• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

PC : Grand Theft Auto IV, Who's playing it ? And how?

brain_stew

Member
Feb 20, 2007
19,261
1
1,215
MaddenNFL64 said:
Reading all that, the performance issues make absolute sense. People are jacking up everything to 100.

Well, no, the game is still terribly optimised compared to your average multiplatform release, its just Rockstar decided to allow for improvement with future hardware as well.
 

MrPing1000

Member
Jun 8, 2004
16,837
0
1,520
34
Northern Ireland
No head syndrome happened to me once.

 

kitch9

Banned
Jan 23, 2007
7,201
0
0
Rockstar say the 8.11 Ati drivers will allow Crossfire to work....No SLI ATM

Can anybody verify this?
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,223
18
965
SIP YEK NOD said:
I just played around with all 3 versions of the game, and the PC version is by far the best.

keep in mind this is with a 3ghz intel C2Q/9800gtx/3gm memory

-better framerate(obviously)
-ps3/360 textures look a little sharper than the PC on medium, but not by much. for example, the taxi pricing is readble but blurry on the PC version, fairly sharp on ps360, not really noticeable unless you're really looking
-many many many more vehicles on screen
-much much much better draw distance and detail distance(makes the biggest difference)
-less texture pop-in
-some graphical glitches. (flashing trees in some areas)
-trees look like trees rather than watercolor green and yellow blobs.

i suck at off-screen pics, but here is one comparison, all 3 just came out of the ped tunnel and stopped in the street.




Thanks for the info/write-up. What to do, what to do. Maybe I'll have to check it out for myself after all? *ponders*



Zenith said:
How does Eurogamer justify giving this port 9/10?
$ + playing on machines Rockstar built = reviews aren't worth shit. :(
 

Willy Wanka

my god this avatar owns
Aug 17, 2005
5,329
0
1,530
I was going to get this for the expanded multiplayer but I might just stick with the 360 version until they patch it.
 

CabbageRed

Member
Sep 14, 2004
4,115
0
0
So using LaunchGTAIV.exe got me into the game. What is up with the shadows? They look like someone used the spray can tool from MS paint. I have fiddled with the render and shadow settings but them seem to have no effect. This plus the lack of FSAA makes the game look a mess.

Performance wise, I seem to be getting aroun 15-30fps:

1680x1050

Texture: High
Render: High

View: 20
Detail: 20
Density: 1
Shadow: 1-X (doesn't seem to affect my game)

Since most of my time is spent ~20fps, I am not at all happy.

Edit: Also, faces love to vanish and the fps will occasionally halve itself. These require an alt-tab to get things running again.

System:

Vista 32
3 gigs
e6400 @ 3.2ghz
4870x2
Creative X-fi

Also, the OS & page file are located on a seperate raptor drive.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
Mar 10, 2007
24,186
0
1,270
CabbageRed said:
So using LaunchGTAIV.exe got me into the game. What is up with the shadows? They look like someone used the spray can tool from MS paint. I have fiddled with the render and shadow settings but them seem to have no effect. This plus the lack of FSAA makes the game look a mess.

Performance wise, I seem to be getting aroun 15-30fps:

1680x1050

Texture: High
Render: High

View: 20
Detail: 20
Density: 1
Shadow: 1-X (doesn't seem to affect my game)

Since most of my time is spent ~20fps, I am not at all happy.

Edit: Also, faces love to vanish and the fps will occasionally halve itself. These require an alt-tab to get things running again.

System:

Vista 32
3 gigs
e6400 @ 3.2ghz
4870x2
Creative X-fi

Also, the OS & page file are located on a seperate raptor drive.
How many MB of video memory does 1680x1050 take up?
 

CabbageRed

Member
Sep 14, 2004
4,115
0
0
K.Jack said:
How many MB of video memory does 1680x1050 take up?

(With View Distance at 20)

1680x1050:

Low Texture: 360/1012
Medium Textures: 418/1012
High: 767/1012

Also, going from 800x600 to 1680x1050 seems to take ~100megs.
 

Lince

Banned
Dec 7, 2005
4,813
0
0
34
Granada, Andalusia / SPAIN
SIP YEK NOD said:
I just played around with all 3 versions of the game, and the PC version is by far the best.

keep in mind this is with a 3ghz intel C2Q/9800gtx/3gm memory

-better framerate(obviously)
-ps3/360 textures look a little sharper than the PC on medium, but not by much. for example, the taxi pricing is readble but blurry on the PC version, fairly sharp on ps360, not really noticeable unless you're really looking
-many many many more vehicles on screen
-much much much better draw distance and detail distance(makes the biggest difference)
-less texture pop-in
-some graphical glitches. (flashing trees in some areas)
-trees look like trees rather than watercolor green and yellow blobs.

i suck at off-screen pics, but here is one comparison, all 3 just came out of the ped tunnel and stopped in the street.


care to share your settings? is this Vista or XP?
 

SIP YEK NOD

Banned
Aug 21, 2007
1,800
0
0
Lince said:
care to share your settings? is this Vista or XP?

using XP.

Intel core 2 quad 9300@3ghz
Geforce 9800gtx stock clocks
3gb memory
500 gig seagate drive

1280 x 720
Texture quality: medium
render quality: very high
view distance: 44
detail distance: 100
vehicle density: 100
shadow density: 16
resource usage: 467/469 MB

framerate stays above 20, usually hovers around 30.
 

brain_stew

Member
Feb 20, 2007
19,261
1
1,215
SIP YEK NOD said:
using XP.

Intel core 2 quad 9300@3ghz
Geforce 9800gtx stock clocks
3gb memory
500 gig seagate drive

1280 x 720
Texture quality: medium
render quality: very high
view distance: 44
detail distance: 100
vehicle density: 100
shadow density: 16
resource usage: 467/469 MB

framerate stays above 20, usually hovers around 30.

That doesn't seem too bad actually considering where Rockstar rate the console versions. I seems as though the game is heavily CPU bound then, I hope my 3.7ghz Core 2 Duo will be enough, it looks like a quad makes all the difference.
 

Lince

Banned
Dec 7, 2005
4,813
0
0
34
Granada, Andalusia / SPAIN
SIP YEK NOD said:
using XP.

Intel core 2 quad 9300@3ghz
Geforce 9800gtx stock clocks
3gb memory
500 gig seagate drive

1280 x 720
Texture quality: medium
render quality: very high
view distance: 44
detail distance: 100
vehicle density: 100
shadow density: 16
resource usage: 467/469 MB

framerate stays above 20, usually hovers around 30.

thanks, I guess I'll switch to the 3ghz profile in the Bios since I have a feeling my stock Q6600 won't be enough this time around.
 

MrPing1000

Member
Jun 8, 2004
16,837
0
1,520
34
Northern Ireland
Man, the stuff you need to do to play this game is over the top.

Can anyone log into the rockstar social club thru the applet? It doesn't appear to work for me. Tries to connect and times out. I can login on the website no problem, no firewall or anything.
 

JudgeN

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3,961
1
1,120
I don't understand why PC developers make games that can't be run on max settings with current top hardware. I blame Crysis for this, it wasn't for that game GTA4 wouldn't think its ok to no be able to max out settings with current top hardware.

DAMN YOU EA :lol
 

McLovin

Member
Aug 20, 2007
13,896
16
1,055
Bridgeport, CT
Wow I was gonna get this too.. the video editor seemed interesting. If I'm not going to get over 30fps on my system I'm not even going to bother. I already own it on ps3. I have a Q6600 Quad core @ 2.45ghz 3gb of ram, and a 8800gt with 615mb. What can I expect?
 

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
12,388
1,344
1,350
USA
JudgeN said:
I don't understand why PC developers make games that can't be run on max settings with current top hardware. I blame Crysis for this, it wasn't for that game GTA4 wouldn't think its ok to no be able to max out settings with current top hardware.

DAMN YOU EA :lol
I've got to ask why people care? I can understand being pissed off over a shitty port that doesn't perform comparably to other games, but why do you care if they have settings that will only be useful in the future. The "High" setting doesn't mean anything, its like the Spinal Tap amp that goes up to 11.
 

JudgeN

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3,961
1
1,120
poppabk said:
I've got to ask why people care? I can understand being pissed off over a shitty port that doesn't perform comparably to other games, but why do you care if they have settings that will only be useful in the future. The "High" setting doesn't mean anything, its like the Spinal Tap amp that goes up to 11.

Its because when you put $1200 into your rig like I have and you can run every other damn game at max settings it becomes your standard. I'm sure most PC gamers like max settings and to me its a slap in the face to my hardware that spent good money on if you program your game to run on graphic cards 5 years down the line, but that's just how I feel.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Jan 20, 2005
14,204
4,825
1,820
MaddenNFL64 said:
Reading all that, the performance issues make absolute sense. People are jacking up everything to 100.

Actually, no.

McLovin said:
Wow I was gonna get this too.. the video editor seemed interesting. If I'm not going to get over 30fps on my system I'm not even going to bother. I already own it on ps3. I have a Q6600 Quad core @ 2.45ghz 3gb of ram, and a 8800gt with 615mb. What can I expect?

Performance that will make you say, "Wow, my money would have been better spent buying White Castle Hamburgers and back issues of Hustler."

Lince said:
thanks, I guess I'll switch to the 3ghz profile in the Bios since I have a feeling my stock Q6600 won't be enough this time around.

My Q6600 @ 3.2 still isn't enough.
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
poppabk said:
I've got to ask why people care? I can understand being pissed off over a shitty port that doesn't perform comparably to other games, but why do you care if they have settings that will only be useful in the future. The "High" setting doesn't mean anything, its like the Spinal Tap amp that goes up to 11.
R* does need to do a better job of indicating what the optimal settings are for a current high end PC. My guess is theres diminishing returns at a certain point with the detail settings, and most people wouldn't notice a difference from medium detail/distance to high detail/distance except when flying in a helicopter.
 

VictimOfGrief

Banned
Dec 9, 2004
8,452
1
0
Beaverton, OR
Well, skipping this until
GTA5 right?
they fix it. Just a shame it's so broken. I guess now that I have a PS3 though I can at least rent the game and see how it is. Shame.
 

Zzoram

Member
Apr 17, 2007
33,495
0
0
JudgeN said:
I don't understand why PC developers make games that can't be run on max settings with current top hardware. I blame Crysis for this, it wasn't for that game GTA4 wouldn't think its ok to no be able to max out settings with current top hardware.

DAMN YOU EA :lol

At least Crysis could run well on Medium/High at the time (the 8800GT 512mb came out with Crysis), GTA IV won't even do that.
 

Stoney Mason

Banned
Aug 2, 2006
28,674
0
0
Hmm...
Now I don't know what to think. I'm curious to test it out on my PC now even though I own the game on 360.
 

brain_stew

Member
Feb 20, 2007
19,261
1
1,215
McLovin said:
Wow I was gonna get this too.. the video editor seemed interesting. If I'm not going to get over 30fps on my system I'm not even going to bother. I already own it on ps3. I have a Q6600 Quad core @ 2.45ghz 3gb of ram, and a 8800gt with 615mb. What can I expect?

With "console settings" you should get a noticeable frame boost (and resolution boost) over the PS3 version with that hardware judging by most reports. OCing that quad to 3ghz (which any will do with ease) should give you a lot more performance though. The PS3 version was only 640p with an average framerate of around 20-25fps so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch too top that, even with horrible optimisation.

I finally caved in and picked it up in town, specs are 3.72ghz E5200, 6GB RAM and a 4850 and I'll be running @ 1360x768. I'm not too bothered about lots of traffic and a massive draw distance, so my framerate "should" be decent, really wish the game supported AA though, hopefully that's adding in a patch or through driver updates.


poppabk said:
I've got to ask why people care? I can understand being pissed off over a shitty port that doesn't perform comparably to other games, but why do you care if they have settings that will only be useful in the future. The "High" setting doesn't mean anything, its like the Spinal Tap amp that goes up to 11.

I actually don't have an issue with this personally. Crysis completely justified this approach because its graphics were so far ahead of everything else at the time (heck, they still are) and with a bit tweaking very high was actually playable smooth on something like a 8800GT @720p. My issue with GTA4 lies in the fact that its performance is no where near other multiplatform titles.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Apr 3, 2008
13,545
481
1,315
Hamburg, Germany
They should have looked at what the top machines on the market do and cap the values there so that that is your 100.

They could have patched higher settings into it down the road, everybody would have licked their balls then.

It's not rocket science.

And the GfW shit, sign-in nonsense etc is just wrong. What were they thinking? I hope that heads will roll. That's exactly the wrong direction.
 

fushi

Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,851
3
1,460
Estonia
I was really hyped for the PC version, but am now going to skip it completely until I build a new PC... in 2010.

(Q6600 @ 3.2 and a 8800GTS 640MB here)
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
wmat said:
And the GfW shit, sign-in nonsense etc is just wrong. What were they thinking? I hope that heads will roll. That's exactly the wrong direction.
Whether its right or wrong, what they are trying to do is recreate the Xbox Live experience where you are connected to everything.

- You can see what your friends are playing and your friends can see what you are playing
- You can jump into multiplayer games with your friends and they can jump into your games
- You can base your decision on what multiplayer games to buy by seeing what games your friends are playing, and your friends can be encouraged to buy multiplayer games that you are playing
- You can chat in-game with your friends both with text and with a headset
- You can attain achievements and see your friend's achievements

Its not perfect as they need to bring out a standalone GFW client that runs out-of-game, but from my personal experience from the 360, it improved the quality of my online experience. Its the main reason why people who have both the 360 and PS3 prefer to play online on the 360. And I'd also say it was hard for me to understand the impact of the connectivity that XBL brought to the table until I experienced it first hand.

Now maybe PC Gamers will feel different if/when GFW is fleshed out, maybe they won't. But I know that I wouldn't be playing online games on my Xbox nearly as much if it weren't for these features.
 

Zzoram

Member
Apr 17, 2007
33,495
0
0
wmat said:
They should have looked at what the top machines on the market do and cap the values there so that that is your 100.

They could have patched higher settings into it down the road, everybody would have licked their balls then.

It's not rocket science.

And the GfW shit, sign-in nonsense etc is just wrong. What were they thinking? I hope that heads will roll. That's exactly the wrong direction.

That's not even a problem. The problem is GTA IV is running worse than the 360 version on PCs that are at least twice as fast.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Apr 3, 2008
13,545
481
1,315
Hamburg, Germany
infinityBCRT said:
Whether its right or wrong, what they are trying to do is recreate the Xbox Live experience where you are connected to everything.
... Nobody wants that!

This is an old discussion, so let's not get into it.

It keeps me from playing a game, that's that.

Now maybe PC Gamers will feel different if/when GFW is fleshed out, maybe they won't. But I know that I wouldn't be playing online games on my Xbox nearly as much if it weren't for these features.
PC gamers don't need to get the fact that they have internet stuffed down their throat. On XBox, this may work perfectly. On PC, it's sign-in hell. No debate.
 

Stoney Mason

Banned
Aug 2, 2006
28,674
0
0
Zzoram said:
That's not even a problem. The problem is GTA IV is running worse than the 360 version on PCs that are at least twice as fast.

Is that the case however?

Aren't the default settings greater than the 360 version and the game is at a higher resolution default?
 

Red Blaster

Member
Jun 6, 2005
22,555
1
1,170
infinityBCRT said:
Whether its right or wrong, what they are trying to do is recreate the Xbox Live experience where you are connected to everything.

- You can see what your friends are playing and your friends can see what you are playing
- You can jump into multiplayer games with your friends and they can jump into your games
- You can base your decision on what multiplayer games to buy by seeing what games your friends are playing, and your friends can be encouraged to buy multiplayer games that you are playing
- You can chat in-game with your friends both with text and with a headset
- You can attain achievements and see your friend's achievemen.

You could already do most of those on a PC.
 

JudgeN

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3,961
1
1,120
wmat said:
... Nobody wants that!

This is an old discussion, so let's not get into it.

It keeps me from playing a game, that's that.


PC gamers don't need to get the fact that they have internet stuffed down their throat. On XBox, this may work perfectly. On PC, it's sign-in hell. No debate.

So you hate steam too? Cause you realize steam does the exact same thing.
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
Zzoram said:
That's not even a problem. The problem is GTA IV is running worse than the 360 version on PCs that are at least twice as fast.
SIP YEK NOD has a PC that I'd consider is better than the 360, and hes running at settings that seem to be better than the 360, and his FPS seems to be a little better too (360 version runs ~25 FPS)
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Apr 3, 2008
13,545
481
1,315
Hamburg, Germany
JudgeN said:
So you hate steam too? Cause you realize steam does the exact same thing.
See, then I have Steam and GfW Live is a tumor I'd like to cut out.

What I mean is we HAVE those capabilities already. For a decade or so. It's pointless lines of code to me.

Edit: Let's not have the old GfW Live discussion here. Detracts from what this thread is about.
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
Red Blaster said:
You could already do most of those on a PC.
I haven't used steam for a long time, but my guess is Steam Community has added a lot of those features. But cite me the case of a non-Steam/non-GFW game which allows me to see what my friends are up to, what games they have played, what their progression in those games are, and that lets me chat in-game via text or voice.

Xfire? Sure it has some of those features, but its not nearly close to being a standard. Steam has it as a standard for games bought off their service, and GFW is trying to make it a standard for games bought off retail shelves.
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
wmat said:
Oh, you mean the dumbing-down factor.
At work I develop an app that has to be used by thousands of people. If I just had to make it so that it would work, I would have been done months ago. However, I also have to make sure its intuitive and accessible.

Maybe you can call that dumbing-down, idiot-proofing, whatever. But in my line of work its called making the app usable. :D
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Apr 3, 2008
13,545
481
1,315
Hamburg, Germany
infinityBCRT said:
At work I develop an app that has to be used by thousands of people. If I just had to make it so that it would work, I would have been done months ago. However, I have to make sure its usable so that its intuitive and accessible.

Maybe you can call that dumbing-down, idiot-proofing, whatever. But in my line of work its called making the app usable. :D
That's cool, but what I'm saying is if your app is already released, nobody uses it because the potential customers got all that figured out already and all you do is drag features into one app and make a shiny interface, which results in redundant functionality on the other end, you've got the GfW Live "success" story right there.
 

derder

Member
Apr 3, 2007
5,006
0
0
Raleigh, NC
JudgeN said:
I don't understand why PC developers make games that can't be run on max settings with current top hardware. I blame Crysis for this, it wasn't for that game GTA4 wouldn't think its ok to no be able to max out settings with current top hardware.

DAMN YOU EA :lol
Doom 3 did this.

I think its more of a engine-permanence thing: this is their second game to use the engine (Rockstar Table Tennis) and this engine looks like it could be used for quite some time.
 

Stoney Mason

Banned
Aug 2, 2006
28,674
0
0
derder said:
Doom 3 did this.

I think its more of a engine-permanence thing: this is their second game to use the engine (Rockstar Table Tennis) and this engine looks like it could be used for quite some time.


While I understand the complaint that a game should be able to run as well as the competing top of the line games on the market which is an accurate complaint to have it strikes me as humorous that some PC users think they have the obligation to be able to run any game they purchase with its top end settings. :lol
 

infinityBCRT

Member
Jun 2, 2008
8,304
0
815
wmat said:
That's cool, but what I'm saying is if your app is already released, nobody uses it because the potential customers got all that figured out already and all you do is drag features into one app and make a shiny interface, which results in redundant functionality on the other end, you've got the GfW Live "success" story right there.

For the hardcore PC gamer, maybe it is redundant. But for the casual gamer, if MS is are able to get over the hump and get wide support for GFW Live, it does open the online gaming experience beyond what they've known in the past.

Of course, GFW has a LONG way to go. I've always contended from the start that Microsoft needs to start making first party titles (that aren't 3 year old ports) which high have a high level of quality and lead the way with developing games which are scalable to both low end and high end PCs.
 

derder

Member
Apr 3, 2007
5,006
0
0
Raleigh, NC
Stoney Mason said:
While I understand the complaint that a game should be able to run as well as the competing top of the line games on the market which is an accurate complaint to have it strikes me as humorous that some PC users think they have the obligation to be able to run any game they purchase with its top end settings. :lol
Well they did invest $1000+ on something that doesn't look much better than a $200 xbox360.
Myself included :(
 

Cheeto

Member
Sep 5, 2006
8,538
1
0
36
Stoney Mason said:
While I understand the complaint that a game should be able to run as well as the competing top of the line games on the market which is an accurate complaint to have it strikes me as humorous that some PC users think they have the obligation to be able to run any game they purchase with its top end settings. :lol
Huh, I don't understand why this is funny... Why is getting the most out of your hardware a bad thing?
 

Stoney Mason

Banned
Aug 2, 2006
28,674
0
0
Cheeto said:
Huh, I don't understand why this is funny... Why is getting the most out of your hardware a bad thing?

You have the right to get the obligation out of your hardware relative to the other software on the market and comparable performance. Not that a game can't ever be above the hardware out there.

Once again not saying software shouldn't be properly optimized however which is the more accurate argument to have.