GTA V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it weird that I have an unopened copy of GTA IV which has sat in my cupboard unplayed for about 4 years? Think I might play 3, Vice, San Andreas then IV in order, whilst waiting for V to come out on PC. At least now when I play IV my PC will be able to handle it.

P.S. this guy is hilarious. Spoils nothing, but tags in place regardless.

 
Last edited:
Personally I am waiting for PC version despite having PS3 under my TV. I am spoiled, and I want my first experience with the game as good as possible..and that includes 60fps at 1080p with graphics sliders to maximum, played on X360pad and TV.
I assume Rockstar will announce it in two or three months, with release set to march-april 2014 alongside next console versions.
 
Bubo said:
Think I might play 3, Vice, San Andreas then IV in order
Click to expand...

I tried doing this, I bought the GTA pack in the Steam sale.

I couldn't do it, the graphics offended me, funny really because when I played them the first time round, they were the best looking games I had ever played.

San Andreas was my favourite, riding up the mountain on a bmx and hurtling off it ahhhhhh......
 
The only GTA games I haven't finished are:
SA- Got to second island and just never went back to it.
GTAIV- Got to very last mission then never went back to it:p
GTAIV- Own them and never touched them, cause I wanted to finish IV first.
 
PanMaster said:
What a waste of £170 million and the RAGE engine. They could have at least waited for the next gen consoles. I blame the yank publisher that owns Rockstar rather than the UK based employees for this.
Click to expand...

Use your head; it'd take them years just to break-even if they'd made it a next-gen title instead.

In any case, the game looks superb.
 
top down GTA 1 was best. Used to love waiting at the train station with a flame thrower.

Not played another GTA game since. However, the missus wants me to pick this up for 360. hmmm!
 
silversurfer said:
I'd argue 16fps is doable, its playable but not enjoyable or seamless as a proper fluid 30fps or better. Looks like a lot of the game is not purely about moving as fast as possible everywhere, if thats the case its worth having now most likely.

Its possible to get an old console and the game for under a hundred? too tempting for many I bet
Click to expand...
Tbh you're fooling yourself if you think 16fps is even somewhat acceptable. Even 30 is poor really. Stop making excuses for the ancient hardware the game is running on. Just look at the game on the consoles, from a PC gaming perspective it looks like a dogs dinner.
 
Last edited:
Palladium said:
Tbh you're fooling yourself if you think 16fps is even somewhat acceptable. Even 30 is poor really. Stop making excuses for the ancient hardware the game is running on. Just look at the game on the consoles, from a PC gaming perspective it looks like a dogs dinner.
Click to expand...

I think the PS3 version is plenty smooth enough, and looks fantastic. In places it's breathtaking.

Thanks for the heads up though- I'll be careful not to realise that I'm actually fooling myself, I wouldn't want to get into an argument with myself.
 
It is interesting to see how different standards across platforms are.
When the game comes out on console, most people do not mind lowres graphics and framerate, because there is no alternative and no options to mess with.
But if PC version came out and had the exact same graphics and framerate without possibility to change it, people would go crazy and want to kill rockstar.

Of course, even when such craziness does happen, as it did with Dark Souls, enterprising talented PC gaming modders pick up the slack and improve the game themselves.
 
Palladium said:
Tbh you're fooling yourself if you think 16fps is even somewhat acceptable. Even 30 is poor really. Stop making excuses for the ancient hardware the game is running on. Just look at the game on the consoles, from a PC gaming perspective it looks like a dogs dinner.
Click to expand...

I think 30 FPS is fine for most games, as long as it's fairly constant 30 FPS. I've played loads of games at 30 FPS and never felt the experience suffered for it.

The attitude that a game is junk if it doesn't perform like it would on a PC - that's the whole attitude a lot of us were talking about. It gives PC gamers a bad name when they always complain about 'inferior' hardware. It's just annoying.

Personally, I agree this thread should be closed. It's over 50% bitching about a different platform, and that helps no one.
 
CGrieves said:
I think the PS3 version is plenty smooth enough, and looks fantastic. In places it's breathtaking.

Thanks for the heads up though- I'll be careful not to realise that I'm actually fooling myself, I wouldn't want to get into an argument with myself.
Click to expand...

My friend has been hyped about this game for ages and got it as soon as he could for ps3, and promptly told me that the gfx were quite bad due to no AA and apparently lot of fog to reduce draw distance.

He still loves the game and is a console gamer but himself told me the gfx werent as good as the videos led to believe. So either its just the ps3 version or the graphics really just arent that impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom