Gaming Grand Theft Auto IV PC

[_DTM2000_]

I'm so glad I didn't pre-order this like I have all the previous GTA games from 3 onwards.
It's almost as if Rockstar have aimed to release a broken game.

GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas all ran a bit slow on what was a reasonably high end rig at the time of their release, but you could always tweak your settings and get a nice looking and playable experience. Then after installing a slightly better CPU, GPU and a bit more RAM, you could crank up the settings to max (with AA) and enjoy the full capabilities of the game.

With GTA IV, I expected things would be similar. But it looks like even in a years time the latest bleeding edge spec won't be able to run full settings!

PC gamers have come to expect that games will be released on consoles first and then a higher res PC version will be available about 6 to 12 months later. But why oh why do games developers think that PC gamers then want to have to wait another year or two after that before they can take advantage of all the eye candy?

Personally I don't want to buy a game, play through it a 10 FPS (cursing the crappy performance). Then upgrade my PC and try the game again, only to find it now runs at a still crappy 15-20 FPS. Then upgrade my PC again and find it still only runs at 30 FPS. etc etc. It's just a joke. Why spend all that time porting the game and adding in all the extra eye candy if no one will be able to take advantage of it for 2 years. I'd rather have the game quicker and with no bugs, than later, with bugs and features I won't be able to use until I've got bored with the game and spent another 2 grand on hardware.

More and more games are being released like this, with Crysis being the worst culprit until now. I just don't see the point.

It's a game not a tech demo!!!

This is the type of crap that's ruining PC gaming, not piracy!!

[impar]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by Article

Admittedly a discussion of the bloatware and DRM measures that come bundled with Grand Theft Auto IV PC is an odd way to start a review, but it’s also probably the most important one we think.

Game reviews should include a field mentioning what DRM is being used.
Just next to Publisher, Platform, ...

This game launch is a total mess. Check this article:
http://kotaku.com/5101687/grand-thef...-little-broken

[bowman]

At that point you’ll tire of the constant need to support these virtual friends and you’ll start resenting the game for pressuring you into them.

Am I the only one who ignores the calls completely? It's Grand Theft Auto, not Real Life Simulator.. They can go bowl with themselves, or whatever.

[The_EXorcist]

well, another example of why you shouldn't port a game. Im not even going to d\l this one, so they cant even use the "Piracy is why we have low sales" arguement

[zr_ox]

I'm yet another who is seriously dissapointed with how Rockstar have chosen to **** on the PC crowd.

Come on guys PC was the first platform they realsed their games on, I've been a fan of the series since the beginning and the latest installment really makes me sad.

One year after the console relase they give us this junk, promise of substantially improved graphics and extra content....ehh where? I have seen this on a friends PS3 and I really cannot see any major differences.

The installation method really is a farce, as is the control system. I found the best method to be a combination of XBox controller and keyboard/mouse.

All in all a very very poor effort, so much so that I would in hindsight suggest that Rockstar saved the overall development costs. It was just not worth it!!!!

[Burnout21]

utter disappointment, this game was top of my list for christmas. I even bought a GTX280 a while back to play Grid, with later intention of playing GTA IV, these two games were the driving force behind the purchase.

Now i am prepaired to sell up and grab a Quadro i've been needing for work, and use my HDMI port on the monitor to plug in a PS3 or Xbox 360.

Even the rumour of Gran turismo 5 making it to the PC helped with the purchase of the GTX280.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Originally Posted by Baz

...as there are online checks at install, game start and everytime you want to save!

So what happened to the Rockstar promise that you'd be able to play this on a non-internet enabled PC, as long as you could get to the internet on another system to activate via that? Was that FUD?

[Lepermessiah]

Terrible, on top of all this, it only supports the 360 controller?? No other controllers work, pathetic attempt to squeeze mroe money by MS there. There are complaints about this all over the GTa forums. I like driving with my logitch gamepad, and switchign to M/K when walking, but game only works with 360 controller. Man, Rockstar have no clue how to use PC resources.

[LeMaltor]

I think you have been too kind giving this a 7 (or is that a 1? )

[Adnoctum]

This is what I've waited 8 months for? Really?

As an owner of GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas (still installed and played occasionally) on PC, I consider myself a massive fan of Rockstar's murder simulators, but this blows seals (of the aquatic kind).
I avoided all console GTA4 temptations during this time. I even avoided social occasions where I knew GTA4 was being played, THAT is how sad I am!

The previous GTA console ports were pretty good. The GTAs have always played well on moderate hardware. Is there something about the XBox360->PC port that is an issue over the old PS2->PC porting? I thought it should be easier given GTA4 was developed for the XBox360 from the start.
I call BS on the "catering to future hardware" too. Who the &#%$ does that if they can avoid it? Seriously, the XBox360 is low level enthusiast PC equivalent now! There is no way it should be bringing a high end PC to its knees.
Maybe the PC version is so far down the list of their priorities that they got Marco the "special" intern to do it.

The authentication process is so awful that I'm struggling to to even think HOW Rockstar/Microsoft could have made it worse.
Emailing for a one time key each time you wish to play? I shouldn't even put ideas into their foolish heads!
I am dismayed to hear that the Steam version is even worse. I thought this might at least be a solution.
I think both Rockstar and Microsoft are trying to emulate Steam and its online community. From the very beginning of Steam I always knew this was going to happen. Everybody wanting their own content delivery/authentication client running on our systems. With the Steam version of GTA4 we have all the players muscling in; developer, publisher and distributor.

I'm not a piracy advocate, indeed my low-ish connection speed and restrictive download limits would prevent large file torrenting even if I wanted to. But I don't care how I do it, I AM going to play GTA4, but I am NOT going to give Rockstar a cent for this. Even if the requirements to get a pirated version running IS worse that a real copy, I'm going to do it out of principle. I don't care about the online multiplayer or the pointless penis waggling video uploads.

As I have been writing this rambling comment, I have been quite literally (and figuratively to boot) facepalming in sheer disbelief. Who knew Bioshock's launch would turn out to be such a tame affair?


Oh, and yeah, 16GB of freaking HDD space?!?! What the...

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by LeMaltor

I think you have been too kind giving this a 7 (or is that a 1? )

You have to remember though that the game is actually pretty good when you do get it working and if you overlook the log-ins and so on.

[LeMaltor]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

You have to remember though that the game is actually pretty good when you do get it working and if you overlook the log-ins and so on.

I got the game yesterday and yes when it plays it is quite good but; I want honesty from you about the whole package to be reflected in the final score. The PC version has been released 6 (?) months after the consoles, there was also a two (?) week delay onto of that. The game has no AA and even forcing it on in gfx card drivers it doesn't work - I've not spent hundreds of pounds on PC equipment to then not utilize it to the fullest! You talk in the review about getting 20fps on a 280 - what the hell!?!? How can any game so badly coded or with problems get 7/10 when your dream machine plays it at 20fps with conservative settings or 16fps with everything maxed. You could say we have been spoiled by Crysis but damn surely there is something wrong with the way it looks (it's not the best now is it ) and the fps gotten?

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy this game in the current state it is in. It deserves no more than 4/10 until patched with problems fixed.

7/10 to me says OK but a bit dull game (Last NFS got 7/10 for instance), you should be hitting GTA:IV with a stick for all the problems, but then again Farcry 2 got 9/10 - and that was one of the most repetitive, annoying and dreary games we were blessed with this year so I shall ignore scores in future >_<

[perplekks45]

So you basically rated the game content 9-10 and then subtracted 2 or 3 only for what might be the world's worst "copy protection" mechanism ever invented?

I'd say, if gameplay is a 10:

-2 for graphics
-2 for copy protection
-1 for buggy release

Leaves me with 5. Let's give them +1 purely because of nostalgia.

6 (and that's nice in my eyes)

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by LeMaltor

Snip

As the score guide says however a 7/10 is a good game with a few fundamental flaws, which is what this is. I agree that if you just look at the score and judge it like that then you may be mislead into thinking that we quite liked the game. As it is you have to take the whole review into account which mentions and critisices everything you mention. With a release like this it's also worth comparing the 7/10 to the 9/10 the original got.

Here's the thing; the actual game has a lot going for it. A lot. The system the game runs with doesn't, which results in an average game. For the vast majority of consumers who sit down to play this game they'll be totally pissed off by the login stuff for the first ten minutes as they set it all up and they'll be annoyed by it all - but ten minutes in a single hour or so gaming session isn't much.

We didn't like any of the DRM stuff either, but it's important to keep the successes of the game in proportion to the failures and not just say "Rockstar Social Club - sod that!" and bitchslap a 4/10 onto it, not when the game is actually very fun to play.

Hardware problems are there admittedly, but as we mention in the review even if you run the game on the lowest settings then you're still getting an experience on par with the consoles.

Taking all that on balance with the negatives made us think that 7/10 is an honest and fair score, especially in balance to all the 10/10s the game is getting from other websites. It isn't as simple as -1 for DRM, +1 for prostitutes. Still, everyone has a different opinion!

[LeMaltor]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

As the score guide says however a 7/10 is a good game with a few fundamental flaws, which is what this is. I agree that if you just look at the score and judge it like that then you may be mislead into thinking that we quite liked the game. As it is you have to take the whole review into account which mentions and critisices everything you mention. With a release like this it's also worth comparing the 7/10 to the 9/10 the original got.

Here's the thing; the actual game has a lot going for it. A lot. The system the game runs with doesn't, which results in an average game. For the vast majority of consumers who sit down to play this game they'll be totally pissed off by the login stuff for the first ten minutes as they set it all up and they'll be annoyed by it all - but ten minutes in a single hour or so gaming session isn't much.

We didn't like any of the DRM stuff either, but it's important to keep the successes of the game in proportion to the failures and not just say "Rockstar Social Club - sod that!" and bitchslap a 4/10 onto it, not when the game is actually very fun to play.

Hardware problems are there admittedly, but as we mention in the review even if you run the game on the lowest settings then you're still getting an experience on par with the consoles.

Taking all that on balance with the negatives made us think that 7/10 is an honest and fair score, especially in balance to all the 10/10s the game is getting from other websites. It isn't as simple as -1 for DRM, +1 for prostitutes. Still, everyone has a different opinion!

I didn't mention DRM though? I skipped social and live signups got ingame and found myself unable to save without a live account leading me to now have the Live name - Canijustsave Sure it's stupid and annoying, but there are other bigger problems, missing textures, crashing (- there's a news post on BT about all this), all the GTA and Steam forums are rife with complaints. Turning off the clip saving gave me an hour of play with no crash last night

But I want you to bitchslap the game to 4/10 because you get 20fps "on a PC that packed 3 GB of DDR2 memory, a Core 2 Extreme X6800 overclocked to 2.99GHz and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 280" when you scaled back the settings to use half the resources available. And because they have cocked it up even with a massive gap from console release, I was expecting a L4D-style polished version with the extra time taken, just as the previous GTA PC games have been (or is that my rose tinted specs?).

edit: and no AA!

[B1GBUD]

Me thinks I'll pass on this rather poor port.... cheez, the hardware required just to get this game playable at a steady frame rate pushes the game out of most peoples reach. Shame on you Flopstar.

[naokaji]

Originally Posted by Burnout21

You seriously telling me that the GTX280 cant run this game at 1920x1200 smoothly?

Could this require a driver update to suit the game?

Or could this be a fail by the developer?

If todays top end GFX's cards cant run this game, i am selling the GTX280 and buying a Xbox or PS3.

It has to be developer fail, it's rather simple, if all but one game work just fine, it's not the pc's fault but the games fault.

[Xtrafresh]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

As the score guide says however a 7/10 is a good game with a few fundamental flaws, which is what this is. I agree that if you just look at the score and judge it like that then you may be mislead into thinking that we quite liked the game. As it is you have to take the whole review into account which mentions and critisices everything you mention. With a release like this it's also worth comparing the 7/10 to the 9/10 the original got.

Here's the thing; the actual game has a lot going for it. A lot. The system the game runs with doesn't, which results in an average game. For the vast majority of consumers who sit down to play this game they'll be totally pissed off by the login stuff for the first ten minutes as they set it all up and they'll be annoyed by it all - but ten minutes in a single hour or so gaming session isn't much.

We didn't like any of the DRM stuff either, but it's important to keep the successes of the game in proportion to the failures and not just say "Rockstar Social Club - sod that!" and bitchslap a 4/10 onto it, not when the game is actually very fun to play.

Hardware problems are there admittedly, but as we mention in the review even if you run the game on the lowest settings then you're still getting an experience on par with the consoles.

Taking all that on balance with the negatives made us think that 7/10 is an honest and fair score, especially in balance to all the 10/10s the game is getting from other websites. It isn't as simple as -1 for DRM, +1 for prostitutes. Still, everyone has a different opinion!

First of all: +1 for your last remark
I think i agree on your rating though. Its important to remember that under those layers of crap there's actually a good game.

One real strong request for you guys: can you please request an interview with somebody relevant from R* and ask them the obvious questions:
- Why did they choose to require all those registrations, as opposed to just one?
- Why is RSC not optional (but still mandatory for making videos?)
- What reason can there be for disallowing savegames for anyone not connected to GFWL? Data mining?
- Why brag about extra content, and then only deliver an extra radio station and larger multiplayer limit? It sounds almost as bad as Vista Ultimate extras!
- Why is the massive fanbase that GTA has on PC being forced to jump through so many hoops, why consoles are being favoured?

[djDEATH]

Originally Posted by Xtrafresh

First of all: +1 for your last remark
I think i agree on your rating though. Its important to remember that under those layers of crap there's actually a good game.

One real strong request for you guys: can you please request an interview with somebody relevant from R* and ask them the obvious questions:
- Why did they choose to require all those registrations, as opposed to just one?
- Why is RSC not optional (but still mandatory for making videos?)
- What reason can there be for disallowing savegames for anyone not connected to GFWL? Data mining?
- Why brag about extra content, and then only deliver an extra radio station and larger multiplayer limit? It sounds almost as bad as Vista Ultimate extras!
- Why is the massive fanbase that GTA has on PC being forced to jump through so many hoops, why consoles are being favoured?

hear hear

[airchie]

+1 to xtrafresh's comments.
Get some rep on and grill the sh*t outta them for their stupidity!