Grand Theft Auto IV PC - Page 4 - bit-tech.net Forums

Mankz · 4th Dec 2008, 16:05

I've just got this and loaded it up, with the following hardware:

E2200 @ 3.3Ghz, 2Gb o RAM, Enough HDD space, and Overclocked 8800GT 512Mb and it won't install becuase my hardware isn't good enough.

Pish. Back to Steam you go GTA4, until you actually work properly.

Mankz · 4th Dec 2008, 16:07

Also, I seem to remember this game was delayed by about 3 weeks. Surely they could have sorted out all of these issues in that extra time? Its a little rediculous.

Haramzadeh · 4th Dec 2008, 16:15

This is so shameful of RockStar. GTA was born on the PC. I've been playing GTA since it was a 2D top-view game. They have betrayed their roots and chosen to shaft the PC not only by skipping us for the original release but then - to add insult to injury - totally screwing over the most basic aspect of the PC version: installation.

I'm very dissappointed with what seems to be a nightmare installation. I was really looking forward to this game, now I'm completely turned off.

Zut · 4th Dec 2008, 20:59

Bottom Line: I don't have a console and find game-pads impossible to use.

Despite its flaws, I look forward to enjoying this game.

salesman · 4th Dec 2008, 22:34

i like the placement of the bit-tech logo in the graphics pictures.

Cupboard · 5th Dec 2008, 00:16

What have they done to it? It is more of a resource hog than Crysis and doesn't look anywhere near as good. The fact that they don't provide AA support is rather moot because no one would be able to enable it anyway.

I love the positioning of your watermarks in the car wheels

ParaHelix.org · 5th Dec 2008, 01:07

I just ordered Grand Theft Auto IV on Steam and am now downloading. One thing I really hate Rockstar for is taking flyable planes out of the game, we now only have helicopters, that is what killed the game for me, 99% of my time on Sand Andreas and SA:MP were flying around in planes.

Iuoptra · 5th Dec 2008, 01:38

All of you people blithering about rockstar patching the game and fixing all these issues are DREAMING.

http://www.rockstargames.com/support...rt_patches.php

Just look at thier patching history.

Not impressive at all.

Hamish · 5th Dec 2008, 01:44

the performance of this game is absolutely hilarious

consider my system can run crysis 1920x1200 very high no AA and get about 30fps
i can only run gta4 at medium settings?
i wouldnt mind if the game looked spectacular and the higher settings are there to enable future hardware to make the game look even better

but it looks like ****.

its GTA so i never expected or wanted fantastic graphics out of it and i expected poor performance given their track record
but this is just so bad i cant help but laugh

vice city is still the pinnacle of the GTA series as far as im concerned

edit: btw, noticed it using 70-80% of my 3.5ghz quad while playing
thats insanely high! the only other game i've seen come close was FC2 and that was around 50% with spikes up to around 60%
most games are ~30%

n3mo · 5th Dec 2008, 02:48

The game might be good, but the flaws make it not even worth torrenting. Come on, 1 gig of textures that are so bad it's almost impossible to read any road sign? Those guys never even heard about things as "optimisation" or "texture compression". For me it's a worst-written game I have ever played.

bogie170 · 5th Dec 2008, 04:07

Sounds like a really crappy port to me. Coded by monkeys. I'll stick to my PS3 version. Another lost sale.

Why do all these companys put running apps in your tray? All they are doing is hogging system resources and slowing down our PC's. There should be a law against it!

Anyone wants to turn off these proggys goto the 'Run' command box, type 'msconfig' and clik your 'startup' tab and delete all the crap in there!

PhenomRed · 5th Dec 2008, 06:52

What if you lived in the dark ages and didn't have internet to logon to all sorts of crap that i don't want on my computer? I think Rockstar got lazy once they didn't have to worry about Jack Thompson

Nature · 5th Dec 2008, 07:43

I have a good question! Is it more gpu or cpu influenced?

oasked · 5th Dec 2008, 09:01

To all those moaning about internet activation, you can actually activate the game without one - I just have:

http://activate.rockstargames.com/?c=GTA4

Its a right PITA though - I had to phone someone up and get them to enter the code on the internet. I've been waiting a very long time to play GTA4 now and I'm enjoying it so far - shame performance is so poor though.

Can't wait to play it again over the weekend.

perplekks45 · 5th Dec 2008, 10:31

You might be able to activate it over the internet, but are you allowed to save without a connection to GfWl? Don't think so.

Bauul · 5th Dec 2008, 10:39

There is still a bit of me that can't help but think the frankly stupid system requirements are down the things like the draw distance. If you put the draw distance to 100, you're practically rendering the whole city on the fly. Remember the console versions only had it only at 10%. The engine was never designed to be played realistically with draw distance at 100, I imagine the poly counts are off into the multiple millions, far higher than even the best cards can handle.

Maybe if Rockstar had never even included an option to tweak the draw distance people wouldn't be complaining nearly as much. Just to play Devil's advocate.

CardJoe · 5th Dec 2008, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bauul

There is still a bit of me that can't help but think the frankly stupid system requirements are down the things like the draw distance. If you put the draw distance to 100, you're practically rendering the whole city on the fly. Remember the console versions only had it only at 10%. The engine was never designed to be played realistically with draw distance at 100, I imagine the poly counts are off into the multiple millions, far higher than even the best cards can handle.

Maybe if Rockstar had never even included an option to tweak the draw distance people wouldn't be complaining nearly as much. Just to play Devil's advocate.

Yet the performance isn't the only complaint and the improvement in load times, fidelity and overall look of the game on these higher settings is frankly minimal.

Hamish · 5th Dec 2008, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bauul

Maybe if Rockstar had never even included an option to tweak the draw distance people wouldn't be complaining nearly as much. Just to play Devil's advocate.

maybe if the performance matched the graphical quality people wouldn't be complaining so much
point is it runs absolutely terribly, as in worse than crysis, and looks crap as well

djDEATH · 5th Dec 2008, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nature

I have a good question! Is it more gpu or cpu influenced?

yeah i'd like to know this, perhaps a comparison with:

8800GT with a dual core

8800GT with a quad core

GTX280 with dual core

GTX280 with a quad core

LeMaltor · 6th Dec 2008, 09:56

Well the textures you can use low, medium or high seems to relate to the ammount of Vram your gfx card has (I don't think it stresses the core very much as my temps only go up 10 degrees, where as Crysis I get a jump of about 25-30 (maybe this has something to do with the game not using AA?)), fps at any setting though seems to be driven more by number of CPU cores than clock speed - it seems this game will abuse all 4 of your cores happily.

Edit: All my presumptions are from my own rigs performance and looking at benchmarks other people have posted in internet forums

5th Dec 2008, 00:16	#66
Cupboard I'm not a modder. Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Bury St Edmunds/Durham Uni Posts: 1,845	What have they done to it? It is more of a resource hog than Crysis and doesn't look anywhere near as good. The fact that they don't provide AA support is rather moot because no one would be able to enable it anyway. I love the positioning of your watermarks in the car wheels __________________ i7 920, 8800GTS 512, 6GB Corsair all in an Intel DX58SO; 3*320GB RAID5; CM Stacker Samsung Q45.

5th Dec 2008, 06:52	#72
PhenomRed Multimodder Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 235	What if you lived in the dark ages and didn't have internet to logon to all sorts of crap that i don't want on my computer? I think Rockstar got lazy once they didn't have to worry about Jack Thompson __________________ Asus M2N-E SLI, Athlon X2 6000+, 3 GB DDR2-533, Radeon 4850 512MB, 1.8TB HDDs, Windows XP Pro

5th Dec 2008, 07:43	#73
Nature Supermodder Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jinan, China Posts: 417	I have a good question! Is it more gpu or cpu influenced? __________________ Peace, Love, Empathy, Respect, Generosity, Smiles, and Hugs

5th Dec 2008, 09:01	#74
oasked Stuck in the Mud Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bromley, Kent Posts: 2,551	To all those moaning about internet activation, you can actually activate the game without one - I just have: http://activate.rockstargames.com/?c=GTA4 Its a right PITA though - I had to phone someone up and get them to enter the code on the internet. I've been waiting a very long time to play GTA4 now and I'm enjoying it so far - shame performance is so poor though. Can't wait to play it again over the weekend. __________________ Intel i7 920 @ Stock \| 6GB Corsair DDR3\| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 WD640 AALS \| POV 8800GT \| Lian-Li PC65 \| Enermax 600W SLI \| Dell 2408WFP

5th Dec 2008, 10:31	#75
perplekks45 BSc... finally Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 3,350	You might be able to activate it over the internet, but are you allowed to save without a connection to GfWl? Don't think so. __________________ "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Blame it on Cheaps! [now a social group]

4th Dec 2008, 16:15	#63
Haramzadeh Son of Sin Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Alberta Posts: 170	This is so shameful of RockStar. GTA was born on the PC. I've been playing GTA since it was a 2D top-view game. They have betrayed their roots and chosen to shaft the PC not only by skipping us for the original release but then - to add insult to injury - totally screwing over the most basic aspect of the PC version: installation. I'm very dissappointed with what seems to be a nightmare installation. I was really looking forward to this game, now I'm completely turned off.

4th Dec 2008, 20:59	#64
Zut Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Near Sheffield, UK Posts: 127	Bottom Line: I don't have a console and find game-pads impossible to use. Despite its flaws, I look forward to enjoying this game.

4th Dec 2008, 22:34	#65
salesman Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 165	i like the placement of the bit-tech logo in the graphics pictures.

5th Dec 2008, 01:07	#67
ParaHelix.org Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 270	I just ordered Grand Theft Auto IV on Steam and am now downloading. One thing I really hate Rockstar for is taking flyable planes out of the game, we now only have helicopters, that is what killed the game for me, 99% of my time on Sand Andreas and SA:MP were flying around in planes.

5th Dec 2008, 01:38	#68
Iuoptra What's a Dremel? Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1	All of you people blithering about rockstar patching the game and fixing all these issues are DREAMING. http://www.rockstargames.com/support...rt_patches.php Just look at thier patching history. Not impressive at all.

5th Dec 2008, 01:44	#69
Hamish I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: London Posts: 3,587	the performance of this game is absolutely hilarious consider my system can run crysis 1920x1200 very high no AA and get about 30fps i can only run gta4 at medium settings? i wouldnt mind if the game looked spectacular and the higher settings are there to enable future hardware to make the game look even better but it looks like ****. its GTA so i never expected or wanted fantastic graphics out of it and i expected poor performance given their track record but this is just so bad i cant help but laugh vice city is still the pinnacle of the GTA series as far as im concerned edit: btw, noticed it using 70-80% of my 3.5ghz quad while playing thats insanely high! the only other game i've seen come close was FC2 and that was around 50% with spikes up to around 60% most games are ~30%

5th Dec 2008, 02:48	#70
n3mo Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 184	The game might be good, but the flaws make it not even worth torrenting. Come on, 1 gig of textures that are so bad it's almost impossible to read any road sign? Those guys never even heard about things as "optimisation" or "texture compression". For me it's a worst-written game I have ever played.

5th Dec 2008, 04:07	#71
bogie170 Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 150	Sounds like a really crappy port to me. Coded by monkeys. I'll stick to my PS3 version. Another lost sale. Why do all these companys put running apps in your tray? All they are doing is hogging system resources and slowing down our PC's. There should be a law against it! Anyone wants to turn off these proggys goto the 'Run' command box, type 'msconfig' and clik your 'startup' tab and delete all the crap in there!

5th Dec 2008, 10:39	#76
Bauul Sir Bongaminge Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Godalming, near Guildford Posts: 1,553	There is still a bit of me that can't help but think the frankly stupid system requirements are down the things like the draw distance. If you put the draw distance to 100, you're practically rendering the whole city on the fly. Remember the console versions only had it only at 10%. The engine was never designed to be played realistically with draw distance at 100, I imagine the poly counts are off into the multiple millions, far higher than even the best cards can handle. Maybe if Rockstar had never even included an option to tweak the draw distance people wouldn't be complaining nearly as much. Just to play Devil's advocate. __________________ Pentium 4 CPU 3.4 Ghz \| 1Gb + 2x512Mb Corsair DDR2 667 Mhz Sapphire Radeon HD 4770 512Mb\| WD Raptor 36Gb, Seagate 300Gb \| Asus P5LD2 SE Ibanez RG 470 Japanese Edition \| 1991 Japanese Lo-TRS Tremolo \| V7 S1 Custom V8 HSH Pickups

6th Dec 2008, 09:56	#80
LeMaltor >^_^< Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: No. Posts: 1,397	Well the textures you can use low, medium or high seems to relate to the ammount of Vram your gfx card has (I don't think it stresses the core very much as my temps only go up 10 degrees, where as Crysis I get a jump of about 25-30 (maybe this has something to do with the game not using AA?)), fps at any setting though seems to be driven more by number of CPU cores than clock speed - it seems this game will abuse all 4 of your cores happily. Edit: All my presumptions are from my own rigs performance and looking at benchmarks other people have posted in internet forums __________________ Welcoming the riff-raff since February 2009.