About the bushes and trees

[leeradio13]

Yeah, I agree the trees look like sh*t, but at the same time I don't buy GTA's for the trees.

i do.

[DeafMetal]

Agreed. Honestly, who the f*ck cares about how trees look in a GTA game?

[Hitman843]

I am a tree and I feel insulted. I demand some good looking trees Rockstar!

[trevors685]

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

[VATG]

they don't look as bad as the one's in the screenshots R* released...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AdvanceTrak RSC]

Im not buying the game for the trees and bushes. I do however would like to see them provide you cover if you are hiding in the night stealthy

[copperrobber]

they don't look as bad as the one's in the screenshots R* released...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah the ones in the trailer looks way better than the screenshot ones.

[Big Remi]

How about steak shaped trees and bushes? That would satisfy all potential buyers of GTAV.

[Guest]

Whatever R* do, I hope they don't use 2D sprites like in JC2, however in JC2 they were only 2d from far away. It looked horrible flying over a forest though and having trees spin around.

 

I'd rather low-res 3D trees than higher-res 2D sprites.

[Prometheus]

 

they don't look as bad as the one's in the screenshots R* released...

yeah the ones in the trailer looks way better than the screenshot ones.

True. It's clear that the game is still in the development stages, so you can't expect the game to be identical to what you see in the screenshots. If anyone remembers the early [released] IV screenshots - it had clear detail distance issues. Also correct me if I'm wrong but that would be the LOD model of the bush or tree, which somewhat depends on the View and Detail distance of the game.

[dewan2000]

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

Im not being elitist, Infact I prefer to play games such as GTA on the console. Im simply stating the fact that consoles can not run ulti high quality textures. Its going to have noticeable pop in, and shorter draw distances than certain other games. Im sorry that you can not accept the truth behind it.

 

Like I said if you want to see amazing graphics, go play on PC and Mod your game to your desire. I will be content with what the console has to offer because I know the Developers are doing all that they can do within the limitations of the consoles.

[thebestgameever]

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

Ignorant comments like this are even worse.

 

Creating a game for 6 plus year old tech is HARD, sure games do improve but there is a limit, as you can see, is already reached.

 

Sure they can create better trees or textures but that could mean worse lighting, shadows, less content etc...

 

 

 

Best to focus on the more important things. They look fine, that is good enough for a game on the scale of this.

 

Also, how can you campare a game like NFS, which in comparison to gta, is very very small in terms of content?

[BullworthAcademy]

Well said.

[Fail_At_GTA]

The trees do look a little bit odd but how often do you stare at trees when you play GTA? I never noticed that the trees in GTA 5 looked a little off until someone mentioned it.

 

Whats more important to you?

 

Epic gameplay with ok looking trees

 

or

 

Omfg look at those epic trees and crappy gameplay

[Revolution-XW]

I've never complained about trees, nor felt that they were bad looking.

 

But, They do make the game feel better, they are part of the environment, Imagine Mt. Chilliad with medium, crappy looking trees everywhere.

 

I'm excited for how Gta V's trees look. Can't wait!

[Kifflom112]

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

Ignorant comments like this are even worse.

 

Creating a game for 6 plus year old tech is HARD, sure games do improve but there is a limit, as you can see, is already reached.

 

Sure they can create better trees or textures but that could mean worse lighting, shadows, less content etc...

 

 

 

Best to focus on the more important things. They look fine, that is good enough for a game on the scale of this.

 

Also, how can you campare a game like NFS, which in comparison to gta, is very very small in terms of content?

First of all how is it ignorant.

 

I mean the guy was obviously portraying a PC elitist attitude.

 

 

I understand that the hardware is old and that NFS is small compared to GTA.

 

But I was just pointing out that consoles can handle some high quality details.

 

 

Is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Or did you just find it ignorant because you didn't agree with it like everyone else who can't handle opinions

 

And why do you type every sentence a space from each other?

[YoungChrist]

 

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

Ignorant comments like this are even worse.

 

Creating a game for 6 plus year old tech is HARD, sure games do improve but there is a limit, as you can see, is already reached.

 

Sure they can create better trees or textures but that could mean worse lighting, shadows, less content etc...

 

 

 

Best to focus on the more important things. They look fine, that is good enough for a game on the scale of this.

 

Also, how can you campare a game like NFS, which in comparison to gta, is very very small in terms of content?

First of all how is it ignorant.

 

I mean the guy was obviously portraying a PC elitist attitude.

 

 

I understand that the hardware is old and that NFS is small compared to GTA.

 

But I was just pointing out that consoles can handle some high quality details.

 

 

Is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Or did you just find it ignorant because you didn't agree with it like everyone else who can't handle opinions

 

And why do you type every sentence a space from each other?

You compared GTA to need for speed

 

Do you know how many more randomized processes GTA has to handle in comparison to Need for Speed? Clearly not, because you assume if NFS can have high quality tree renders so can GTA. Pedestrians randomly answering their phones and having a conversation, helicopters flying over head, police being able to respond to any player npc or playable character committing a crime, enter-able buildings, a subway system that runs 24/7. I mean bro.... what kind of stupid ass comparison is that?

 

Hes not a PC elitist, hes just a guy with common sense. I on the other hand am a PC elitist and a game that is so massive as GTA cannot manage to run high quality f*ckin.... tree textures when the focus is on large explosions going off and the physX engine activating when people are f*cking lit on fire. If all the RAM goes to rendering high quality trees then the game would dip to 5 frames per second every time an explosion happens, or when 5 police are chasing you, or u fire an RPG.

 

I mean.... consoles with less than a gigabyte of ram and out dated processors vs a 8GB computer with the latest i7 processors and you're saying "hurr durr same thing lawl"

 

You're wrong and that statement was ignorant in every sense of the word.

[Kifflom112]

 

You compared GTA to need for speed 

 

Do you know how many more randomized processes GTA has to handle in comparison to Need for Speed? Clearly not, because you assume if NFS can have high quality tree renders so can GTA. Pedestrians randomly answering their phones and having a conversation, helicopters flying over head, police being able to respond to any player npc or playable character committing a crime, enter-able buildings, a subway system that runs 24/7. I mean bro.... what kind of stupid ass comparison is that?

 

Hes not a PC elitist, hes just a guy with common sense. A game that is so massive as GTA cannot manage to run high quality f*ckin.... tree textures when the focus is on large explosions going off and the physX engine activating when people are f*cking lit on fire. If all the RAM goes to rendering high quality trees then the game would dip to 5 frames per second every time an explosion happens, or when 5 police are chasing you, or u fire an RPG.

 

I mean.... consoles with less than a gigabyte of ram and out dated processors vs a 8GB computer with the latest i7 processors and you're saying "hurr durr same thing lawl"

 

You're wrong and that statement was ignorant in every sense of the word.

Are you all not getting something?

 

What I was getting at was that NFS had high resolution trees yet it was on the console. I never actually said "NFS had good trees, so can GTA". He was making it seem like consoles couldn't handle good textures. I was just getting back at him saying that they can. Again, I never said NFS has good textures, so can GTA.

 

Okay, does that clear it up? Or are you just going to disregard this post and refer to me saying "I understand that the hardware is old and that NFS is small compared to GTA".

You mis-interpreted what I was getting at. It's like you didn't even read the whole conversation and just wanted to type up so long post because of one sentence.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Kifflom112

[Dutch Psycho]

The shadows were also bad looking in gta IV(pixel mess) but im sure they gonna look great in V

[G-Eazy]

its 2013, no reason for trees, or benches, or even pieces of garbage to look bad anymore.

It IS about the whole package, but that means every little thing has to be good for the whole package to be great.

 

With that being said, I believe the trees in V will be just fine, and the trees in VI will look much more realistic.

Game is running on 8 year old hardware. Hardware with very low RAM and still operates games in dx9. Don't expect to see super high quality textures. If you want pretty graphics, invest in a PC and support the mod community that puts out great work to make your games look pretty.

Please quit with these sh*tty PC elitist comments.

And NFS HP on Xbox did have high res trees thank you very much.

Ignorant comments like this are even worse.

 

Creating a game for 6 plus year old tech is HARD, sure games do improve but there is a limit, as you can see, is already reached.

 

Sure they can create better trees or textures but that could mean worse lighting, shadows, less content etc...

 

 

 

Best to focus on the more important things. They look fine, that is good enough for a game on the scale of this.

 

Also, how can you campare a game like NFS, which in comparison to gta, is very very small in terms of content?

First of all how is it ignorant.

 

I mean the guy was obviously portraying a PC elitist attitude.

 

 

I understand that the hardware is old and that NFS is small compared to GTA.

 

But I was just pointing out that consoles can handle some high quality details.

 

 

Is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Or did you just find it ignorant because you didn't agree with it like everyone else who can't handle opinions

 

And why do you type every sentence a space from each other?

You compared GTA to need for speed

 

Do you know how many more randomized processes GTA has to handle in comparison to Need for Speed? Clearly not, because you assume if NFS can have high quality tree renders so can GTA. Pedestrians randomly answering their phones and having a conversation, helicopters flying over head, police being able to respond to any player npc or playable character committing a crime, enter-able buildings, a subway system that runs 24/7. I mean bro.... what kind of stupid ass comparison is that?

 

Hes not a PC elitist, hes just a guy with common sense. I on the other hand am a PC elitist and a game that is so massive as GTA cannot manage to run high quality f*ckin.... tree textures when the focus is on large explosions going off and the physX engine activating when people are f*cking lit on fire. If all the RAM goes to rendering high quality trees then the game would dip to 5 frames per second every time an explosion happens, or when 5 police are chasing you, or u fire an RPG.

 

I mean.... consoles with less than a gigabyte of ram and out dated processors vs a 8GB computer with the latest i7 processors and you're saying "hurr durr same thing lawl"

 

You're wrong and that statement was ignorant in every sense of the word.

How the f*ck did NFS got in this discussion ?

[dewan2000]

You compared GTA to need for speed 

 

Do you know how many more randomized processes GTA has to handle in comparison to Need for Speed? Clearly not, because you assume if NFS can have high quality tree renders so can GTA. Pedestrians randomly answering their phones and having a conversation, helicopters flying over head, police being able to respond to any player npc or playable character committing a crime, enter-able buildings, a subway system that runs 24/7. I mean bro.... what kind of stupid ass comparison is that?

 

Hes not a PC elitist, hes just a guy with common sense. A game that is so massive as GTA cannot manage to run high quality f*ckin.... tree textures when the focus is on large explosions going off and the physX engine activating when people are f*cking lit on fire. If all the RAM goes to rendering high quality trees then the game would dip to 5 frames per second every time an explosion happens, or when 5 police are chasing you, or u fire an RPG.

 

I mean.... consoles with less than a gigabyte of ram and out dated processors vs a 8GB computer with the latest i7 processors and you're saying "hurr durr same thing lawl"

 

You're wrong and that statement was ignorant in every sense of the word.

Are you all not getting something?

 

What I was getting at was that NFS had high resolution trees yet it was on the console. I never actually said "NFS had good trees, so can GTA". He was making it seem like consoles couldn't handle good textures. I was just getting back at him saying that they can. Again, I never said NFS has good textures, so can GTA.

 

Okay, does that clear it up? Or are you just going to disregard this post and refer to me saying "I understand that the hardware is old and that NFS is small compared to GTA".

You mis-interpreted what I was getting at. It's like you didn't even read the whole conversation and just wanted to type up so long post because of one sentence.

I should of clarified...a game like gta (or sandbox game) will not have the highest of textures. And sure consoles can have high textures but you would be sacrificing a lot of other stuff. Just look at racing games. The cars are really high quality cuz they are the focus. But everything else is often more bland.

 

I was originally responding to a Guy who said there was no reason for textures such as trees to be low in gta.

[Kifflom112]

 

How the f*ck did NFS got in this discussion ? 

Well, a user stated consoles cannot handle really great textures, but now he cleared it up. I replied to him saying nfs had high resolution textures. Well, apparently, some people misunderstood that and assumed I was comparing GTA to NFS when actually I wasn't. I was trying to make the user I originally commented towards understand that consoles can handle some high quality textures. But the sh*t hit fan here.

We can try to get back on topic, but I'm sure someone will comment towards the issue again. @above, okay, thanks for clarifying.

 

Anyways, I have an eye for detail in games I play.

I usually like to observe tons of details, most of the time irrelevant, like trees, bushes, buildings, water, etc. But I don't have a problem with this in GTA. In GTA IV many criticized the trees, but I thought they looked okay, better than III trees. Now in V, it seems we have a lot of flora diversity:

*palms

*pines

*flowers

*flowery bushes

There is just a lot, especially compared to IV. And on top of that, they actually look really good. There are some games that have good looking trees, but there isn't much diversity. So I'm satisfied with V, it's got lots of different plants, and they look pretty good, so I'm cool.

[Brazilian Mermaid]

 

 

 

 

Seem good enough to me!