357 replies to this topic 5 votes

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak. The narrative looks decent but without any indication as to what the gameplay is like we still know pretty much nothing about the game, other than that PC users are getting screwed over again. I'm really surprised that GTAV and Assassin's Creed 3 both went for last current-gen rather than first next-gen, especially when it's easy to scale down games so they can still benefit from the massive install base of the current consoles.

Fourjays, on 13 November 2012 - 10:18, said:

As for the issues you experience... I know it isn't a popular opinion round here, but that is what you get with PC games. I learnt that they were more trouble than they are worth a few years ago now.

What are you talking about? I was complaining that Max Payne 3 had cutscenes that were pre-rendered at console graphics levels and that it looks terrible in comparison to PC quality graphics. Unfortunately, that's what you get when bad developers put out half-assed ports - even the console versions of GTAIV suffered from slow down and the resolution for the PS3 version had to be lowered as well. Consoles can't render at 2560x1600, let alone 60fps, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone with hardware physics, let alone with high resolution textures, etc. Even the bad PC ports are better than the console versions - it's just they terrible in comparison to how they should have been. Consoles are great if you don't care about graphics or accurate consoles and you're on a budget. That may sound elitist but it's like comparing McDonald's to a fancy restaurant - they both provide good food, it's just aimed at people with different tastes.

[Lamp0]

oh man! what a trailer!

Pupik, on 14 November 2012 - 16:42, said:

Meh, cinematics again. Some gameplay would have been nice.

It's not all just cinematics, some of is gameplay just with the camera switched, and Rockstars cinematic are always rendered in game

I mean you didn't really expect raw gameplay footage from a Rockstar trailer did you...

theyarecomingforyou, on 14 November 2012 - 16:58, said:

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak.

You say that like it's a huge blow. I think the game looks technically brilliant considering it's on console, but more importantly the art direction looks incredible.

[soniqstylz]

GTA4 PC sold 700k.

Consoles sold nearly 25 million.

Where would you sink your money?

[Anaron]

I sincerely hope that do a good job with the PC version. That trailer was amazing.

[Slammers]

theyarecomingforyou, on 14 November 2012 - 16:58, said:

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak. The narrative looks decent but without any indication as to what the gameplay is like we still know pretty much nothing about the game, other than that PC users are getting screwed over again. I'm really surprised that GTAV and Assassin's Creed 3 both went for last current-gen rather than first next-gen, especially when it's easy to scale down games so they can still benefit from the massive install base of the current consoles.

The graphics aren't weak. Considering the size of the game and the systems it is on, I think they are pretty impressive. Unless i've missed something, there is no claims of it every coming to pc anyway right?
Even if it does, you should keep in mind, that GTA4 with some small mods is one of the best looking games you can currently run on your PC. This would only look better.

[Fourjays]

Trailer looks great. Makes GTA IV look really boring and dull, and as I already said, I didn't find that as bad as some did.

theyarecomingforyou, on 14 November 2012 - 16:58, said:

What are you talking about? I was complaining that Max Payne 3 had cutscenes that were pre-rendered at console graphics levels and that it looks terrible in comparison to PC quality graphics. Unfortunately, that's what you get when bad developers put out half-assed ports - even the console versions of GTAIV suffered from slow down and the resolution for the PS3 version had to be lowered as well. Consoles can't render at 2560x1600, let alone 60fps, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone with hardware physics, let alone with high resolution textures, etc. Even the bad PC ports are better than the console versions - it's just they terrible in comparison to how they should have been. Consoles are great if you don't care about graphics or accurate consoles and you're on a budget. That may sound elitist but it's like comparing McDonald's to a fancy restaurant - they both provide good food, it's just aimed at people with different tastes.

As I said, this is what you get with PC gaming. To be fair it is as much of (if not more of) a problem with the gamers as the developers. Why would you expect cutscenes to work on such an uncommon resolution? If I stick any of my old PC games in, the cutscenes are smaller than my resolution because they were rendered for common screen sizes of the time. I have never come across a game where pre-rendered cutscenes are upscaled for higher resolutions. Is no wonder developers can't be bothered with PC gaming - too much hassle to code for the platform so loads of bugs, then they get slated by the elitists who expect games to work with every weird and wonderful feature/peripheral/hardware PC gamers can throw money at and then they sell fairly small numbers anyway. I still play a couple of PC games, but I don't miss it at all. Spent more time fixing problems than playing games and since I switched I've found myself enjoying gaming much more as a whole. If you're happy with PC gaming then fine, but don't expect the ridiculous.

Anyway going off-topic so will leave it there.

[+Crisp]

People who base their purchase of a GTA game on graphics quite clearly shouldn't buy it. The GTA series has never been about how it looks, but how it plays. After all you can't get the best graphics out of such an open world sand box game. To be fair on Rockstar, what they've shown so far seems to be mind blowing, espeshally on how old the hardware is within todays consoles.

Also, by now you should expect a PC release to be delayed for 6 months + as it's the way Rockstar works. So wipe thoughs tears Q_Q

This game is going to be amazing! - Tommy Vercetti in San Andreas = the ultimate win.

MillionVoltss, on 13 November 2012 - 14:45, said:

As long as they have a Decent radio Im happy to roam around the map messing about, San Andreas was the best for this.

Never played Vice City?

V-Rock / Wave 103 > all.

[Lamp0]

Michael is hardly Tommy Vercetti...

Vercetti had the depth of a peice of cardboard.

[MillionVoltss]

Soo Ps3 or Xbox ? Which looked better on IV ?

[+Crisp]

Lamp0, on 15 November 2012 - 15:57, said:

Michael is hardly Tommy Vercetti...

Vercetti had the depth of a peice of cardboard.

My mistake.

[pes2013]

And once again no PC........amazing.

[Anaron]

pes2013, on 15 November 2012 - 19:22, said:

And once again no PC........amazing.

Although it hasn't been officially announced yet, I highly doubt they'll ignore the PC platform. I'm sure it'll be released after the console versions.

[nyolc8]

They announched GTA IV (or san andreas) after half year from the console version, or something like that...

[theyarecomingforyou]

Fourjays, on 15 November 2012 - 10:57, said:

As I said, this is what you get with PC gaming. To be fair it is as much of (if not more of) a problem with the gamers as the developers. Why would you expect cutscenes to work on such an uncommon resolution?

Pre-rendered cutscenes should be rendered at maximum settings and scaled down. It wouldn't be as bad if they used anti-aliasing and were rendered at 1080p. The real issue is that if they were rendered in-game it wouldn't be an issue.

Fourjays, on 15 November 2012 - 10:57, said:

If I stick any of my old PC games in, the cutscenes are smaller than my resolution because they were rendered for common screen sizes of the time. I have never come across a game where pre-rendered cutscenes are upscaled for higher resolutions.

But the most common gaming resolution now is 1080p and developers should want their game to look as good as possible. I understand that the X360 has a limited capacity storage but the PS3 has Blu-ray and can easily store videos at 1080p. So the issue is bad development decisions.

Fourjays, on 15 November 2012 - 10:57, said:

Is no wonder developers can't be bothered with PC gaming - too much hassle to code for the platform so loads of bugs, then they get slated by the elitists who expect games to work with every weird and wonderful feature/peripheral/hardware PC gamers can throw money at and then they sell fairly small numbers anyway.

You say that as if most games aren't ported to the PC when that simply isn't the case. I don't know what you have against PC gamers but the reality is that the PC offers the best gaming experience out there and developers should want their games to be enjoyed like that.

Fourjays, on 15 November 2012 - 10:57, said:

Spent more time fixing problems than playing games and since I switched I've found myself enjoying gaming much more as a whole. If you're happy with PC gaming then fine, but don't expect the ridiculous.

It's great that you enjoy that but I expect more from gaming and certainly can't stomach playing at 720p with such low visual fidelity - if I wanted that I could have just kept my PC from 6 years ago. It's not "ridiculous" to expect a PC version released at the same time. It's not "ridiculous" to expect cinematics that are rendered at a sensible resolution and with graphics comparable to in-game visuals. It's not "ridiculous" to want PC gamers to be treated with respect. The issues you listed are design issues, not PC issues - most games don't suffer from them, so I won't tolerate them from Rockstar. If Rockstar isn't up to producing proper PC ports then I'm not up to handing over money for them.

[soniqstylz]

theyarecomingforyou, on 15 November 2012 - 23:15, said:

But the most common gaming resolution now is 1080p and developers should want their game to look as good as possible. I understand that the X360 has a limited capacity storage but the PS3 has Blu-ray and can easily store videos at 1080p. So the issue is bad development decisions.

Stop right there: no it's not. Most AAA games run at 720p if not less (many at an upscaled 640p).

Again, you're not looking at cost v. reward. GTA4 sold 700k on PC. Which is great, until you compare it to nearly 25 million on 360/PS3.

It's better to build for consoles where you'll make your money, then go about rebuilding the port to deal with all sorts of resolutions, video cards, processors, and the variables and bugs involved.

That may not be the case for all developers, but this particular generation, even the major developers that catered to PC gamers (Epic, Bioware, Crytek, etc.) seem to be aiming their games for consoles where you only have to variables to worry about -- 360 build or PS3 build.