Grand Theft Auto 4

Oh **** is my G92 8800GTS not gonna play this :(

Pretty much only u/ged for this, L4D and Empire:TW

Pre-order should turn up today - sounds like I should have waited until things get fixed...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
what up with all the releases? nfsuc-rubish unplayble on most hardware... gta iv unplayable, loads of errrors... now lets wait for sr2 to be the same.. :/ cant they just do the game for once which would work? :/
 
grudas said:
what up with all the releases? nfsuc-rubish unplayble on most hardware... gta iv unplayable, loads of errrors... now lets wait for sr2 to be the same.. :/ cant they just do the game for once which would work? :/
Click to expand...

Yes but NFS-UC has an excuse, it was made by EA :p

And it was allot more playable on high than GTA IV, yes it did look like total cack though.
 
I just installed the game on steam i had no proplems gettign it working, i allready had a windows live account because of fallout 3, the social club thing took like 2 mins and i was playing.

As for the game all i can say is wow it looks amazing i want for auto configure for the densititys then turn the textures up to high and highest at 1920 by 1200 res i'm not gettign below 30 fps. As other have said it does really need aa, if it had aa it would be ahead of crysis in terms of graphics imo.

what really exicts me is i have sli and its not even supported yet in game yet.

As for the game play havn't really played it yet, jsut been drving round the city stealing cars, i love the way the cars handle comapred to the other gta.

I'm really not dissapointed i'm not gonna let the like of aa spoil a other wise great game imo.
 
I get the impression the graphics card is largely meaningless in this game. One of the guys in the Benchmark thread got the same score as me with an 8800GTX and the same CPU as me..
 
Maybe it is doing all the shadows on the CPU? See if this game was as customizable as Everquest 2 then we would be able to play it smooth.

Everquest 2 is a lag fest turned up and its graphics are rubbish too.
 
[TW]Fox;13027573 said:
I get the impression the graphics card is largely meaningless in this game. One of the guys in the Benchmark thread got the same score as me with an 8800GTX and the same CPU as me..
Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but dual cores are the bottleneck. If you have a quad core then the GPU seems to be the bottleneck. ie. when I ran the benchmark at 2.4 and at 3.0 the fps was the same, but at 3.0 my CPU usage was lower, so in my case my 9600GT is the bottleneck and if I had your 280, my fps would perhaps be doubled. Likewise if you had my CPU.
 
Personally, I dont see why everyone is complaining. Yes the graphics arent brilliant but imo they are better than San Andreas/Vice City definitely and anyway GTA was never about the graphics but the gameplay.

From what ive played of the game, about 2-3 hours I think it's great, good storyline and lots of missions. The city itself looks awesome and coupled with loads of new features such as Niko actually smashing the car windscreens when stealing a car! it is good fun to play.

My only few niggles are:

-Car handling (The car's really cannot go round corners!)
-Water textures (Looks like the water is bouncing up and down)

It runs great on my rig (see sig) on medium/high and gives a reasonable framerate for playing just fine.

Im hoping rockstar bring out a patch soon to sort out the graphics (think some third party configs will help) and perhaps sort out some of the other minor bugs.

I havent tried the muliplayer yet, has anyone given it a go??
 
moomoomoo said:
I just installed the game on steam i had no proplems gettign it working, i allready had a windows live account because of fallout 3, the social club thing took like 2 mins and i was playing.

As for the game all i can say is wow it looks amazing i want for auto configure for the densititys then turn the textures up to high and highest at 1920 by 1200 res i'm not gettign below 30 fps. As other have said it does really need aa, if it had aa it would be ahead of crysis in terms of graphics imo.

what really exicts me is i have sli and its not even supported yet in game yet.

As for the game play havn't really played it yet, jsut been drving round the city stealing cars, i love the way the cars handle comapred to the other gta.

I'm really not dissapointed i'm not gonna let the like of aa spoil a other wise great game imo.
Click to expand...

You've never played Crysis on High or Very High then, the graphics even maxed are NO WHERE near Crysis.... FACT.

1280x1024, 1680x1050, high, medium low... They all give crappy performance, at the start when it is all on high apart from textures on Medium I'm getting like 45-50fps, but it starts tumbling until it wont stay above 30 and that is not acceptable.

I can see why some people think it is super smooth, well I cant see why really, but my flat mate was playing it for an hour and never complaining once apart from when it temporarily crashed... Its cause she is used to playing on a console that has low frame rate like in GTA IV.
 
Last edited:
My spec is
8600 @ 4ghz, 4 gig of ram @ 1066 mhz, bfg 260 gtx stock in sli. ( sli not supported yet though apperantly ) windows xp pro.

I really do think the game looks awesome if only it had aa (gonna try forcing aa)
 
AA does not suddenly make a game look a million times better in terms of textures and effects, all AA does is get rid of jaggies... I'm scratching my head here trying to find how you though it would look better than Crysis if it had AA, looks cack with or without AA compared to Crysis.
 
Got GTA running last night, went without hitch after 30hours of download time, but setting up Live and joining clubs just to save games :(. This game wont work in a few years probibly.

Running in 1920x1200 resoultuon, i can crank everything up even render quality to high, except draw distance and im stuck on low texture quality as my 9800GX2 only has 512Mb of ram per card. Frame rate is pretty nice and smooth.

But, Why does GTA not see the other 512MB, what a waste?

Does this also mean if someone has SLI 280, it would only see 1 cards ram? or is this just be cause the GX2 is 2 cards in one?
 
Last edited:
WesleyBurns said:
Got GTA running last night, went without hitch after 30hours of download time, but setting up Live and joining clubs just to save games :(. This game wont work in a few years probibly.

Running in 1920x1200 resoultuon, i can crank everything up even render quality to high, except draw distance and im stuck on low texture quality as my 9800GX2 only has 512Mb of ram per card. Frame rate is pretty nice and smooth.

But, Why does GTA not see the other 512MB, what a waste?

Does this also mean if someone has SLI 280, it would only see 1 cards ram? or is this just be cause the GX2 is 2 cards in one?
Click to expand...

With a 512MB card you can use Medium texture quality.

Also it is right to only see 512MB ram, thats all you have :p, the other set of 512MB ram is cloned, you dont have 1GB cause it has 2 sets of 512MB :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom