brain_stew
Member
MaddenNFL64 said:
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.
-
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.
PC : Grand Theft Auto IV, Who's playing it ? And how?
- Thread starter lowrider007
- Start date
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
No head syndrome happened to me once.
How does Eurogamer justify giving this port 9/10?
edit: IGN UK review up.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/934/934806p2.html
9.2/10
1 sentence devoted to hardware issues. no mention of install or having to go through GFW & R* social club.
edit: IGN UK review up.
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/934/934806p2.html
9.2/10
1 sentence devoted to hardware issues. no mention of install or having to go through GFW & R* social club.
Haunted
Member
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*
$ + playing on machines Rockstar built = reviews aren't worth shit.Zenith said:
Willy Wanka
my god this avatar owns
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
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.
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.
CabbageRed
Member
K.Jack said:
(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.
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
Lince 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.
brain_stew
Member
SIP YEK NOD said:
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.
MrPing1000
Member
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.
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.
MrPing1000
Member
Okay please tell me theres a mouse lock for the car, i turn the car the camera doesn't follow it, argh.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
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 said:
poppabk said:
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.
infinityBCRT
Member
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.poppabk said:
VictimOfGrief
Banned
Well, skipping this until
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.
GTA5 right?
Stoney Mason
Banned
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.
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
McLovin said:
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 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
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.
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.
infinityBCRT
Member
Whether its right or wrong, what they are trying to do is recreate the Xbox Live experience where you are connected to everything.wmat said:
- 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.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
... Nobody wants that!infinityBCRT said:
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.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Zzoram said:
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
infinityBCRT said:
You could already do most of those on a PC.
infinityBCRT
Member
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)Zzoram said:
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
See, then I have Steam and GfW Live is a tumor I'd like to cut out.JudgeN said:
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
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.Red Blaster said:
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
wmat said:
The usability factor was not there before however.
infinityBCRT
Member
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.wmat said:
Maybe you can call that dumbing-down, idiot-proofing, whatever. But in my line of work its called making the app usable.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
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.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.
Stoney Mason
Banned
derder 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
infinityBCRT
Member
wmat said:
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.
brain_stew
Member
Eugh, this install process has got to be a joke, heaven knows when I'll get to play the game.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ngs_compared_plus_system_requirements/?page=2
That's not that big a difference.
Is it really that bad a port or should some people just tone down some of the settings?
That's not that big a difference.
Is it really that bad a port or should some people just tone down some of the settings?
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cheeto said:
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.