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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
All of you people blithering about rockstar patching the game and fixing all these issues are DREAMING. http://www.rockstargames.com/support/req_support_patches.php Just look at thier patching history. Not impressive at all.
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%
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
