.

 

The blockiness in the world lighting and shadows, the "dotty shadows", the jaggies - turn up your resolutions problem solved (as the game was designed to do - on current enthusiast PCs and consumer PCs of the very near future). It's a huge game with a huge draw distance, your view of the horizon won't look good on anything below 1650 anyway. You'll just be AA'ing mush.

 

We just need more pixels, not faking it with old smoke screens and parlour tricks that make up for the junk we've run games on until recently/into near future.

Edited June 24, 2009 by supermortalhuman

[Kurgen]

Kindly point out what I said that qualifies as "nonsense"?

 

All of it.

All of what? Try to elaborate. You may look like a monumental fool otherwise.

 

 

[High]

Trees look horrible without AA in CoD4.

Everything looks horrible without AA in any game.

[supermortalhuman]

 

Trees look horrible without AA in CoD4.

Everything looks horrible without AA in any game.

This gamer plays high setting and far draw distance on 800x600. Bet.

 

But seriously, what resolution do you game on to make such an old-school statement? I'm not picking on you, but I am sort of singling you out. Not to be rude at all, I just think that you'll be the example that shows what's really going on here. So which resolution, GTA IV and other games, do you game on?

 

I realise not everyone in the world is able to buy new-ish hardware, and thus some of the world is behind in that way, and much of the world will still be using 7900gt's for the next ten years, but no one is waiting on the train - it has a place to be, and we are in a rush. This topic is such an eye-opening event, I only wish I could bring my monitor over and plug it in.

Edited June 24, 2009 by supermortalhuman

[High]

1600x1200 on a 19" screen and draw dis' 0

 

but then again, why do i bother with trolls.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Trees look horrible without AA in CoD4.

Everything looks horrible without AA in any game.

This gamer plays high setting and far draw distance on 800x600. Bet.

 

But seriously, what resolution do you game on to make such an old-school statement? I'm not picking on you, but I am sort of singling you out. Not to be rude at all, I just think that you'll be the example that shows what's really going on here. So which resolution, GTA IV and other games, do you game on?

 

I realise not everyone in the world is able to buy new-ish hardware, and thus some of the world is behind in that way, and much of the world will still be using 7900gt's for the next ten years, but no one is waiting on the train - it has a place to be, and we are in a rush. This topic is such an eye-opening event, I only wish I could bring my monitor over and plug it in.

Yea, like in 1920x1080+ the jaggies get very very small. But if your on a 1024x768 well then its gonna look more jaggy than a turd from a seizure'ing monkey.

 

Eg.

A screen has a set amount of pixels by pixels.

 

To simplify at first lets try 4x6 pixels vs 8x12 pixels

 

* In this case we will use a character space to resemble pixels.

 

4x6:

___x__

__x___

_x____

x_____

 

8x12:

_______x____

______x_____

_____x______

____x_______

___x________

__x_________

_x__________

x___________

 

Now if you put those both down to roughly the same size the 8x12 looks much more smoother.

 

 

Same thing with LCD screens, a 1920x1080 21-23" is gonna give you much smoother lines than a 21-23" screen that's 1280x720.

 

Because the higher the res, the more pixels/squares it has to make a diagonal line.

 

And taking a higher res over AA is much better, since you have more pixels and then you can fit more detail into the scene, all AA does is smooth the lines (by filing more squares around the solid squares with more transparent/faint colors).

 

No AA left, AA right.

 

 

Which does always help the lines in the distance cuz in a game like gtaiv if there's buildings in the distance its gonna have to display those building edges with a small amount of pixels. That's were AA helps. But normally speaking, if it was

 

1280x720 w/8xAA or

1920x1080 w/no AA, Id take the 1920x1080.

 

Also it depends on the monitor if you have a 1920x1080 native monitor running a game at 1280x720 its gonna look like crap. But if you run it at 1920x1080 or whatever the native res is, it will look much better.

 

So final verdict:

 

Low Res + AA = Low Detail, still shows some jaggys but not bad.

 

Hi Res + No AA = More Detail, but has small jaggies on edges.

 

Hi Res + AA = Nice!.

 

Supermortalhuman, your post was pretty spot on. Good read.

Edited June 24, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[SyphonPayne]

FACT Crysis runs on my QUAD with GTX260 at 20fps with all settings on max.

FACT Crysis runs at 13fps with 4xAA.

FACT that is nearly a 30% hit on frame rates.

FACT most people would call a 30% reduction in framerates a pretty f*cking big hit.

FACT even with 4xAA you can still clearly see jaggies in Crysis

FACT a GTX260 isn't a low end card

 

But you still keep spouting your nonsense because I will be here to correct you.

FACT GTA IV is NOT Crysis

FACT If you're already only getting 20fps, you could... You know... Lower the settings to where it's more playable? 20fps certainly isn't playable IMO.

 

I don't care what resolution anyone here runs facts are facts you CAN and WILL see a difference in MOST games between 4xAA+ and 0xAA unless you are blind or are in denial.

 

But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA.

[CharmingCharlie]

 

MOST games between 4xAA+ and 0xAA unless you are blind or are in denial.

 

But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA.

I have never said you couldn't see a difference between 4xAA and 0xAA I have always said the difference TO ME is that minimal that it isn't worth the frame rate hit. Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies.

 

You missed my point about Crysis, my point being that even on a pretty decent machine you can only get 20fps (yes it is unplayable) therefore Crysis might as well NOT have AA for me because even with a Quadcore and a GTX260 I still couldn't max the game out and have AA . It would be the same story with GTA 4 nearly everyone here would struggle to run GTA 4 on medium settings at a decent resolution and somehow have AA.

 

If the fact GTA 4 not having AA is causing you so much heart ache then chalk it up to a lesson in life and don't bother with any GTA's in the future. The next GTA will most likely NOT have AA either or the one after that (all assuming it even comes to the PC at all). In fact until people switch to Dx10 or Dx11 you won't see AA in any future GTA's. So you might as well decide now what you are going to do because we are not going through this bullsh*t again when the next GTA comes.

[Jigglyass]

MOST games between 4xAA+ and 0xAA unless you are blind or are in denial.

 

But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA.

I have never said you couldn't see a difference between 4xAA and 0xAA I have always said the difference TO ME is that minimal that it isn't worth the frame rate hit. Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies.

 

You missed my point about Crysis, my point being that even on a pretty decent machine you can only get 20fps (yes it is unplayable) therefore Crysis might as well NOT have AA for me because even with a Quadcore and a GTX260 I still couldn't max the game out and have AA . It would be the same story with GTA 4 nearly everyone here would struggle to run GTA 4 on medium settings at a decent resolution and somehow have AA.

 

If the fact GTA 4 not having AA is causing you so much heart ache then chalk it up to a lesson in life and don't bother with any GTA's in the future. The next GTA will most likely NOT have AA either or the one after that (all assuming it even comes to the PC at all). In fact until people switch to Dx10 or Dx11 you won't see AA in any future GTA's. So you might as well decide now what you are going to do because we are not going through this bullsh*t again when the next GTA comes.

God dammit, crysis is NOT a game its a BENCHMARK.

Charlie Ive expected you to know that.

[BKwegoharder]

FACT Crysis runs on my QUAD with GTX260 at 20fps with all settings on max.

FACT Crysis runs at 13fps with 4xAA.

FACT that is nearly a 30% hit on frame rates.

FACT most people would call a 30% reduction in framerates a pretty f*cking big hit.

FACT even with 4xAA you can still clearly see jaggies in Crysis

FACT a GTX260 isn't a low end card

 

But you still keep spouting your nonsense because I will be here to correct you.

FACT GTA IV is NOT Crysis

FACT If you're already only getting 20fps, you could... You know... Lower the settings to where it's more playable? 20fps certainly isn't playable IMO.

 

I don't care what resolution anyone here runs facts are facts you CAN and WILL see a difference in MOST games between 4xAA+ and 0xAA unless you are blind or are in denial.

 

But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA.

LOL Owned. Everyone uses the GTA 4 is not Crysis argument for GTA 4, but never against it.

 

And I love this game and I always defend it, but I'll give props where it is due.

[SyphonPayne]

MOST games between 4xAA+ and 0xAA unless you are blind or are in denial.

 

But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA.

I have never said you couldn't see a difference between 4xAA and 0xAA I have always said the difference TO ME is that minimal that it isn't worth the frame rate hit. Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies.

 

You missed my point about Crysis, my point being that even on a pretty decent machine you can only get 20fps (yes it is unplayable) therefore Crysis might as well NOT have AA for me because even with a Quadcore and a GTX260 I still couldn't max the game out and have AA . It would be the same story with GTA 4 nearly everyone here would struggle to run GTA 4 on medium settings at a decent resolution and somehow have AA.

 

If the fact GTA 4 not having AA is causing you so much heart ache then chalk it up to a lesson in life and don't bother with any GTA's in the future. The next GTA will most likely NOT have AA either or the one after that (all assuming it even comes to the PC at all). In fact until people switch to Dx10 or Dx11 you won't see AA in any future GTA's. So you might as well decide now what you are going to do because we are not going through this bullsh*t again when the next GTA comes.

Okay first off once again I'll state GTA IV IS NOT CRYSIS.

 

Second off if you would just lower your settings in Crysis, then enable 4xAA I GUARANTEE you that you'll get a better framerate than "maxxing out" Crysis. I didn't miss your point, you missed mine.

 

Third off "Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies" I beg to differ, yeah they're not invisible but they're 300% better than without AA in which then you can EVEN MORE CLEARLY see jaggies.

 

Fourth off, nowhere did I state it's causing me "heart-ache" and you're obviously not reading my post because I JUST stated "But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA."

 

Doesn't stop me from having a discussion about how I wish it had AA though.

[CharmingCharlie]

 

Okay first off once again I'll state GTA IV IS NOT CRYSIS.

OMGZ it isn't you mean I have been thinking that GTA 4 is another name for Crysis. I am so glad you are here to point out the bleeding obvious. I choose Crysis because it is a graphically intensive game.

 

 

Second off if you would just lower your settings in Crysis, then enable 4xAA I GUARANTEE you that you'll get a better framerate than "maxxing out" Crysis. I didn't miss your point, you missed mine.

THAT IS MY POINT in order to play Crysis with AA I would have to lower the graphical settings to medium which I think looks like absolute arse compared to the high settings. Hence why I keep bloody saying "if I have the power" I would rather it went into better graphics NOT slightly blurring some jaggies.

 

 

Third off "Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies" I beg to differ, yeah they're not invisible but they're 300% better than without AA in which then you can EVEN MORE CLEARLY see jaggies.

You can beg to differ till the cows come home if you like, the fact is with 4 x AA you can still clearly see the jaggies so to me 4 x AA is pretty much worthless and I would rather the power goes into the extra settings. You are obviously content to play Crysis on Medium settings just to get rid of some jaggies I am not I would rather have the higher graphical settings and put up with a few inconsequential jaggies.

 

 

Fourth off, nowhere did I state it's causing me "heart-ache" and you're obviously not reading my post because I JUST stated "But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA."

 

Doesn't stop me from having a discussion about how I wish it had AA though.

 

What's the point debating it ? it isn't going to happen. All this topic is, is yet another excuse for people to bad mouth and attack GTA 4 and Rockstar Toronto. If AA is so important to some people then seriously they should consider whether they want to bother with any future GTA. The RAGE engine is using deferred rendering which makes it next to impossible to have AA in it. The only chance of there ever being AA in any future GTA games is if Rockstar switched to Dx10/11. Now I don't see that happening whilst people stay with Dx9 but no lets keep debating the thing over and over and over again it gives people an opportunity to bitch and whine a lil bit more.

 

[OutOfTimer]

 

Okay first off once again I'll state GTA IV IS NOT CRYSIS.

OMGZ it isn't you mean I have been thinking that GTA 4 is another name for Crysis. I am so glad you are here to point out the bleeding obvious. I choose Crysis because it is a graphically intensive game.

Yes, I was also flamed as hell for the Crysis comparison.

[SyphonPayne]

 

Okay first off once again I'll state GTA IV IS NOT CRYSIS.

OMGZ it isn't you mean I have been thinking that GTA 4 is another name for Crysis. I am so glad you are here to point out the bleeding obvious. I choose Crysis because it is a graphically intensive game.

 

 

Second off if you would just lower your settings in Crysis, then enable 4xAA I GUARANTEE you that you'll get a better framerate than "maxxing out" Crysis. I didn't miss your point, you missed mine.

THAT IS MY POINT in order to play Crysis with AA I would have to lower the graphical settings to medium which I think looks like absolute arse compared to the high settings. Hence why I keep bloody saying "if I have the power" I would rather it went into better graphics NOT slightly blurring some jaggies.

 

 

Third off "Even with 4 x AA you can still clearly see jaggies" I beg to differ, yeah they're not invisible but they're 300% better than without AA in which then you can EVEN MORE CLEARLY see jaggies.

You can beg to differ till the cows come home if you like, the fact is with 4 x AA you can still clearly see the jaggies so to me 4 x AA is pretty much worthless and I would rather the power goes into the extra settings. You are obviously content to play Crysis on Medium settings just to get rid of some jaggies I am not I would rather have the higher graphical settings and put up with a few inconsequential jaggies.

 

 

Fourth off, nowhere did I state it's causing me "heart-ache" and you're obviously not reading my post because I JUST stated "But I accept the fact that GTA IV will not ever have AA."

 

Doesn't stop me from having a discussion about how I wish it had AA though.

 

What's the point debating it ? it isn't going to happen. All this topic is, is yet another excuse for people to bad mouth and attack GTA 4 and Rockstar Toronto. If AA is so important to some people then seriously they should consider whether they want to bother with any future GTA. The RAGE engine is using deferred rendering which makes it next to impossible to have AA in it. The only chance of there ever being AA in any future GTA games is if Rockstar switched to Dx10/11. Now I don't see that happening whilst people stay with Dx9 but no lets keep debating the thing over and over and over again it gives people an opportunity to bitch and whine a lil bit more.

WOW how wrong you are, first off you don't have to play MEDIUM f*cking settings on a 260 (at least the 216 core, dunno which one yours is) in Crysis in order to play it with 4xAA and higher than 20fps which you apparently think is the way to play the game. Could easily play High and still have a better framerate than "maxxed." Not that it matters in the least compared to GTA IV. Personally YES in CRYSIS I choose the highest settings I can with 0xAA.

 

AA doesn't seem to matter as much in Crysis anyway, because GTA IV's jaggies stick out a LOT more.

 

GTA IV is not that graphically intense compared to Crysis, GTA IV rapes CPUs a lot more than GPUs, most decent GPUs hardly break a sweat with GTA. Only thing graphically GTA rapes is the VRAM.

 

You keep saying "clearly see jaggies" as if AA doesn't make a bit of a difference because it's a fact you have to look a good deal harder to see jaggies than with 0 x AA. Okay so if you can "clearly see jaggies" with 4xAA then you can SUPER EXTRA ULTRA clearly see jaggies without it.

 

 

As far as people bad-mouthing R* and whining and whatnot, I can't be held accountable for them. But me personally I have only stated that I wish it had AA and AA DOES matter, but I accept the fact that it will not have AA, and if future GTAs don't have AA I'll still buy them but still wish they had AA.

 

EDIT: This argument could go on forever. It's opinion vs. opinion. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink. So I'm just gonna quit arguing about POINTLESS sh*t because YES the game will NEVER have AA, which sucks, but it is not the end of the world.

Edited June 25, 2009 by SyphonPayne

[ikt]

[...]but it is not the end of the world.

Is it. Don't you feel there is a meteorite hiding on the invisible side of the moon where it waits to hit the earth when patch 4 doesn't have AA?

[livilaNic]

[...]but it is not the end of the world.

...meteorite hiding on the invisible side of the moon

Moon? What moon?

 

Unlike CC I'd take AA over higher graphics settings any day of the week. It's all good though, to each their own.