gta 3 problrm

[asdqwezxc]

 

my gta 3 is stopping and say ing gta 3 stopped working this all when i shoot

os windows vista

processor pentium® dual-core CPU E5300 @ 2.60 GHz 2.60 GHz

RAM 2.00 GB

system type 32-bit Operating System

Display adapter type Intel® G33/G31 Express Chipset Family

Total available graphics memory 286 MB

Dedicated graphics memory 0 MB

Dedicated system memory 128 MB

Shared system memory 158 MB

Display adapter driver version 7.15.10.1591

Primary monitor resolution 1600x900

DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better

Manufacturer System manufacturer

Model System Product Name

Total amount of system memory 2.00 GB RAM

System type 32-bit operating system

Number of processor cores 2

64-bit capable Yes

 

 

[Girish]

Have you installed any mods?

Have you tried running the game in Windows 98 compatibility mode?

[Azoshi]

That's most likely due to mods or altering of some of the code files within the games files [same thing, really.]

Best bet is to reinstall, if not that.. Try, as stated above, changing the compatability mode and Run as Administrator.

[radioman]

First, Is this the Retail(CD) version? Or a Downloaded version? If Downloaded, from where? Any No-CD Cracks? Any Mods/trainers?

 

Have you tried a un-install/re-install and delete the .set file from the User Files Folder in Documents? If not, try that.

 

 

Your system specs exceed the requirements for III.

[fireguy109]

Yeah, but remember that Rockstar's required specs and even recommended specs still make the game look like cr*p. Most likely mods messed it up. I used MEd once on my copy, and I lost all my LODs for some reason.

[spaceeinstein]

What are you talking about the game "looking like crap"? This person never mentioned anything about the visual quality of the game.

[fireguy109]

My dearest apologies, Holy Karma Medal God. Poor choice of words. What I meant is "run" like cr*p. I tried to install on my desktop before I got my laptop, the game ran for 1.5 minutes before cutting an 1/8 inch wide scar into my audio disk and spitting it out. All my specs matched up (although my disk drive was a little messed up, sometimes it would open and close on its own).

[radioman]

My dearest apologies, Holy Karma Medal God. Poor choice of words. What I meant is "run" like cr*p. I tried to install on my desktop before I got my laptop, the game ran for 1.5 minutes before cutting an 1/8 inch wide scar into my audio disk and spitting it out. All my specs matched up (although my disk drive was a little messed up, sometimes it would open and close on its own).

You just admitted that the problem was your computer-since you said you disc drive was known to mess up...So, that was a problem with your PC(the disc drive, more specifically), and not the game...so that statement about the game running like crap is not true, as millions of people have played the game exclusively, and there were no official patches released(except for the Steam version), so that goes to show the game runs fine(as compared to IV which had 7+ patches and still has glitches and bugs and EFLC which has 3+ Patches and just like IV still has bugs and glitches)...So, please do not try to pass the blame for the game not working right for you onto the game itself, when, by your own statement, you admitted that your disc drive was faulty...Just a heads up..

[fireguy109]

Alright, the fact remains that the specs on the box don't match up to what you really need to run the game smoothly. Check out the gamespot review, they b*tch about this a bunch of times. I got a brand new Toshiba and installed 3, the graphics card was even better than my old laptop- and yet I get little trail thingies like what you see when you fall through blue hell all the time. Just goes to show you every computer works differently.

[spaceeinstein]

 

so that statement about the game running like crap is not true, as millions of people have played the game exclusively, and there were no official patches released(except for the Steam version), so that goes to show the game runs fine

Yea, I'm guessing that you didn't have GTA III when it first came out, or even read the pinned topic at least. You said it yourself:

 

so, please do not try to pass the blame for the game not working right for you onto the game itself

Laying blame on GTA IV like that is too hypocritical. GTA III was in desperate need of another patch to fix all the glitches and optimization problems (VC and especially SA also) but R* never did that because people back then didn't bitch at the game when the game didn't work properly on their computers. And why would a game having many patches be a bad thing? It shows that the company cares about having the game fixed for the majority that is having problems. You really want to have GTA IV unpatched and be an easy scapegoat for people like you? If you're having problems with a game, it doesn't mean every single person on the planet is also having problems with it. Not everyone have problems running GTA IV, and runs especially well for those who know how to make stuff work. Only those with problems would obviously come to the forums, a few come bitching and crying along the way. This analogy goes the same for GTA III but since today's computers are so much more powerful, people like you wouldn't notice glaring imperfections that can be experienced for those with poor hardware.

Edited February 15, 2011 by spaceeinstein

[radioman]

 

Yea, I'm guessing that you didn't have GTA III when it first came out

 

Your absolutely right, considering I did not get my first PC until 2005, I could not have got the game back in 2002 when it was released.

 

But, about the patches, if a game has one or no patches, that means it is a good port/game, as there was no need for a patch-that is what I meant when I said IV was a bad port, since it had multiple patches.

 

 

This analogy goes the same for GTA III but since today's computers are so much more powerful, people like you wouldn't notice glaring imperfections that can be experienced for those with poor hardware.

 

I may not have got a PC until 2005, but back then(and even now when I go back to that PC), III, VC, and SA run great-and that PC is below minimum specs for all the games(or at least VC and SA at least)-An AMD Sempron processor(798MHZ) 256MB vram(now 1GB as of 2009), a VIA/SIS video card with 32MB vram and XP Home SP2 first and then SP3 in 2008, and III and VC ran at 25-30fps and SA ran at 15-25fps, which is definitely playable. So, that is the other half of the reason I say IV is a bad port, since III, VC, and SA ran on pretty much any PC(as shown on a below minimum one above), whereas IV is a lot more picky about what specs you have, as I have a PC that is above the minimum specs, and all I get is a lousy 5fps on IV(an AMD Athlon X2 64 Dual Core, 3GB Ram, and an Nvidia Geforce 8200 with 1407mb VRAM and Windows 7 Home Premium(used to be Vista Home Premium, but I got the Free Windows 7 upgrade from HP), which is above minimum since the box and Pinned topics say the minimum is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 1.5GB Ram, and a Nvidia 7900/ATI Radeon x1900w/256mb vram, which an 8200 with 1407mb vram is a higher number card than a 7900 with 256mb-since 8200 is larger than 7900 and 1407 is larger than 256.? Just a heads up/my two cents.