anus Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 And by the way, how often do you see a high budget PC game made afer 2005 that DOESN'T have Anti-Aliasing? LOL, even after so much discussion on this, people still whine about this . I was right about the trolling from what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivecs Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I really don't understand why you guys keep coming to a FAN forum to bitch. I equally can't understand why you compare Crysis to GTA 4 !!!!!!. You seem to have a very very short memory, don't you remember what PC gamers were saying about Crysis when it came out ?....... Oh yeah they bitched and whined that it was "unoptimised", they moaned that the system requirements were an absolutely LIE (and they were). Now all of a sudden Crysis has become the shining example of a well optimised game ?? To this day Crysis remains an unoptimised P.O.S so much so that Crytek dumped it. Yet here you are putting it on a bloody pedestal like it is some sort of zenith of PC gaming. I will tell you something I will take an unoptimised GTA 4 over a well optimised Crysis any day of the week. I have logged hundreds of hours playing GTA 4, I played Crysis once and got at best 7 hours out of it before the game got uninstalled and shoved on a shelf never to grace my PC again. I will quite happily buy the next GTA if it comes to the PC however I won't be buying Crysis 2 because it will be an unoptimised P.O.S that will have all of 5 hours gameplay. What R U talking about? Crysis was a hell of a good game, the graphics, the gameplay, its all very very good. The only problem is that not everyone can play it at max setting when its came out. But now, alot of people can play it at a playable framerate and higher setting. I still think that crysis is still the best looking game to date. And its also better optimized than GTA4. But don't get me wrong, i also love GTA4. Its the only reason why i bought a quad core processor in the first place, because i love the game soo much. But its not like when i upgraded my Graphic Card for crysis, GTA4 still have some problems even when i already upgraded my cpu. Of course i get a playable framerate, i always get 30-40fps when i play the game. But then after a while, the framerate will drop to 15-20fps or even worse. And the only solution is by restarting the game, or a quicker one is changing the game resolution. Oh and btw, CryEngine 3 is just an upgraded version of CryEngine 2. And Charlie, you can get more playtime on Crysis by downloading some of the Best Maps created by the Crymod Community. Still, i think GTA4 is a better game than Crysis, but please dont talk bad think about Crysis like that, Both of them are great games, and i enjoyed playing them alot Edited June 16, 2009 by vivecs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 this thread is trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls and so forth, i'm disappointed. There's no point in comparing two games which are so profoundly different, each is unique in it's own way and works the emphasis on entirely diverse aspects, for example, Crysis is using a state of the art shader technology and texture mixture overlay while GTAIV is using a texture streaming technique from the late 90's, completely different games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc student Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 this thread is trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls and so forth, i'm disappointed. There's no point in comparing two games which are so profoundly different, each is unique in it's own way and works the emphasis on entirely diverse aspects, for example, Crysis is using a state of the art shader technology and texture mixture overlay while GTAIV is using a texture streaming technique from the late 90's, completely different games... Well hey. I'm sure GTA 4 doesn't need to have a texture streaming system on your PC since it can handle over 14 GB of textures at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's only like 7.5 GB of textures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 it can handle over 14 GB of textures at once i'm not biting this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapMan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 But don't get me wrong, i also love GTA4. Its the only reason why i bought a quad core processor in the first place, because i love the game soo much. But its not like when i upgraded my Graphic Card for crysis, GTA4 still have some problems even when i already upgraded my cpu. You do realize that GTA IV doesnt support multicore cpus right? So right now you are using only 25% of your cpu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 But don't get me wrong, i also love GTA4. Its the only reason why i bought a quad core processor in the first place, because i love the game soo much. But its not like when i upgraded my Graphic Card for crysis, GTA4 still have some problems even when i already upgraded my cpu. You do realize that GTA IV doesnt support multicore cpus right? So right now you are using only 25% of your cpu. WOW that is a complete load of bull, seriously do you just pull this fud out of your arse ? It has been proven TIME AND TIME again that GTA 4 DOES USE multiple cores, in fact I will prove it to you again if you like :- Item Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4 avg fps 23.76 50.49 63.93 64.80 Duration 37.20 sec 37.13 sec 37.12 sec 37.08 sec CPU usage 28% 50% 64% 68% Sys Ram 68% 68% 67% 73% Vid Ram 36% 37% 37% 38% To ensure my GPU didn't corrupt the test I had all settings on as low as they can go :- Graphics Settings Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Texture Filter Quality: Low View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 The test was done on a Q6600 @ 2.4ghz and a GTX260 oh and just to ensure I didn't corrupt the test I took my tinfoil hat off. My my look at that the more cores I enable the faster the frame rate . So yes GTA 4 DOES support mulicore processors now stop bullsh*tting and tried to spread FUD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapMan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 lol, whats with the rage man? Youre right, I was mistaken, this is because I have a dual core processor and the usage was always at 50%. Thats why I assumed it only uses one core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The rage is simple all you and several others have done on this board is slag GTA 4 off. I really think you need to take a look at the title of this forum, it is a FAN forum you know for people that are FANS. Then you come along spouting complete crap, when you make a statement like "GTA 4 doesn't support multiple cores" it is wise and common sense to make sure you are RIGHT before you make such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapMan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Man, you need to seriously chill. Everyone has right to be wrong. Even the GTA IV developers who make sh*tty ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I disagree, crysis is a wonderful game if you have the powerful hardware, which might cost you your soul, but anyway, i like crysis, if single player gets boring there is always multiplayer. Everyone has their opinions on different matters, and everyone is entitled to it. As far as it is, its a good game if you have the hardware to run it so stop bitching that its a badly optimized game, because its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Compared to Crysis, GTA IV sucks. There is no AA, volumetric crap isn't there (light beams, it would be awesome to be in Alderney looking around when it rains while there is sun, just imagine how pretty that would look. And stay away from your Señor Penor), no SSAO and the AI just sucks. I never get killed in IV. Even when i'm out of ammo, i just pick up a pistol from the dead cops with 6 stars and start shooting on the cops, when they are gone i get into a car and drive away. wait. now i'm running out of ideas. If you forget those 4 things, IV is just AWESOME. 1: In Crysis, there aren't 20 cars driving around you with physics enabled, and there will be always a few cars that drive like you. They avoid obstacles and pedestrians. In Crysis, the KPA just crashes into a tree to get slaughtered by you. 2: In Crysis, a alive man doesn't have physics. If he's dead, he has. In IV, if you pull a grenade, things AND people fly away. In Crysis, things fly away nice, but people just STAND there like nothing happened. If they are dead they do fly away. If you shoot a dude in Crysis, he just stands there like nothing happened and shoots back. In IV, the dude is really getting HIT and is fnding his balance again. 3: In Crysis, you can destroy tires of cars. YAY! In GTA, you can detroy the whole car (doors, glass, bonnets, bumpers) and your car gets deformed. Oh, they also have SUSPENSION. You know, that thing that makes you not break your back when you aren't driving over flat road. Oh, in GTA IV, cars also DO react realistic to colissions. They swing away and such. In Crysis, the cars just stop. Nothing else. 4+5: The gameplay in Crysis is NOTHING compared to GTA IV. The only things you have to do in Crysis: Shoot, use your nanosuit, shoot, kill Koreans and aliens and shoot some more. Nothing else. (Well, you DO have to travel, but what do you see when you are finding your way to the next killing point? Nothing. Only plants, plants, plants and sometimes a plane flying by. Oh, and when not on a mission you can... erm... swim... shoot trees... shoot/throw animals (crabs and chickens)... and... and.. erm... OH! COLLECT WEAPONS! Yeah. Cool. not. In IV, you can play with your friends, sorf the interwebz, listen to the radio (music AND people talk, not a Korean dude talking sh*t about US ships), listen to people (and not to Koreans who say the same things over and over) and you can have fun. Sidemissions. Cabbing. Giving money away to things. Fight with people normally. Interactive enivirnment. (Crysis = get a can of cola to throw at Koreans) Race. 6: Dynamic weather. Weather in GTA IV is DYNAMIC. You know what DYNAMIC means? It CHANGES. C-H-A-N-G-E. There is very bright sun, there is hell of a lot rain/storm and everything between. The weather in Crysis is either sun, either rain or ICE. I haven't seen anything else and i've played both versions multiple times. (And wind also affects helis) And this is only the technical side. IV's story is BIG. Crysis' story is just.. Well. short: Special guys in a gay suit go to North Korea to look at an prehistoric object that is very advanced and to come there, they shoot the hell out of Koreans. Then the ting got active and froze evrything, what caused the arival of more gay-suited guys shooting at eachother, while trying to get a container with a Alien robot they could get easely by sending the nanosuit team to ANY alien exosuit (you'll find HUNDREDS of them, and using the stealth mode you can approach them and catch them), but they won't and chase the Korean idiot with the container. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matija442IsBack Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 why did this turn into a Crysis vs GTA IV bash?? FFS people Crysis is not GTA IV and GTA IV is not Crysis. Crysis is a semi sandbox PC exclusive FPS GTA IV is a true sandbox console port There is no way you can compare a PC exclusive FPS to a sandbox console port. GTA IV has a lot of it's problems and instead of wasting your and our time bashing it you could have sent an e-mail to rockstar and ask them for help. By bashing you only show how immature you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Russian 9 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There is no way you can compare a PC exclusive FPS to a sandbox console port. Bingo. Can anyone load Liberty City into Crysis? AFAIK, it should be possible with the huge modding support Crysis has. Oh wait that's another thing Crysis has on GTA IV. But seriously, I would want some shots if it's possible. LC should look beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BocasecaMan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I bought this game on December 2008, and I can't play for more than 5-10 minutes. The continuous freezings are ANNOYING, and this game is absolutely unplayable. My specs are: AMD Athlon X2 +3800, 2 GB RAM, ATI HD4850. This game is a WASTE of money, this release is an offense for all gamers, seriously. This game is a f*cking Beta, and I doubt that this guys will make some kind of magic patch that solves the huge amount of bugs and the crappy optimization. PD: I'm spanish, sorry for my english. Regards. PD2: I forgot to say that I only have problems with this game. The other games that I have runs very well and smoothly (FEAR 2, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, etc). Edited June 16, 2009 by BocasecaMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliTsai Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 For 8800m GTS and similar card users there is a new update on the Nvidia site which actually boosts performance. I usually get kicked from multiplayer games due to "computer running slowly" but with the update I haven't been kicked yet. In addition I noticed when starting in the first apartment when I went out side there was some initial lag as the world rendered but now there is virtually no delay. http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank2368 Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 For 8800m GTS and similar card users there is a new update on the Nvidia site which actually boosts performance. I usually get kicked from multiplayer games due to "computer running slowly" but with the update I haven't been kicked yet. In addition I noticed when starting in the first apartment when I went out side there was some initial lag as the world rendered but now there is virtually no delay. http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us Wait, so GeForce drivers are apparently more useful than patches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shivanandrs Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I bought this game on December 2008, and I can't play for more than 5-10 minutes. The continuous freezings are ANNOYING, and this game is absolutely unplayable. My specs are: AMD Athlon X2 +3800, 2 GB RAM, ATI HD4850. This game is a WASTE of money, this release is an offense for all gamers, seriously. This game is a f*cking Beta, and I doubt that this guys will make some kind of magic patch that solves the huge amount of bugs and the crappy optimization. PD: I'm spanish, sorry for my english. Regards. PD2: I forgot to say that I only have problems with this game. The other games that I have runs very well and smoothly (FEAR 2, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, etc). Man don't balme the game, the problems you are having has nothing to do with the game. Its your system that needs some help...oh and the game is no beta, it runs just beautiful on my system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakebriggs Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Wow, talk about a bunch of ignoramuses. Do you guys even know what it means to port from one device to another? Its not like they wrote an xbox emulator, and are just running gtaiv on that.... There is no correlation between the fact that gtaiv MAY be a port, and its perceived performance issues. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say that the RAGE engine was written for PC's first, then ported to xbox/ps3, not that it actually matters. Just asserting the fact that its a poorly coded bit of software does not make it true, and I have never seen any evidence to support the poorly coded theory. The main argument seems to be comparing to other games, which look prettier, the example given in this thread is crysis. Now maybe crysis does look better, but perhaps RAGE is coded with different goals in mind. Perhaps RAGE is a lot more scalable than crysis, perhaps it can contain a lot more npc objects such as peds and cars, and a larger game area, with more detailed textures, and more advanced physics, with a linear performance cost, whereas crysis cannot have more npc objects such as peds and cars, and a larger game area, with more detailed textures, and more advanced physics without incurring an exponential performance cost. Crysis levels could be carefully crafted to contain only a certain amount of npc objects and physics, to fit within known limits, because it cannot scale, but it makes it look good now. BTW, I have read opinions that say that crysis must render everything, all the time, because when you zoom it still looks good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail_(programming) is the answer here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 This game is a good port. For one, it gives more content than the consoles. 2, the graphics look MUCH better than in the consoles, 3, it plays at a much better frame rate than the consoles. the consoles had a max frame rate of 30FPS, my max is more than double that. They used lots and lots of motion blur to cover that up since when the game dipped in the frame rate, it really really dipped. Also, it is impossible for any computer hardware out on the consumer market to run the game in an xbox emulator. We are having a hard time running the original xbox hardware in an emulator, the same goes for the PS2, GameCube, and even DreamCast in some cases. You'd have to have a really strong Super computer for something that crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BocasecaMan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I bought this game on December 2008, and I can't play for more than 5-10 minutes. The continuous freezings are ANNOYING, and this game is absolutely unplayable. My specs are: AMD Athlon X2 +3800, 2 GB RAM, ATI HD4850. This game is a WASTE of money, this release is an offense for all gamers, seriously. This game is a f*cking Beta, and I doubt that this guys will make some kind of magic patch that solves the huge amount of bugs and the crappy optimization. PD: I'm spanish, sorry for my english. Regards. PD2: I forgot to say that I only have problems with this game. The other games that I have runs very well and smoothly (FEAR 2, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, etc). Man don't balme the game, the problems you are having has nothing to do with the game. Its your system that needs some help...oh and the game is no beta, it runs just beautiful on my system. I blame the game because I ONLY have problems with THIS game. My system runs the other games perfectly, so my system doesn't needs help at all. This game only runs "properly" on a quad core system, with a top graphic card and a minimum of 6 GB RAM... this is absolutely insane. My system doesn't need help at all. THIS GAME needs help. And whatever you say, this game was released as a Beta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I bought this game on December 2008, and I can't play for more than 5-10 minutes. The continuous freezings are ANNOYING, and this game is absolutely unplayable. My specs are: AMD Athlon X2 +3800, 2 GB RAM, ATI HD4850. This game is a WASTE of money, this release is an offense for all gamers, seriously. This game is a f*cking Beta, and I doubt that this guys will make some kind of magic patch that solves the huge amount of bugs and the crappy optimization. PD: I'm spanish, sorry for my english. Regards. PD2: I forgot to say that I only have problems with this game. The other games that I have runs very well and smoothly (FEAR 2, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, etc). Man don't balme the game, the problems you are having has nothing to do with the game. Its your system that needs some help...oh and the game is no beta, it runs just beautiful on my system. I blame the game because I ONLY have problems with THIS game. My system runs the other games perfectly, so my system doesn't needs help at all. This game only runs "properly" on a quad core system, with a top graphic card and a minimum of 6 GB RAM... this is absolutely insane. My system doesn't need help at all. THIS GAME needs help. And whatever you say, this game was released as a Beta. You should have never bought the game. If you READ the system requirements, the you would know that you need a 2.4GHz Athlon Dual Core to run this game well. You have just 2GHz, so you are missing almost a whole GHz in total from what GTA 4 requirements. They didn't force you to buy the gamer, but YOU bought the game and you didn't pay attention to the system requirements. Your procesor doesn't even meet the absolute minimum let alone the recommended requirements. You should be grateful that it even starts up. Also, none of those games that you listed have as many people, and as large of an environment that is so open ended compared to GTA 4. Of course GTA 4 is going to be heavy on the cpu. The game said specifically on the back of the box that you need a 2GHz Athlon X2, or a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, to bad you didn't follow there advice. Even Rockstart told you it wouldn't run well on your system. Plus the processor is going on 4 years old. Do you expect to run a game on a 4 year old graphic card? The CPU was made before the XBox 360, that's how old it is. Edited June 17, 2009 by BKwegoharder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Of course GTA 4 is going to be heavy on the cpu. You make it seem like the whole town is full of people and cars driving by. But it's not, is it? You ahve one a few hundred feet (and even less) buble around you where there is life, but all the rest is as dead as if there was some nuclear winter going on. The fact is, GTAIV is a port. Console games rely on the CPU heavily and xbox has three cores. Thus GTAIV uses only three cores on a quad. You do the math. Let's say you had like 100 peds and 50 cars in every moment around you, would they really need 3 cores on 3.2 GHz? For what, walking and driving around? They just follow some paths, big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcin6 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Really ? Only 3 cores ?? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) The RAGE engine was made on the PC, so it would be REALLY stupid, and it would be a waste of time and money and effort if they just ported it from the Consoles. There would be no reason to do that. Yeah people may say "Rockstar didn't want to put effort and money in the game so they did a sloppy port". But it would take more effort to port the game than make it natively for the PC. Especially seeing how large of a company that Rockstar is, there is no reason why they can't just make the versions side by side at the same time. Just like how Rockstar said. The game had the LARGEST budget out of any video game in history. so it is a lie to say that they spent no money or effort in it. And GTA 4 uses way more than 3 cores. When I had my i7 set to 4 cores, all four of them were being used at about 60-80% each. When I had the i7 set to hyperthreading(That means 8 virtual cores), 3 cores were being used way more than the others at 50%-70%, and the workload that would come from the 4th looked like it was spread out among the other 5. Edited June 17, 2009 by BKwegoharder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Really ? Only 3 cores ?? LOL So what if there is a little number of cores... When its capable of delivering 115.2 gigaflops... PS3 still better tho with 204 gigaflops.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Thus GTAIV uses only three cores on a quad. By looking at the task manager it appears that GTAIV uses 4 cores, do you have a proof for your statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 The RAGE engine was made on the PC You have proof of this, surely. If it was made for PC, why is it "optimized" to use three cores? How many machines out there have 3 cores? Some machines with broken AMD quads and around 20 million xboxes. While it's obvious that they invested a lot of money on GTAIV it's VERY obvious they invested very little in PC version of the game. That's the reason why there was zero to none promotion for the PC version and why it needed three patches to get into a semi-stable state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 The RAGE engine was made on the PC You have proof of this, surely. If it was made for PC, why is it "optimized" to use three cores? How many machines out there have 3 cores? Some machines with broken AMD quads and around 20 million xboxes. While it's obvious that they invested a lot of money on GTAIV it's VERY obvious they invested very little in PC version of the game. That's the reason why there was zero to none promotion for the PC version and why it needed three patches to get into a semi-stable state. Show proof that it only runs on three cores. You made that claim, yet you still didn't back it up.Or maybe it is because you made that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts