Exactly. Also the mods that will follow could make this game superb.
GTA V
- Thread starter SuperTronNarwhal
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. Also the mods that will follow could make this game superb.
@Palladium
Think of the console version as a normal version of the game. The PC version will be like a GOTY version with better textures, fixed bugs, better performance, mod support, larger multiplayer numbers as i bet the console mp player limit is well limited. Etc.
Also the main story line isnt the full game its just "part" of it just like exploring is "part" of it or the side quests etc. Dont tell others what is and isnt the full experience. It changes between diff people.
So whilst you might find it silly for ppl to buy the console version and the pc version. Well why not, its their money to do so, theres a large gap between platform releases. Also you never know the pc version might come with by default DLC included or somit if r* do release some dlc for it before pc release.
Also you might want to tone down your attitude to others play habbits otherwise the dons might step in. Just saying.
Think of the console version as a normal version of the game. The PC version will be like a GOTY version with better textures, fixed bugs, better performance, mod support, larger multiplayer numbers as i bet the console mp player limit is well limited. Etc.
Also the main story line isnt the full game its just "part" of it just like exploring is "part" of it or the side quests etc. Dont tell others what is and isnt the full experience. It changes between diff people.
So whilst you might find it silly for ppl to buy the console version and the pc version. Well why not, its their money to do so, theres a large gap between platform releases. Also you never know the pc version might come with by default DLC included or somit if r* do release some dlc for it before pc release.
Also you might want to tone down your attitude to others play habbits otherwise the dons might step in. Just saying.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
So right now I am doing arkham city side missions and riddles but I am not really playing the game?
rgr
rgr
In GTA IV I never did the main missions and I just cruised the city, explored, side missions, tried to get to places you couldn't normally, raced cars.
It was actually annoying that I couldn't unlock the entire map.
The missions all seemed pretty stupid o me, but the ability to immerse yourself in a vast & expansive world was awesome. Escape form reality for an hour in the evening.
and that is why I am thinking of picking up a console to play GTAV. I never really have tome for gaming but maybe a console hooked to my TV so I can play 20 minutes would work out.
but you can watch a movie at 24fps fine right? or do you speed them up?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 101
GOTY by far!
Grand Theft Auto 5 was the UK's biggest video game launch ever
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-5-was-the-uks-biggest-video-game-launch-ever
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-5-was-the-uks-biggest-video-game-launch-ever
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,167
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
oh come on arknor, you know that isnt the same.
it pretty much if these days lock a game at 30fps without a single drop or rise and it appears perfectly smooth and natural.
GTA drops to 20 FPS in places.
That's the problem, it's down to the observer or player individually; but I have to mention that those who don't notice these things don't particularily have the sharpest attention to detail either.
When you do notice these things however, it stands out like a sore thumb and gets in the way of enjoyment. Also playing games at x FPS is different to viewing something at y FPS because you are not in direct control of motion.
If you pause movies/tv during fast scenes there's a horrible amount of blurring too which doesn't translate well in games, that's why I hate tacked on motion blur too, it doesn't emulate real life at all.
What it simple comes down to people not having the eyes or ears to see the difference and/or accept low quality performance.
Thisll sound idiotic, but it just never feels the same. 24FPS in films feels much smoother than 24FPS in games. To me at least.
Nice little dig, so people who can happily overlook the very occasional drop in FPS are simpletons with no attention to detail.
No, I said people who cannot tell the difference. (well, do not, same thing)
If you can and you're okay with it, whatever.
Why do so many posters on OCUK rear up and act so defensive without fully reading posts? Did I strike a personal chord?
In most game genres if someone locked the fps and you didn't know you wouldn't even realise the only thing that gives it away is when the fps drops and the motion is not constant.
I know what high FPS looks like I had a pc back in the crt monitor age when refresh rate dictated how many FPS the monitor could display and the actual display blinked to the refresh rate which caused some people to get headaches on crappy monitors that couldn't do at least 85hz.
Whilst 60+ is great for some games in most genres you wouldn't be able to tell if the fps was constant
because the frames for movies are kind of blended together and in games they are not
That's fine and dandy now, you sort of generalised all games before you explained.
Of course some deal better with lower FPS because as I said, part of it comes down to control of motion. Pixel perfect and twitchy gameplay, the higher the better within reason.
Playing ARMA2/3 at 20-30fps vs 60 is night and day for me, personally.
Of course some deal better with lower FPS because as I said, part of it comes down to control of motion. Pixel perfect and twitchy gameplay, the higher the better within reason.
Playing ARMA2/3 at 20-30fps vs 60 is night and day for me, personally.
No but without wanting to seem pedantic, you did say "When you do notice these things however, it stands out like a sore thumb and gets in the way of enjoyment."
I can absolutely notice the difference between 20,30 and 40fps. It just absolutely doesn't stick out like a sore thumb to me, or get in the way of my enjoyment. At all.
I had a two hour session this evening (ps3) and it continues to blow me away in pretty much every respect. If the PC version arrives, I think it'll be epic.
I can understand some people's frustration with others who buy the game on both console and then on PC later because one argument is that it is exactly the behaviour that encourages Rockstar to drag its feet so much with putting together PC ports. Why rush to get a PC version ported when if you string it out, enough people will cave, buy it twice and you make twice the money?
On the other hand I wouldn't presume to criticize someone for doing just that because while I vowed to wait for the PC release, damn it if I wasn't tempted to grab a copy in the supermarket after work today (not helped that I've been spoiled for so much of it at work today). I managed to stop myself because of the texture problems of the xbox version and the fact that I'd hate playing it on my old xbox 360 if it means I have to play it via the disc drive that sounds like a jet engine.
I'd love if rockstar get their act together and get a PC port out in time for christmas because I'm worried they'd hold off for ages if they missed the holiday season. That being said, I also want a decent port they've taken care with, not a bloated, buggy, cumbersome thing like the GTA IV port.
I'm not sure how all the Rockstar development studio's work together, but do you think a PC version will have the same kind of visuals that Max Payne 3 has? The graphics on that game are amazing. Think it was Rockstar Vancouver.
Can't believe they would have created textures limited to hardware from 8 years ago that they will spruce up when it comes to port time.
Which reminds me. Remember when the first trailers were shown and folk were saying that no way is this 360/PS3. For those that have played the game do the textures match those very first trailers?
Can't believe they would have created textures limited to hardware from 8 years ago that they will spruce up when it comes to port time.
Which reminds me. Remember when the first trailers were shown and folk were saying that no way is this 360/PS3. For those that have played the game do the textures match those very first trailers?
It's because in video that is prerendered the frames have an exact latency. Games are being rendered in real time and that latency varies giving the perception that it isn't as smooth as a video.
You only have to look at someone streaming on twitch at 60fps to see that it is far, far smoother than 60fps appears in game. 30fps in prerendered video is more equivalent to 60fps in game when you're comparing the perceived smoothness of the two.
- Status