Rockstar what a disgrace

[ibanez0r]

Here i was thinking rockstar games was a reputable development company, when in reality its a total disgrace that this game even made it to the shelf, shame on you rockstar you should all be ashamed of youselfs, what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was.....

[Weirdo.]

Yup, that's completely right.

[QwertyAAA]

Here i was thinking rockstar games was a reputable development company, when in reality its a total disgrace that this game even made it to the shelf, shame on you rockstar you should all be ashamed of youselfs, what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was.....

Buy a console, you cheapskate.

[ibanez0r]

lol, meh, theyve taken one of the most brilliant games ever made for PC and destroyed it, i doubt youll find anyone that disagrees.

 

I certainly will never buy another rockstar games game again.

[QwertyAAA]

I repeat: Stop being a cheapskate.

 

Anyway, blame Toronto, not R* in general. Lemmings was far superior to Oni.

Edited October 30, 2010 by QwertyAAA

[Algonquin Assassin]

I always laugh when someone says they'll never buy a R* game ever again when you know most people are full of sh*t, and will still buy it anyway.

 

Welcome to the forum, but why do I get the feeling you only joined just to have a whine, and you'll never come back?

[jnzooger]

lol, meh, theyve taken one of the most brilliant games ever made for PC and destroyed it, i doubt youll find anyone that disagrees.

 

I certainly will never buy another rockstar games game again.

I disagree. IV and EfLC run great on my computer.

[mkey82]

 

Here i was thinking rockstar games was a reputable development company, when in reality its a total disgrace that this game even made it to the shelf, shame on you rockstar you should all be ashamed of youselfs, what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was.....

Buy a console, you cheapskate.

He wants the game to run PROPERLY (I assume), the console output level is laughable.

[endmilled]

 

I disagree. IV and EfLC run great on my computer.

Same here. I've never had problems with either one on the PC. They run great and I'll gladly buy another game from Rockstar. But yeah, there sure are a lot of whiners here...

[mkey82]

I disagree. IV and EfLC run great on my computer.

Same here. I've never had problems with either one on the PC. They run great and I'll gladly buy another game from Rockstar. But yeah, there sure are a lot of whiners here...

We have plenty of assholes as well.

[endmilled]

We have plenty of assholes as well.

Oh yeah, forgot about those!

[Jimbatron]

Here i was thinking rockstar games was a reputable development company, when in reality its a total disgrace that this game even made it to the shelf, shame on you rockstar you should all be ashamed of youselfs, what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was.....

I have to disagree with this.

 

GTA IV and EFLC on the PC are the best games I have ever played by a country mile.

 

I agree it is dissapointing that R* didn't bother to invest properly in the PC platform, i.e. fully optimise it, because I feel it could have been even better. The latest patches also seemed to cause more problems than they fixed.

 

However, these are just niggles. The game is awesome in my view. I'm just worried R* will read consumer feedback like the above and not bother with V on the PC at all.

[IronHide-AW]

Based on the total lack of any specs or information what-so-ever I have to assume this is simply another "it runs like ass on my computer" thread, and has nothing to do with actual quality of the content of the game.

 

If you're having actual problems with the content or compatibility, use the technical issues thread. If it's running like sh*t for you, use the gazillion threads that already exist to try and increase the performance, such as How to use -memrestrict to fix stuttering

 

If you have serious PC horsepower, it runs great, and you feel this way, then you should try different types of games as it appears games with extremely good quality content, flexibility and openness are not what you like.

 

GTA-IV is easily one of the best open-world games ever created. It is not optimized and only runs well on good hardware. But that is not a lack of quality in content. That is a lack of engineers being given the time (Taken by CFO and other bean counters to mean "delayed launch") to optimize the code for the best possible performance on the widest variety of hardware.

 

The amount of AI and total world logic being executed every second (providing the exceptional behavior of the world content overall) is no small task and will crush inferior hardware under its thumb like a bug. Of all the posts I've read, and have also personally taken part in, where we discuss the lack of optimization, an equally important factor is never discussed but should be.

 

Stability. The game is remarkibly stable considering what it is doing under the hood. In many cases where it is not stable for people, having them simply remove any and all overclocking they are doing suddenly produces a much more stable game. Again, that is not the games issue. That's actually uncovering problems on the users machine related to hardware, heat-related or otherwise.

 

Creating such a stable game, especially with the amount of stuff this one does all the time it is running, is not by chance or luck. Maybe that's where the time went. Instead of being heavily optimized it was instead made rock-solid. So by the time that was accomplished and it was time for serious performance-passes over the code, their bosses said "umm, wait a second. does it crash? no? it runs super stable? SHIP-IT!"

[mkey82]

 

If you're having actual problems with the content or compatibility, use the technical issues thread. If it's running like sh*t for you, use the gazillion threads that already exist to try and increase the performance, such as How to use -memrestrict to fix stuttering

90% of those won't work in a general case. memrestrict can only fix some crashes and stutter, you can't gain more fps. At the same time, memrestrict is the single most powerful fix known to GTAIV. It's used to forcefully restrict the memory usage for this remarkably stable game lol

 

 

GTA-IV is easily one of the best open-world games ever created.

Matter of opinions, isn't it? You almost make it look as it's an global fact, or something.

 

 

It is not optimized and only runs well on good hardware.

Define "good" and "serious". There are absolutely no guarantees. I know people who manged to run the game a lot better then I ever could with worse hardware (no, not from youtube videos) and those who could barely run it with a lot better PC's.

 

 

But that is not a lack of quality in content.

I haven't noticed OT complained about lack of content.

 

 

The amount of AI and total world logic being executed every second

Wait, you are under impression that the whole map is populated ALL the time and that EVERY ped and car is simulated at all times?

 

 

(providing the exceptional behavior of the world content overall) is no small task and will crush inferior hardware under its thumb like a bug.

You should probably rethink this statement, it's very funny and I don't think you wanted to be funny.

 

 

Stability. The game is remarkibly stable considering what it is doing under the hood.

This is getting ridiculous, really. Remarkably stable? Really? Not one single game or a general application has caused so many issues and crashes for me like GTAIV. It didn't crash a lot, maybe two dozen times, but in average for me games crash practically never. F3 crashed quite a lot, some games from the PES series crashed often and that's about that.

 

I understand this is valid in MY case and you and many others would like to say that it's a fault on MY end, but then I would simply reply: "you are full of sh*t". Also, when taking into consideration

* the performance degradation over time that many users face(d)

* the fact R* themselves have made various commandline options to bypass or hack some in-game algorithms

* the fact we have had 7 updates up to now with not many actual fixes inside

* the fact the game in many cases will even refuse to start if some update is not applyed

your stability argument becomes even more ridiculous.

Edited October 30, 2010 by mkey82

[IronHide-AW]

I'll spend a little time going back and forth while I wait on the March to Restore Sanity.

 

Edited: Well it started but I'll finish this up anyway. Go Team-Sanity!

 

 

 

If you're having actual problems with the content or compatibility, use the technical issues thread. If it's running like sh*t for you, use the gazillion threads that already exist to try and

 

increase the performance, such as How to use -memrestrict to fix stuttering

90% of those won't work in a general case. memrestrict can only fix some crashes and stutter, you can't gain more fps. At the same time, memrestrict is the single most powerful fix known to GTAIV. It's used to forcefully restrict the

 

memory usage for this remarkably stable game lol

 

It was a perfectly appropriate example of a trouble-shooting thread that can help folks. Also, you can gain FPS by making the game hit the HDD less. But that should also be obvious.

 

 

 

GTA-IV is easily one of the best open-world games ever created.

Matter of opinions, isn't it? You almost make it look as it's an global fact, or something.

 

Everything all of us say is a matter of opinion. I stated mine.

 

 

 

It is not optimized and only runs well on good hardware.

Define "good" and "serious". There are absolutely no guarantees. I know people who manged to run the game a lot better then I ever could with worse hardware (no, not from youtube videos) and those who could barely run it with a lot

 

better PC's.

 

My sig?

 

 

 

But that is not a lack of quality in content.

I haven't noticed OT complained about lack of content.

 

You haven't noticed him saying anything at all except R* is a disgrace. What was the point of the thread? The game sucks? His machine sucks? It runs like sh*t? Aliens are attacking? Who knows. He didn't say.

 

 

 

The amount of AI and total world logic being executed every second

Wait, you are under impression that the whole map is populated ALL the time and that EVERY ped and car is simulated at all times?

 

Not sure what you base this absurd inference on from what I said, but the game constantly recycles objects (including cars and peds) for world population around the player.

Go install my Ambient Wars mod and then consider what I might / might not know about how the games guts work.

 

 

 

(providing the exceptional behavior of the world content overall) is no small task and will crush inferior hardware under its thumb like a bug.

You should probably rethink this statement, it's very funny and I don't think you wanted to be funny.

 

Nothing to rethink. There's no magic involved. Code requires a slice to execute. If there's more code battling for a time-slice than slices exist, code is forced to wait until it can. Result? Bad performance.

 

 

 

Stability. The game is remarkibly stable considering what it is doing under the hood.

This is getting ridiculous, really. Remarkably stable? Really? Not one single game or a general application has caused so many issues and crashes for me like GTAIV. It didn't crash a lot, maybe two dozen times, but in average for me

 

games crash practically never. F3 crashed quite a lot, some games from the PES series crashed often and that's about that.

 

Sorry you have had so many problems. I've run GTA-IV on 5 utterly (in every way) different machines with wildly different hardware configurations and performance outcomes. Even with the sh*ttiest performing configurations though, one thing was consistent. Stability. Another thing that is obvious, or should be, is the majority of people that play the game without problems do not post in forums, because they have no problems to post about. They just enjoy the game.

 

 

I understand this is valid in MY case and you and many others would like to say that it's a fault on MY end, but then I would simply reply: "you are full of sh*t". Also, when taking into consideration

* the performance degradation over time that many users face(d)

* the fact R* themselves have made various commandline options to bypass or hack some in-game algorithms

* the fact we have had 7 updates up to now with not many actual fixes inside

* the fact the game in many cases will even refuse to start if some update is not applyed

your stability argument becomes even more ridiculous.

 

* sounds like a memory leak likely addressed with patches.

 

* sounds like solutions to help a minority of people having problems with it, where the vast majority do not need it because it doesn't cause them problems.

 

* sounds like a normal cycle where the real-world vareity of configurations uncover issues impossible to encounter in the dev lab. nVidia and ATI know a thing about that too, as does any hardware and software shop.

 

* sounds like the statement directly above this statement.

 

My stability argument rings true for the majority which is all any shop can ever hope to do. There will always be problems for people with some configurations. That what technical support and SDLC is for.

 

[mkey82]

 

Well it started but I'll finish this up anyway.

?

 

 

It was a perfectly appropriate example of a trouble-shooting thread that can help folks. Also, you can gain FPS by making the game hit the HDD less. But that should also be obvious.

And how will you exactly achieve this by means of memrestrict, do explain? Memrestrict is used for specific issues.

 

 

Everything all of us say is a matter of opinion. I stated mine.

It helps to explicitly state it when one discusses subjective matters. IMO. Even more so when you directly oppose someones opinion.

 

 

My sig?

Oh, so you are using that machine to tell us how GTAIV actually performs adequately well? Just great.

 

 

You haven't noticed him saying anything at all except R* is a disgrace. What was the point of the thread? The game sucks? His machine sucks? It runs like sh*t? Aliens are attacking? Who knows. He didn't say.

He said

 

 

what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was

from this I assume he talks about performance, not once does he even remotely mention game content.

 

 

Not sure what you base this absurd inference on from what I said, but the game constantly recycles objects (including cars and peds) for world population around the player.

Go install my Ambient Wars mod and then consider what I might / might not know about how the games guts work.

You mentioned "total world logic" and from this I assumed you may be talking about... well, total world. Point taken.

 

 

Nothing to rethink. There's no magic involved. Code requires a slice to execute. If there's more code battling for a time-slice than slices exist, code is forced to wait until it can. Result? Bad performance.

I seriously doubt a modern dual core processor at above 2.5GHz wouldn't be able to handle those requests had the game been made properly. So most of those requests come from the system being not optimized, not from the actual content and functionality.

 

 

Sorry you have had so many problems. I've run GTA-IV on 5 utterly (in every way) different machines with wildly different hardware configurations and performance outcomes. Even with the sh*ttiest performing configurations though, one thing was consistent. Stability. Another thing that is obvious, or should be, is the majority of people that play the game without problems do not post in forums, because they have no problems to post about. They just enjoy the game.

I guess thousands of people who have posted in trobleshooting section should be ignored. At the same time, that would be R*'s choice of preference for handling them.

 

 

* sounds like a memory leak likely addressed with patches.

* sounds like solutions to help a minority of people having problems with it, where the vast majority do not need it because it doesn't cause them problems.

* sounds like a normal cycle where the real-world vareity of configurations uncover issues impossible to encounter in the dev lab. nVidia and ATI know a thing about that too, as does any hardware and software shop.

* sounds like the statement directly above this statement.

* how likely and what percentage of cases were solved? How does the new shadow system reflect upon those changes? Why address the issue with patches when the engine is rock solid?

* vast majority? Does this figure also include people running 4-5 times stronger PCs from the one quoted in system requirements? How come most games don't use such hacks?

* 7 updates is normal for you, for a remarkably stable game? I guess we have nothing to discuss here

* no, it doesn't. At least not to me. Maybe you should reread that point as well as your comment about GTAIV being remarkably stable

 

To these points a few others should be added, like the still unresolved sound looping issue, the slow motion bug etc. Much to many for a remarkably rock solid game, in my opinion.

 

 

My stability argument rings true for the majority which is all any shop can ever hope to do. There will always be problems for people with some configurations. That what technical support and SDLC is for.

Again you and your vast majority, it feels like I'm talking to Alan Beresford B'stard. What technical support? The one that does not respond nor help? R* doesn't even have a support forum, what are we talking about here?

 

I understand perfectly the argument about people who have issues will look online for help and that those who don't will just game on. But...

* how many of those people are even aware of performance not matching their hardware capacity?

* how many of those people who need help will actually REGISTER and post?

* how many of those people will only read some existing threads and move along after they find something useful?

* how many of those people don't understand English and are less likely to come to GTAF? GTAIV was sold globally, you know.

* how many people don't have internet access?

* are we taking into account only GTAF users or dozens (guessing) of other forums that have FAQs and sections dedicated to GTAIV troubleshooting?

 

I feel that your vast majority has shrunk a bit in numbers. Especially once we consider the fact that GTAIV was the only game (AFAIK) Steam offered refunds soon after the PC release due to the public uproar. I guess Valve at the time didn't find that the vast majority has no issues at all.

[IronHide-AW]

It's refreshing to see a real debate and not a focus on useless arguments for the sake of arguing. Go go Team Sanity!

 

 

 

Well it started but I'll finish this up anyway.

?

 

Sorry thought it was more widely known. There's a March to Restore Sanity happening right now on the Washington Mall with John Stewart and hundres of thousands of folks. Was waiting on it to start when I started to reply to you and it started.

 

 

 

It was a perfectly appropriate example of a trouble-shooting thread that can help folks. Also, you can gain FPS by making the game hit the HDD less. But that should also be obvious.

And how will you exactly achieve this by means of memrestrict, do explain? Memrestrict is used for specific issues.

 

It won't and I didn't say it would. That's what the "Also," does. It breaks it apart, as in "In addition generally, blah this and that" since you mentioned FPS.

 

Not going to post a page full of links related to troublesooting and performance. Stickies, research and a little diligence takes care of that.

 

 

 

Everything all of us say is a matter of opinion. I stated mine.

It helps to explicitly state it when one discusses subjective matters. IMO. Even more so when you directly oppose someones opinion.

 

I totally agree with that. It also helps to actually create a thread with actual issues, specs and information useful to those reading so they can help or otherwise make meaningful additions to the subject matter. But that's not what this thread did. What should be in here? Just a bunch of "Oh I agree I hate them!" posts?

 

 

 

My sig?

Oh, so you are using that machine to tell us how GTAIV actually performs adequately well? Just great.

 

Nope. It's an example of your request "what is serious?" hardware that can blast past the lack of optimization and make it run smooth regardless.

 

 

 

You haven't noticed him saying anything at all except R* is a disgrace. What was the point of the thread? The game sucks? His machine sucks? It runs like sh*t? Aliens are attacking? Who knows. He didn't say.

He said

 

 

what a complete waste of time and money the PC release of this emulated sh*te was

from this I assume he talks about performance, not once does he even remotely mention game content.

 

You do? Interesting. This is probably another matter of opnion that we've been talking about. It could mean anything. That's why we agree specifics help. It stops us from wildly guessing at the context.

 

 

 

Not sure what you base this absurd inference on from what I said, but the game constantly recycles objects (including cars and peds) for world population around the player.

Go install my Ambient Wars mod and then consider what I might / might not know about how the games guts work.

You mentioned "total world logic" and from this I assumed you may be talking about... well, total world. Point taken.

 

Yep I understand. To refine it I'll add - within the context of the player in the game, the "total world" is the world being generated dynamically around the player as they move through it. That is a lot of logic happening at all times.

 

 

 

Nothing to rethink. There's no magic involved. Code requires a slice to execute. If there's more code battling for a time-slice than slices exist, code is forced to wait until it can. Result? Bad performance.

I seriously doubt a modern dual core processor at above 2.5GHz wouldn't be able to handle those requests had the game been made properly. So most of those requests come from the system being not optimized, not from the actual content and functionality.

 

I'm not so sure. As you know (and you yourself believe) it's commonly thought the game will only use a max of 3 execution paths, but that doesn't mean it's fast enough. Each object, ped, car has its own set of behavior code. That's hundreds+ of execution paths that are not directly related to each other but also have to react to each other in many cases and in many ways. So combined that is far more requests to execute than actual paths exist.

 

 

 

Sorry you have had so many problems. I've run GTA-IV on 5 utterly (in every way) different machines with wildly different hardware configurations and performance outcomes. Even with the sh*ttiest performing configurations though, one thing was consistent. Stability. Another thing that is obvious, or should be, is the majority of people that play the game without problems do not post in forums, because they have no problems to post about. They just enjoy the game.

I guess thousands of people who have posted in trobleshooting section should be ignored. At the same time, that would be R*'s choice of preference for handling them.

 

Not at all. The company should do everything within its ability to address as many issues some people see as possible.

 

 

 

* sounds like a memory leak likely addressed with patches.

* sounds like solutions to help a minority of people having problems with it, where the vast majority do not need it because it doesn't cause them problems.

* sounds like a normal cycle where the real-world vareity of configurations uncover issues impossible to encounter in the dev lab. nVidia and ATI know a thing about that too, as does any hardware and software shop.

* sounds like the statement directly above this statement.

* how likely and what percentage of cases were solved? How does the new shadow system reflect upon those changes? Why address the issue with patches when the engine is rock solid?

* vast majority? Does this figure also include people running 4-5 times stronger PCs from the one quoted in system requirements? How come most games don't use such hacks?

* 7 updates is normal for you, for a remarkably stable game? I guess we have nothing to discuss here

* no, it doesn't. At least not to me. Maybe you should reread that point as well as your comment about GTAIV being remarkably stable

 

To these points a few others should be added, like the still unresolved sound looping issue, the slow motion bug etc. Much to many for a remarkably rock solid game, in my opinion.

 

I played the game with every version there was. Stability, for me, was exceptional across the board across all versions. Who the hell said all the patches were related to general stability for the majority of people? Bugs and glitches related to quests, textures, performance, visual candy etc etc. None of that is specific to stability. A game could have a huge amount of "bugs" that cause all kinds of weird sh*t to be happening, but still be stable and not crash.

 

 

 

My stability argument rings true for the majority which is all any shop can ever hope to do. There will always be problems for people with some configurations. That what technical support and SDLC is for.

Again you and your vast majority, it feels like I'm talking to Alan Beresford B'stard. What technical support? The one that does not respond nor help? R* doesn't even have a support forum, what are we talking about here?

 

On this point I have to defer to you and anyone that has desperately needed help from R* and not gotten it, since I haven't needed it and therefore have no frame of reference for how good or sh*tty their actual support is or isn't.

 

 

I understand perfectly the argument about people who have issues will look online for help and that those who don't will just game on. But...

* how many of those people are even aware of performance not matching their hardware capacity?

* how many of those people who need help will actually REGISTER and post?

* how many of those people will only read some existing threads and move along after they find something useful?

* how many of those people don't understand English and are less likely to come to GTAF? GTAIV was sold globally, you know.

* how many people don't have internet access?

* are we taking into account only GTAF users or dozens (guessing) of other forums that have FAQs and sections dedicated to GTAIV troubleshooting?

 

I feel that your vast majority has shrunk a bit in numbers. Especially once we consider the fact that GTAIV was the only game (AFAIK) Steam offered refunds soon after the PC release due to the public uproar. I guess Valve at the time didn't find that the vast majority has no issues at all.

 

We could fill page after page of doing this. Lets not and say we did...

 

 

 

[viometrix]

oh boy you joined our happy little forum to complain? now you are the total waste, and only 3 yrs too late. also you are probably trying to run the game on an atari 2600, so like others said, dont be so cheap.

[mkey82]

Didn't know about the rally, nice to see it going, don't know what they can achieve, but "do it or die trying" is my moto. Well, it would be had I been a super hero.

 

I'm tired of quoting

 

* on the memrestrict and FPS issue - your initial comment, about increasing performance with memrestrict, was off the mark as you don't use that command to increase anything, it's used to bypass some of the existing issues with the game engine. Basically, the game has bad memory management and here we come to one of my points - I really don't think we can consider GTAIV to be stable, let alone remarkably rock stable. Stability as a property does not infer anything from the system complexity (my English is at it limits here), the system is stable or not. If it's a complex system, stability will be harder to achieve, but in the end, the system will be stable or it wont. If a program fails at cleaning up after itself, it can't be treated as stable.

 

* on the patches issue, obviously they handled a "lot" of stuff and furthermore, only patch 6 tried to do something about two out of three largest issues with the game - being memory management and the shadow system. It didn't quite succeed on either, but I appreciate the effort (to a certain point). And no, I didn't find that first 5 patches did anything for performance or the eye candy, scripts were probably retouched, every patch fixed something the previous patch broke and probably the only proper patch would be patch 6 as it introduced some substantial changes. Well, maybe patch 1 touched on low spec performance basing on what some people reported.

 

Going back to your earlier comment about how they deemed GTAIV to be stable enough to be released, but with performance issues, it's obvious they found enough space to work on with their patches. Again, I don't find GTAIV to be rock solid.

 

* about the OT issue, well obviously, this is a rant thread and it will attract both haters and lovers and I have to say, I don't like neither group. Ones claim everything is broken the others say everything is ladida while both versions are pretty far from truth. In this light, I still find OT was talking about performance, not the actual game content.

 

* about the support issue, like I said, it's very weak and whatever R* does to enhance it will be a step forward. A support forum would be a good start

 

* about the CPU usage, it's quite apparent that GTAIV can practically eat anything you can throw at it and it will max out (I guess) any three cores. If you have a maxed out processor usage that obviously means you are lacking processing power and there is no head room for any extra stuff the game engine may require. And with this we come to silly processing requirements, you mention hundreds of paths. Well, I seem to remember a certain benchmark (some PC mark version, was it?) which had a path execution benchmark with hundreds of plains flying all over the place. Now, if I recall properly, there was something like 18000 execution paths calculated on the fly on my system. Hence, no, I don't find that some peds and cars, a flying piece of paper can or two put that much strain on three cores running at above 3GHz. My reasoning behind the massive CPU usage is simple - GTAIV PC version has been ported from the xbox. xbox has 3 processing cores and games on xbox rely heavily on CPU power. GTAIV PC version also uses three cores and it also relies heavily on CPU power? Do I hear an echo?

 

* about your PC specs issue - all I wanted to say is that it's not nice to throw serious (expensive) specs around when someone complains about performance (as I assumed from above). I'm not saying you did that, what I'm saying is - the game should work "normally" on a PC which meets the requirements as stated on the box.

 

I guess the three points I wanted to convey would be

* the "sound as a pound" issue - I really can't consider GTAIV to be a stable game because of the reasons stated above

* the "vast majority" issue - as we obviously can't talk about proper numbers without having access to some actual info. I.e. me and a few of my pals are not to be treated as a vast majority

* the CPU usage issue is IMO very telling about what sort of shady business has been going in the background. I still remember a comment I made back then when the requirements were announced. GTA IV was practically the first game to have a quad in system requirements, then I wrote something like "GTAIV is either going to enter into history as the first game that effectively used 4 cores or it's sh*tty port". In retrospect, I don't think there's anything wrong with the statement.

[IronHide-AW]

@mkey82

 

I think we've reached some common understanding and ground. Your english is actually quite good. Let anyone that says it's not try to learn another language and speak it any more clearly than you do.

 

And we certainly both agree (as do many, many around here) people posting such a thread with absolutely no information or specifics is an utter waste of time and will do nothing but erupt into a giant ball of sh*t being smashed around like a game of "I'm right! No, I am! NO! I AM!" etc.

 

It was a good rally. And Stewart had an excellent speech at the end. Hopefully it'll open up a few more ears and make them think "hmm.. damn that made a lot of sense. Maybe I -have- been to extreme!". One can hope. That'd certainly be better for the country as a whole.

 

Alright, with that I'm out. Still have some designs I need to finish before Monday. Peace!

[Jigglyass]

People missing the f*cking point, RAGE is unoptimized, runs like sh*t on any hardware, consoles included.

[jnzooger]

People missing the f*cking point, RAGE is unoptimized, runs like sh*t on any hardware, consoles included.

Again, it doesn't run like $#%# on my hardware.

[Jigglyass]

People missing the f*cking point, RAGE is unoptimized, runs like sh*t on any hardware, consoles included.

Again, it doesn't run like $#%# on my hardware.

You must have a sh*tty standard of what a good running game is.

Good day sir.

[sjaak327]

I fully agree with Ironhide on the stability of the game, it is indeed a rock solid stable game. Has been on my Pentium D830 as wel as on my more current i7 920. Not talking about MP though, that's a whole different ballgame, but on SP I can play the game for hours without any crashes, and I am not even running it vanilla.

 

The remarks about what the game engine is doing are also spot on. I too know a thing or two about the game's engine, and it might not be fully optimized, but considering the stuff that is being executed, this doesn't come as a surprise.

 

 

[jnzooger]

People missing the f*cking point, RAGE is unoptimized, runs like sh*t on any hardware, consoles included.

Again, it doesn't run like $#%# on my hardware.

You must have a sh*tty standard of what a good running game is.

Good day sir.

60 frames per second, no stuttering, no pop-in, at 1920x1080. Yeah, I have bad standards...

[mkey82]

Good thing it's rock solid ultra stable, if it wasn't imagine the number of issues that would be present THEN.

[viometrix]

People missing the f*cking point, RAGE is unoptimized, runs like sh*t on any hardware, consoles included.

Again, it doesn't run like $#%# on my hardware.

You must have a sh*tty standard of what a good running game is.

Good day sir.

60 frames per second, no stuttering, no pop-in, at 1920x1080. Yeah, I have bad standards...

i highly doubt you have no pop in, even on my system i have mild pop in and texture fill, its bad coding. unless of course you have a better system then mine?

[sjaak327]

Good thing it's rock solid ultra stable, if it wasn't imagine the number of issues that would be present THEN.

It all depends on configurations, I just stated my personal experience, and I have many many hours on this game, as I have developed a trainer for this game, and apart from crashes related to wrong coding on my part (which of course is fixed in the development process) the game has run stable for me.

 

Many of these issues are related to drivers, and general windows configuration. The same I have noticed with people who mod the game, and use for instance my trainer, without fail problems are related to the inability to follow a set of simple instructions.

 

 

[Jimbatron]

I think there may actually be more agreement here than meets the eye - just some of the emphasis is so strong you might think there were totally contradictory views being expressed!

 

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think everyone agrees that GTA IV was NOT properly optimised for the PC? It then becomes a question of how serious you think that is.

 

My own view is that the OP's description of a "disgrace" is far too strong. At most, I would say it is a "pity" because it could have been better. I think IronHide-AW is spot on when he says that it will most likely be someone like the CFO not making enough resources available to get the job done properly. I've talked to some of R* Toronto, and they seem very helpful, and more importantly to be aware of the problems, to care about them, and actually be doing all they can. But they seem under-staffed.

 

I don't think it helps to flame them. There is a danger they'll read comments like that and decide you'll never keep the PC crowd happy, so let's not bother with the platform for new releases ever again.

 

The game is stable for me in single player, yes there are some graphical glitches due to coding. But is still a great game, IMHO. Yes, we've got a right to say they could have done a bit better in some areas, but I feel this gets a bit over-stated at times on here.

[IronHide-AW]

Yes there is a varying level of agreement buried / scattered throughout. It's just also levels of what some experience with the game as opposed to others. Specifically, how solid the game is or isn't for folks. For those where it's not stable there are all kinds of reasons including many of which are actually the users fault, but there are also obviously real bugs that for some users cause actual critical failures so they (understandibly) consider the game anything but stable.

 

No amount of hardware will solve pop-in. It can be reduced to its minimum effect with the game running at absolute maximum settings, but to say it doesn't happen even at that setting is incorrect. It's just less noticable.

 

@sjaak:

Welcome back dude.