GTA IV performance analysis.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I was thinking about what Rockstar actually did with the PC version of the game. They gave us an engine that was optimized for good performance and took off its restraints. They said, let them take the engine to the limit.
Now I'm thinking about how eveyone got pissed off that they couldn't max out the game. They start blaming poor coding etc... etc... it got crazy. If the game had been released with slightly better textures than console, better filtering, slightly better lighting and slightly better draw distance and called "Maxed Out", nobody would've complained (Except for the lack of antialiasing, that's just blasphemy!:P).
Instead we got an engine with no limits, and everybody wants to take it to that limit. You know what I did? (please look at my system below). I couldn't get the game past medium textures at 1680x1050 with my memory limit, so I hit autoconfigure. Now with the autoconfigure on, everything ran pretty good, and I was running it with the auto settings except I dialed in "-width 1920 -height 1200" into "commandline.txt" to take advantage of native resolution. It was running like that for a long time, and I was pretty satisfied, it ran pretty good. Somewhere along the lines the game reset its graphics options. I was running 1920x1200 with textures on low, render quality on high and all sliders at 1. It was running extremely smooth. So I hit autoconfigure again, set my textures to "low" and left my resolution at 1920x1200 and set render quality to highest. I then proceeded to play.
Not only was my framerate absolutely excellent, the game looks great, regardless of having low textures, the game seemed to be displaying a lower amount of graphical odditites, like disappearing textures, appearing objects etc... I then thought to myself "add AA and this is bliss".
Rockstar gave us a somewhat glitchy port, I'll give you that, it has some wrinkles that need to be ironed out. But to get mad about not being able to max it out, or that is poorly coded garbage is out of line. They gave us an engine and said, "Here, take it to the limit if you want, we can't promise anything, but there is this handy button to push that'll max this engine as far as it goes on your system and still keep performance pretty good, and you can always drop the settings a bit to get more performance."
Coding wise, the engine is pretty solid and efficient. We are pushing the engine pretty far trying to max out everything. The engine performs great when these settings are used in balance. Try to push it to the limit and things get choppy, that's expected.
GTA IV for the PC only has two problems: There are a few graphical glitches left, and 2, there is no antialiasing.
Rockstar gave us a wild horse, you can try to get the engine to do great things, but it's your job to tame it. Stop crying about poor coding and optimization. If you're an enthusiast, do what I did, analyze the game and tune it to your liking. If you're a casual gamer, if you stick to the auto setting or lower the game is going to run great and probably still look better than it does on console.
My advice if you have a pretty good card with 512MB RAM. Hit auto settings, change textures to "low", rendering quality to "highest", and set it to the resolution of your choice. Bump up the draw distance some if you have some memory to spare. Play the game, it'll run great and look great too. All it's missing is AA.
My Analysis/Rant is now over. This analysis is aimed at no one specifically, just a few threads and opions I've seen being thrown around about this game.
Ok, so everyone made a big scene when their brand new beast computers couldn't max out GTA IV, or even get the textures to high, or get their resolution to 1920x1200 at the same time etc...
I was thinking about what Rockstar actually did with the PC version of the game. They gave us an engine that was optimized for good performance and took off its restraints. They said, let them take the engine to the limit.
Now I'm thinking about how eveyone got pissed off that they couldn't max out the game. They start blaming poor coding etc... etc... it got crazy. If the game had been released with slightly better textures than console, better filtering, slightly better lighting and slightly better draw distance and called "Maxed Out", nobody would've complained (Except for the lack of antialiasing, that's just blasphemy!:P).
Instead we got an engine with no limits, and everybody wants to take it to that limit. You know what I did? (please look at my system below). I couldn't get the game past medium textures at 1680x1050 with my memory limit, so I hit autoconfigure. Now with the autoconfigure on, everything ran pretty good, and I was running it with the auto settings except I dialed in "-width 1920 -height 1200" into "commandline.txt" to take advantage of native resolution. It was running like that for a long time, and I was pretty satisfied, it ran pretty good. Somewhere along the lines the game reset its graphics options. I was running 1920x1200 with textures on low, render quality on high and all sliders at 1. It was running extremely smooth. So I hit autoconfigure again, set my textures to "low" and left my resolution at 1920x1200 and set render quality to highest. I then proceeded to play.
Not only was my framerate absolutely excellent, the game looks great, regardless of having low textures, the game seemed to be displaying a lower amount of graphical odditites, like disappearing textures, appearing objects etc... I then thought to myself "add AA and this is bliss".
Rockstar gave us a somewhat glitchy port, I'll give you that, it has some wrinkles that need to be ironed out. But to get mad about not being able to max it out, or that is poorly coded garbage is out of line. They gave us an engine and said, "Here, take it to the limit if you want, we can't promise anything, but there is this handy button to push that'll max this engine as far as it goes on your system and still keep performance pretty good, and you can always drop the settings a bit to get more performance."
Coding wise, the engine is pretty solid and efficient. We are pushing the engine pretty far trying to max out everything. The engine performs great when these settings are used in balance. Try to push it to the limit and things get choppy, that's expected.
GTA IV for the PC only has two problems: There are a few graphical glitches left, and 2, there is no antialiasing.
Rockstar gave us a wild horse, you can try to get the engine to do great things, but it's your job to tame it. Stop crying about poor coding and optimization. If you're an enthusiast, do what I did, analyze the game and tune it to your liking. If you're a casual gamer, if you stick to the auto setting or lower the game is going to run great and probably still look better than it does on console.
My advice if you have a pretty good card with 512MB RAM. Hit auto settings, change textures to "low", rendering quality to "highest", and set it to the resolution of your choice. Bump up the draw distance some if you have some memory to spare. Play the game, it'll run great and look great too. All it's missing is AA.
My Analysis/Rant is now over. This analysis is aimed at no one specifically, just a few threads and opions I've seen being thrown around about this game.Marfoo
I have a q9450 oced @ 3.33Ghz, 4GB of ram @ 800Mhz and CF HD4870 1GB stock. I run this game auto config @ high for 1920x1200. I say this game performes well considering it's one of the biggest sanbox game and graphic wise very nice. So I agree with you.
intel q9400
ati radeon hd4870 512mb
2 gig xms2 dhx corsair ram
1680x1050 resolution
and i run gta 4 at max sliders and highest settings on everything, and it doesn't lag at all except when my avg is doing its routine scan. this game is so cool i even miss playing company of heroes. btw, what's all about those games for windows live achievements?i don't know what's the purpose of those.
Are you sure that runs good? I tried that and there were texture missing left and right. We're talking about running the game at settings that require nearly 1.5GB of VRAM with 512MB. I guess it ran ok, but I everything was missing when I tried it.intel q9400
migs17
ati radeon hd4870 512mb
2 gig xms2 dhx corsair ram
1680x1050 resolution
and i run gta 4 at max sliders and highest settings on everything, and it doesn't lag at all except when my avg is doing its routine scan. this game is so cool i even miss playing company of heroes. btw, what's all about those games for windows live achievements?i don't know what's the purpose of those.
Those HD 4870 1GB cards working out for you? I wish those were available when I bought my system. I guess that's what happens when you're an early adopter like me, you see nothing but great deals after you purchase, lol. That extra VRAM helps a lot with some games, GTA IV especially.Marfoo
Oh yeah! I did the benchmark and got +55FPS. The only thing that stinks about CF or SLI, is that the ram doesn't add up. But it's still a nice thing having 1Gb or vram for this game, I can add more viewing distance and everything.
Already played it on my PS3. X360PS3AMD05
And your point is?
My specs are located on my sig. Currently playing this game at 1440x900 medium quality graphics and getting 10-20 fps. The game auto set the graphics are high quality and only got 5 fps making the game unplayable for me.Jd1680a
You got latest driver with patch? Cause that's a little hard to beleive... Can you do the benchmark test.
The only issue that I have with the analysis he gave is the evidence we have from people like you.. There are plenty of people who have comparable computers who somehow get completely different performance numbers, like night and day. It seems to be the most inconsistently performing game across different computers that I've ever seen.hartsickdiscipl
Maybe before the patch?
Now if only the game was actually fun...I'll stick with the original Grand Theft Auto, thanks. GOURANGA!!!RayvinAzn
This game is actually fun... well comparing to this gen of games.
Nah, it's poorly optimized.
And the graphics ain't all that even on max, so the no limit talk is bs.
The matter of fact is, it has higher requirements than Crysis and GTA4 doesn't even come close, even when you're considering it's a sandbox game.
What really bugs me is, people that say Crysis is an unoptimized piece of turd, when it in reality it is far from it. Considering the graphical fidelity, I'd say it's greatly optimized. I can even run it on my old p4 computer, I even used to play it online with it, and I had a kill death ratio above 4. I can't say the same thing about other games, even older ones. This tells us that the Cryrngine 2 scales really well and is optimized.
People are just pissed they can't run the game at the highest settings, this is also the case with GTA4, but here, poor optimization is actually to blame.
[QUOTE="RayvinAzn"]Now if only the game was actually fun...I'll stick with the original Grand Theft Auto, thanks. GOURANGA!!!Bebi_vegeta
This game is actually fun... well comparing to this gen of games.
Sins of a Solar Empire, Left 4 Dead, Bioshock, Multiwinia...I don't really need to go on. Tons of games I'd much rather play than Grand Theft Auto IV. Personal preference of course, and I'd be lying if I said it had nothing to do with the franchise abandoning its PC roots, but the game just holds very little appeal to me. Strikes me as the worst parts of previous installments and The Sims.Nah, it's poorly optimized.
And the graphics ain't all that even on max, so the no limit talk is bs.
The matter of fact is, it has higher requirements than Crysis and GTA4 doesn't even come close, even when you're considering it's a sandbox game.
What really bugs me is, people that say Crysis is an unoptimized piece of turd, when it in reality it is far from it. Considering the graphical fidelity, I'd say it's greatly optimized. I can even run it on my old p4 computer, I even used to play it online with it, and I had a kill death ratio above 4. I can't say the same thing about other games, even older ones. This tells us that the Cryrngine 2 scales really well and is optimized.
People are just pissed they can't run the game at the highest settings, this is also the case with GTA4, but here, poor optimization is actually to blame.
Dark-Sithious
You're comparing Crysis to GTA4? There's a huge difference between both sandbox games. GTA4 is constanly pack with people and cars moving and buildings everywhere.... Crysis is most of the time empty with trees and a few soldiers. For what the GTA4 is, it's pretty crazy to have good graphics for this game. Now if you say the graphics aren't that good... you'd obviously didn't played it on a PC. This is not a case of bad port. There's no PC who can fully max crysis anyway, just like there's no PC who can fully max GTA4. The only probleme is Crysis isn't really optimized for quad.Maybe the game doesn't scale well other then a quad core, but that's just normal, the game is pack. It's abit like supreme commander... it's way better with a quad with all the units on screan at the same time.
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="RayvinAzn"]Now if only the game was actually fun...I'll stick with the original Grand Theft Auto, thanks. GOURANGA!!!RayvinAzn
This game is actually fun... well comparing to this gen of games.
Sins of a Solar Empire, Left 4 Dead, Bioshock, Multiwinia...I don't really need to go on. Tons of games I'd much rather play than Grand Theft Auto IV. Personal preference of course, and I'd be lying if I said it had nothing to do with the franchise abandoning its PC roots, but the game just holds very little appeal to me. Strikes me as the worst parts of previous installments and The Sims.I think GTA san andreas was the worst... yet it seems to be the most praised here. I consider GTA4 to be in the same categorie as thoses games you listed. Well... really I only played L4D and Bioshock... both have there strengh and weaknesses. L4D has a nice coop, but's that get's old real fast. It's really all about the modes in multiplayer. Bioshock was fantastic, but limited to single player. GTA4 has both worlds... 32 online player, that's kinda nice.
What is Crysis though? An open high detailed environment with some AI controlling some enemy troops and vehicles? What is GTA? An open ended environment with dozens of vehicles on screen at once with all their AI being calculated, physics applied, sounds being played, traffic obeyed, obstacles avoided. Many people on the sidewalks walking, interacting, talking, reacting to your actions. There are dozens of scripts being created and executed in realtime while its streams new data as you move through the city. You keep equating graphical fidelity to optimization when that clearly isn't the case. GTA IV is obviously more CPU intensive than it is GPU intensive, that's where Crysis shines, with the GPU. You can't say Crysis is limited by the CPU as much as it is the GPU. Don't tell me you need a great CPU to play Crysis, that's not true, you need a good CPU to not bottleneck your GPU to play Crysis on high. They obviously got it working with two threads, that's why the minimum requirement is a dual core. Recommended is triple core or quad core, and that makes sense considering the Xbox360 has 3 cores. The engine was designed to be able to execute on 3 cores or more. GTA IV is not poorly optimized, it's just an unlocked engine that likes thrashing CPU's and VRAM, that's it.Nah, it's poorly optimized.
And the graphics ain't all that even on max, so the no limit talk is bs.
The matter of fact is, it has higher requirements than Crysis and GTA4 doesn't even come close, even when you're considering it's a sandbox game.
What really bugs me is, people that say Crysis is an unoptimized piece of turd, when it in reality it is far from it. Considering the graphical fidelity, I'd say it's greatly optimized. I can even run it on my old p4 computer, I even used to play it online with it, and I had a kill death ratio above 4. I can't say the same thing about other games, even older ones. This tells us that the Cryrngine 2 scales really well and is optimized.
People are just pissed they can't run the game at the highest settings, this is also the case with GTA4, but here, poor optimization is actually to blame.
Dark-Sithious
we shouldnt have to set everything to low, the game SHOULD run fine, specially on systems that are current.. its proof of bad port and poor optomization, but apparently a new patch fixes some stuff
ofcourse people get angry, they got more power than should be needed and they spent lots of money to make that so, but they buy a game like this, obviously r* never took 5mins to install it and try it out on an average system
if it was optomized properly, it would have run well on the 280/quad core systems
Nah, it's poorly optimized.
And the graphics ain't all that even on max, so the no limit talk is bs.
The matter of fact is, it has higher requirements than Crysis and GTA4 doesn't even come close, even when you're considering it's a sandbox game.
What really bugs me is, people that say Crysis is an unoptimized piece of turd, when it in reality it is far from it. Considering the graphical fidelity, I'd say it's greatly optimized. I can even run it on my old p4 computer, I even used to play it online with it, and I had a kill death ratio above 4. I can't say the same thing about other games, even older ones. This tells us that the Cryrngine 2 scales really well and is optimized.
People are just pissed they can't run the game at the highest settings, this is also the case with GTA4, but here, poor optimization is actually to blame.
What is Crysis though? An open high detailed environment with some AI controlling some enemy troops and vehicles? What is GTA? An open ended environment with dozens of vehicles on screen at once with all their AI being calculated, physics applied, sounds being played, traffic obeyed, obstacles avoided. Many people on the sidewalks walking, interacting, talking, reacting to your actions. There are dozens of scripts being created and executed in realtime while its streams new data as you move through the city. You keep equating graphical fidelity to optimization when that clearly isn't the case. GTA IV is obviously more CPU intensive than it is GPU intensive, that's where Crysis shines, with the GPU. You can't say Crysis is limited by the CPU as much as it is the GPU. Don't tell me you need a great CPU to play Crysis, that's not true, you need a good CPU to not bottleneck your GPU to play Crysis on high. They obviously got it working with two threads, that's why the minimum requirement is a dual core. Recommended is triple core or quad core, and that makes sense considering the Xbox360 has 3 cores. The engine was designed to be able to execute on 3 cores or more. GTA IV is not poorly optimized, it's just an unlocked engine that likes thrashing CPU's and VRAM, that's it. Complely agree, I dont understand how people can compare crysis to GTA 4 based on graphics. There is way WAY much more going on in GTA 4 than crysis which makes it a CPU dependent game, while crysis is a GPU dependent game. GTA 4 is well optimized on runs amazing on my Q6600 9800gt which is pretty mainstream. I am play at 1920x1080 resolution at 40fps.we shouldnt have to set everything to low, the game SHOULD run fine, specially on systems that are current.. its proof of bad port and poor optomization, but apparently a new patch fixes some stuff
ofcourse people get angry, they got more power than should be needed and they spent lots of money to make that so, but they buy a game like this, obviously r* never took 5mins to install it and try it out on an average system
if it was optomized properly, it would have run well on the 280/quad core systems
riptoe222
It does run well... what are you talking about.
btw, when top end systems can only run it on low, then there is something wrong, they obviously should have tailored the game for the CURRENT MARKET.. wtf is the point of releasing a game that gets 20fps on top end systems.. riptoe222
i'm doing +55fps @ 1920 x 1200 with high settings....
[QUOTE="riptoe222"]btw, when top end systems can only run it on low, then there is something wrong, they obviously should have tailored the game for the CURRENT MARKET.. wtf is the point of releasing a game that gets 20fps on top end systems.. Bebi_vegeta
i'm doing +55fps @ 1920 x 1200 with high settings....
I have to run it on low to run 1920x1200 and stay within 512MB RAM. It's completely a VRAM issue, not an optimization issue though, I've ran it at high and it ran great but textures were missing. Also riptoe222, "low" is just a label if they would've marked "low" as "high" no one would be crying. My point is people are crying about the label. The game looks great on low, people just can't stand the fact that their new graphics card can only run it on "low". If you have to run it at "low" to get it running at 1920x1200 what's the big deal? If you have a smaller resolution than 1920x1200 you can run at medium with good settings and it'll run on 512MB. The game is not poorly optimized, it just requires heavy CPU usage and VRAM. The game isn't running 20fps on top end systems, Bebi_vegeta is getting good performance, I'm getting good performace. Crysis ran like crap on high end systems when it first came out and everyone called that game revolutionary just because it looked pretty. GTA IV is just as amazing on the CPU side of things. If people don't see graphical return, they start blaming poor optimization. There is a ton of things going on in GTA IV at once and there are a lot of things that require a lot of VRAM. The only problem with GTA IV is it can't run anti-aliasing.[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="riptoe222"]btw, when top end systems can only run it on low, then there is something wrong, they obviously should have tailored the game for the CURRENT MARKET.. wtf is the point of releasing a game that gets 20fps on top end systems.. Marfoo
i'm doing +55fps @ 1920 x 1200 with high settings....
The only problem with GTA IV is it can't run anti-aliasing.and that thousands of people are having a problem with the game
I have been pleasantly surprised with GTA 4. Other than the "Rockstar Games Social Club", and the Windows live crap, I mean why do I have to be signed in to save a game?
But that aside, it is a fun game for me. It has preformed pretty well. On my main rig, I was running it at 1920x1200 with Texture at Med, and Render at High. I left the distances where they where, and it ran pretty well for the most part. Had a few crashes dues to "out of video memory"
My other rig, with a E6320 @ 3.0 with 2GB DDR2 800 and a 9600GSO 384MB runs it at 1280x1024, on Low, Medium and while I have just started the game on that PC, so far it runs good and looks good too.
intel q9400
ati radeon hd4870 512mb
2 gig xms2 dhx corsair ram
1680x1050 resolution
and i run gta 4 at max sliders and highest settings on everything, and it doesn't lag at all migs17
Sure you do. I get sick of these comments.
I run at mediumt textures, highest render, view distance 30, Detail 100 @1600x1200 with my 512MB card. Sure we have all tryed the -norestrictions and wacked it on max that takes 1900MB of GPU memory resulting in missing textures left right and centre and the out of video memory error.
[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]The only problem with GTA IV is it can't run anti-aliasing.i'm doing +55fps @ 1920 x 1200 with high settings....
riptoe222
and that thousands of people are having a problem with the game
There are just people who are crying because they can't get the settings where they want, or are having problems because they used the commandline to force settings they don't have the hardware to run. Majority of those who were having major problems, such as massive missing textures etc... had their problems fix with the first patch. Those having legitimate problems probably need driver updates, patches, directX updates, .NET etc... If they are still having problem they are being addressed. GTA IV post patch is having just as many problems as any other new game on the market, it's just everyone cried about it so much everyone is under the opinion that it's bugged and worthless. It's suffering a " WindowsVista" effect, initially it had rough start and then was ironed out, but everyone still complains.I have a relatively decent system comparable to current consoles so I haven't even tried turning the sliders to max because I know it won't run well. What gets me is I can't even run it anywhere near the settings that the consoles use. I lower the resolution and texture settings the only two real options left for me to change and I actually seem to get worse or no difference in performance so I go back to where I was.
The game has no AA but I don't complain because I can't even get decent fps without AA but for PC Rockstar should have had AA support because people who do have more powerful computers should have the option and again because this is PC.
Then we have the shadows which look awful which you fail to mention.
I am playing the game now with acceptable fps and am happy with game after doing a LOT of tweaking but still this clearly is a lousy port. Its laughable to hear people say GTAIV is well optimized or a good port.
To assume that everybody is complaining because they couldn't max it out is quite ignorant.
In addition the patch made absolute no difference for me and plenty of other people. I also didn't have the missing texture problem so it made zero difference.
I agree people who tried just maxing out the game straight away should expect it to chug and shouldn't complain that they can't max it out. But when you have a decent PC similar to console power and can't play the game lower than console setting and resolution without AA(X360 had 2xAA) at least then there is something very wrong.
I know PC shouldn't be directly compared to console but I'll just say that we need to install 14GB onto hard disk compared to Xbox 360 running off dvd disc and yet we get poor performance. Most PCs also have 2GB-4GB now but Xbox 360 can run it fine with 256mb ram.
I also want to say GTAIV is a very detailed game. There are so many tiny details in the game that are dynamic and have physics, also you got lots of different peds, AI, cars, and even small objects all over the place and so much more so it can't really be directly comparable to Crysis. Graphically the game may not be technically on same level and even other games may have better graphics but it is still decent enough imo. Still that is no excuse for the poor performance.
And I agree with someone here who says it isn't probably as fun as previous GTA games. I mean it is very enjoyable and still a great game for sure and better than many other games, but the missions are standard as in already done that in old GTA games and mainly for me not that memorable(I have finished the game). It is more polished though. The cutscenes, the voice acting are excellent, I like the characters, the detail level is brilliant and overall the game and gameplay is more refined and realistic.
Anyway just countering your argument. I don't agree with your "analysis" to say that this is a good port when it clearly is not.
I guess the GTA IV lesson is that you can't get away with poor optimization by saying "It's designed for future hardware."Swiftstrike5
even if that were tru, why the hell would they release it for future hardware when we wanna play it now, specailly since it should run now if it werent so badly optomized
[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]The only problem with GTA IV is it can't run anti-aliasing.i'm doing +55fps @ 1920 x 1200 with high settings....
riptoe222
and that thousands of people are having a problem with the game
Just like any game...
I have a relatively decent system comparable to current consoles so I haven't even tried turning the sliders to max because I know it won't run well. What gets me is I can't even run it anywhere near the settings that the consoles use. I lower the resolution and texture settings the only two real options left for me to change and I actually seem to get worse or no difference in performance so I go back to where I was.
The game has no AA but I don't complain because I can't even get decent fps without AA but for PC Rockstar should have had AA support because people who do have more powerful computers should have the option and again because this is PC.
Then we have the shadows which look awful which you fail to mention.
I am playing the game now with acceptable fps and am happy with game after doing a LOT of tweaking but still this clearly is a lousy port. Its laughable to hear people say GTAIV is well optimized or a good port.
To assume that everybody is complaining because they couldn't max it out is quite ignorant.
In addition the patch made absolute no difference for me and plenty of other people. I also didn't have the missing texture problem so it made zero difference.
I agree people who tried just maxing out the game straight away should expect it to chug and shouldn't complain that they can't max it out. But when you have a decent PC similar to console power and can't play the game lower than console setting and resolution without AA(X360 had 2xAA) at least then there is something very wrong.
I know PC shouldn't be directly compared to console but I'll just say that we need to install 14GB onto hard disk compared to Xbox 360 running off dvd disc and yet we get poor performance. Most PCs also have 2GB-4GB now but Xbox 360 can run it fine with 256mb ram.
I also want to say GTAIV is a very detailed game. There are so many tiny details in the game that are dynamic and have physics, also you got lots of different peds, AI, cars, and even small objects all over the place and so much more so it can't really be directly comparable to Crysis. Graphically the game may not be technically on same level and even other games may have better graphics but it is still decent enough imo. Still that is no excuse for the poor performance.
And I agree with someone here who says it isn't probably as fun as previous GTA games. I mean it is very enjoyable and still a great game for sure and better than many other games, but the missions are standard as in already done that in old GTA games and mainly for me not that memorable(I have finished the game). It is more polished though. The cutscenes, the voice acting are excellent, I like the characters, the detail level is brilliant and overall the game and gameplay is more refined and realistic.
Anyway just countering your argument. I don't agree with your "analysis" to say that this is a good port when it clearly is not.
manny020
First of all, what is your PC hardware?
Grand Theft Auto IV = 1280x720 (2xAA) for X360 wich is pretty low res for PC standards... So if you atleast have a tri-core and a similar GPU, I don't see how you couldn't run this game at same setting wich would be low.
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]I guess the GTA IV lesson is that you can't get away with poor optimization by saying "It's designed for future hardware."riptoe222
even if that were tru, why the hell would they release it for future hardware when we wanna play it now, specailly since it should run now if it werent so badly optomized
It does run now and it's not that badly optimized.
I think developers need to take some basic psychology classes before releasing these games. As this forum demonstrates (no offense to posters, I'm just as bad about this as anyone else :P) people are obsessed with taking things to the limit. It's just human nature to want to have as much as possible. When a developer releases a game with graphics settings that almost no modern day PC's can run at playable framerates, people are going to feel as if the game is unoptimized. In some cases that may be true, but generally it's just that people are trying to play a game designed for tomorrow's PCs in mind with today's hardware. It's invevitable that people will be dissapointed. My advice: don't release a game with unplayable settings, release a patch a year or so later to unlock these settings when PCs can actually handle them.BlueBirdTS
My advice : don't buy a game, if you don't have the hardware requirements.
[QUOTE="riptoe222"][QUOTE="Marfoo"] The only problem with GTA IV is it can't run anti-aliasing.Bebi_vegeta
and that thousands of people are having a problem with the game
Just like any game...
no, just the bad ones, when a game is produced properly there arent floods of complaints
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="riptoe222"]and that thousands of people are having a problem with the game
riptoe222
Just like any game...
no, just the bad ones, when a game is produced properly there arent floods of complaints
Right, name me a game and i'll find a forum will plenty of people with problemes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Rockstar itself recommend a 512MB 8600 series card? (Not minimum mind you, but actual recommended)? I highly doubt that will run the game very well at most any resolution. Although I would like to see a test of a 256MB versus 512MB 8600GT in this game to see if the card's extra VRAM actually makes a difference.My advice : don't buy a game, if you don't have the hardware requirements.
Bebi_vegeta
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Rockstar itself recommend a 512MB 8600 series card? (Not minimum mind you, but actual recommended)? I highly doubt that will run the game very well at most any resolution. Although I would like to see a test of a 256MB versus 512MB 8600GT in this game to see if the card's extra VRAM actually makes a difference.My advice : don't buy a game, if you don't have the hardware requirements.
RayvinAzn
Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870
I'd also like to see a benchmark.
It'd be interesting to see if the 512MB version actually offered any gains over the 256MB version, especially after how many people have dissuaded others from 512MB versions of that card claiming the memory was a waste of money (myself being one of those people).Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870
I'd also like to see a benchmark.
Bebi_vegeta
[QUOTE="riptoe222"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Just like any game...
Bebi_vegeta
no, just the bad ones, when a game is produced properly there arent floods of complaints
Right, name me a game and i'll find a forum will plenty of people with problemes.
How many games does Gamespot call a lazy port and mention peformance issues at the begining of the review?This reminds me of the pc version of Halo CE. Another unoptimized port. UT2k3 looked and ran much better at the time.
Too bad we don't have a similar game to GTA 4 built from the ground up for pc to compare.
Here are some benches for the HD 3870 512MB
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,670889/?page=2Marfoo
I think these proves alot, the HD 3850 1Gb being better then HD 3870 512Mb.
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="riptoe222"]no, just the bad ones, when a game is produced properly there arent floods of complaints
Cranler
Right, name me a game and i'll find a forum will plenty of people with problemes.
How many games does Gamespot call a lazy port and mention peformance issues at the begining of the review?This reminds me of the pc version of Halo CE. Another unoptimized port. UT2k3 looked and ran much better at the time.
Too bad we don't have a similar game to GTA 4 built from the ground up for pc to compare.
After making a comparaison between PS3,X360 and PC... here is what they said : Generally GTAIV runs fine, and RockStar has released a patch since our testing that should clear up most of these visual oddities.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/p-4.html
They also fail to mention how much view distance and other details that could push theses problemes. But they did say, that they were playing @ 1920x1200 and looked that much better then console.
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]How many games does Gamespot call a lazy port and mention peformance issues at the begining of the review?Right, name me a game and i'll find a forum will plenty of people with problemes.
Bebi_vegeta
This reminds me of the pc version of Halo CE. Another unoptimized port. UT2k3 looked and ran much better at the time.
Too bad we don't have a similar game to GTA 4 built from the ground up for pc to compare.
After making a comparaison between PS3,X360 and PC... here is what they said : Generally GTAIV runs fine, and RockStar has released a patch since our testing that should clear up most of these visual oddities.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/p-4.html
They also fail to mention how much view distance and other details that could push theses problemes. But they did say, that they were playing @ 1920x1200 and looked that much better then console.
I can run every other port at a constant 60 fps at 1920x1200. Much higher if I didnt use v-sync. I can also run cpu heavy games like Supreme Commander at 60 fps. Even at lowest setting on GTA 4 I cant get a constnt 60 fps.[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Cranler"] How many games does Gamespot call a lazy port and mention peformance issues at the begining of the review?This reminds me of the pc version of Halo CE. Another unoptimized port. UT2k3 looked and ran much better at the time.
Too bad we don't have a similar game to GTA 4 built from the ground up for pc to compare.
Cranler
After making a comparaison between PS3,X360 and PC... here is what they said : Generally GTAIV runs fine, and RockStar has released a patch since our testing that should clear up most of these visual oddities.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/p-4.html
They also fail to mention how much view distance and other details that could push theses problemes. But they did say, that they were playing @ 1920x1200 and looked that much better then console.
I can run every other port at a constant 60 fps at 1920x1200. Much higher if I didnt use v-sync. I can also run cpu heavy games like Supreme Commander at 60 fps. Even at lowest setting on GTA 4 I cant get a constnt 60 fps. GTA IV is the kind of game with so much going on you can't expect it to churn out 60fps constantly, it's still running good though am I right? I don't get 60fps, but I do get very smooth fps.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment