GTA IV for PC (official)

[acies]

I agree the graphics just don't justify the insane requirements. If you see the first screenshot, the vehicle bodies are having the same geometry and damage like San Andreas.

Not at all! The car models in this game are far superior to those in San Andreas. And the car damage seems pretty much dynamic; where ever a vehicle impacts it will scrape or indent that spot depending on force etc...

[starbearer]

Those Recommended Settings Are Really Cute!

AMD Phenom And A 512MB Graphics Card!I've A Feeling My Laptop Isn't Going To Handle This Too Beautifully.

[Nagisan]

I'm personally glad to see such high requirements. I'm tired of getting games (lets take FC2 for example) that I cannot play on my native resolution fully maxed out, when my setup stomps the recommended requirements (I have a Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz, 4GB of ram, and a TOXIC 4850 compared to the recommended of a C2D, 2GB of ram and an X1900 graphics card), honestly, I cannot play it at my resolution (1920x1200) and get more than 40 average FPS, which, while playable, is too choppy for me.

Instead of expecting to play a game maxed out like most games recommended specs lead me to believe, I dont expect to be playing GTA IV with everything maxed. (until I upgrade in a month or so)

I personally feel recommended specs should be the the computer specs required to get 60 average FPS in a game with all settings maxed on a standard (average) resolution that gamers play at, maybe around 1600?1200 or (for widescreen) 1680x1050, not getting good FPS playing a game maxed out at 1280x1024.

Instead it seems most games promote the recommended specs as a system that can barely average 40 FPS maxed out at 1280x1024 or something.

That being said, go Rockstar for being realistic about what it will take to (hopefully) run the game at fairly high settings with decent FPS.

Aside from that, looking at the minimum specs, it can handle a fairly (in terms of what even the average gamer uses today) weak processor, as long as you have a mid-high range video card from a few years ago. I personally wouldnt have been able to run the game with the video card I had 6 months ago, but my processor would have been fine. And as most people know, the higher the resolution, the more video card power its going to take, so maybe there bumping up the resolution they used to come up with there minimum/recommended specs finally?

Only time will tell, but hopefully those are specs you need to play it on an average resolution with high settings, not what you need to play it on crappy resolution with high settings (or high resolution with lower settings).

[inactive]

that really sucks... dual core 'REQUIRED' ? :(

cause im pretty much 'good enough' besides the CPU which is my main issues im worried about as all i have is a AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2ghz overclocked to 2409mhz single core CPU)

[inactive]

I'm personally glad to see such high requirements. I'm tired of getting games (lets take FC2 for example) that I cannot play on my native resolution fully maxed out, when my setup stomps the recommended requirements (I have a Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz, 4GB of ram, and a TOXIC 4850 compared to the recommended of a C2D, 2GB of ram and an X1900 graphics card), honestly, I cannot play it at my resolution (1920x1200) and get more than 40 average FPS, which, while playable, is too choppy for me.

Instead of expecting to play a game maxed out like most games recommended specs lead me to believe, I dont expect to be playing GTA IV with everything maxed. (until I upgrade in a month or so)

I personally feel recommended specs should be the the computer specs required to get 60 average FPS in a game with all settings maxed on a standard (average) resolution that gamers play at, maybe around 1600?1200 or (for widescreen) 1680x1050, not getting good FPS playing a game maxed out at 1280x1024.>

Instead it seems most games promote the recommended specs as a system that can barely average 40 FPS maxed out at 1280x1024 or something.

That being said, go Rockstar for being realistic about what it will take to (hopefully) run the game at fairly high settings with decent FPS.

Aside from that, looking at the minimum specs, it can handle a fairly (in terms of what even the average gamer uses today) weak processor, as long as you have a mid-high range video card from a few years ago. I personally wouldnt have been able to run the game with the video card I had 6 months ago, but my processor would have been fine. And as most people know, the higher the resolution, the more video card power its going to take, so maybe there bumping up the resolution they used to come up with there minimum/recommended specs finally?

Only time will tell, but hopefully those are specs you need to play it on an average resolution with high settings, not what you need to play it on crappy resolution with high settings (or high resolution with lower settings).

to me if you aint 'happy enough' with 40fps ... i would say your pretty much spoiled. (no offense) ... cause sure it's not 'optimal' but it's easily good enough to pretty much fully enjoy (or dang close to it) the 'single player' game your playing.... i understand in multiplayer shooters FPS can be of more importance, but still;)) .. im mainly referring to 'single player' games.

as for the other comment about the 'recommended requirements being 60fps' i would probably agree with you overall BUT sometimes new games cant get 60fps or even close to it even with the best of the best hardware at time of a certain games release... so even though it's a good idea, i think realistically that cant happen.

so instead of 60fps... i would say 'recommended' should be ATLEAST 30fps+ at pretty much all times (give or take a little).... cause 30fps is quite playable... once u start getting low 20's is when it's really pushing it... pretty much anything in the teens for extended periods of time can detract from overall enjoyment of a game and be borderline not playable.... but typically speaking i would consider 20fps+ the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM in order to 'play' a game.... although 30+ is preferred ... but obviously 60fps is optimal but nothing i would expect for most games unless your bill gates and update your hardware often which most people cant do including me.

cause basically i think 30fps is the point where if you stay at or above you generally have a good gaming experience.... but if you go to much under that, your gaming experience could potentially suffer... but going below about 20fps is when the game takes a significant hit in overall fun.

also i would not consider high resolutions (say over 1280x1024) like that 'standard' cause basically i would say at 1280x1024 your getting a high percentage of the graphics and stuff like AA (Anti-Aliasing) is not even really needed at those resolutions (especially on smaller monitors say roughly low 20's.. i have a 19" CRT myself).... and i would assume as long as your at a minimum of 1024x768 , it's 'good enough' ... although i think the sweet spot is around 1280x1024 (between top notch visuals but reasonable frame rates give or take a little).... the super high resolutions are probably not all that much better than 1280x1024 and all they do is kill performance of the game.... so what im basically saying is that resolutions higher than 1280x1024 are pretty much a "luxury" for the rich gamers..... especially if your monitor size aint nothing big (i.e. say low 20's or lower)

p.s. so even though my CPU aint up to minimum requirements for GTA4.... i honestly dont care to much since im looking forward to 'MAFIA 2' MUCH MORE as that game is superior (well it will be if it's anything like MAFIA 1 on PC;)) ) to GTA4 in just about every way... unless your one of those people who like to 'run around and blow stuff up' sorta fans... in which case, obviously GTA4 will be the better game... but GTA4 cant deliver that 'movie like experience' that MAFIA does extremely well. (you will especially appreciate it if your a fan of mob movies in general like i am;)) )

i consider MAFIA (on PC) to be one of the all time best single player games ever.... and even to this day, even though it's graphics are a little dated by today's standards... it's gameplay is still quite good which carries it even to this day although with it's 'movie like experience' and great gameplay which keep's me coming back to re-play the game from time to time... where as even though i played and beat all the GTA's, i never once really considered replaying em.

Edited November 23, 2008 by ThaCrip

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

30fps is too choppy.

If there's some form of motion blur that smooths movement out though, it is less jarring.

[perochan]

thats why console is better than PC sometimes. no need to upgrade just for a game...

[gigapixels Veteran]

to me if you aint 'happy enough' with 40fps ... i would say your pretty much spoiled. (no offense) ... cause sure it's not 'optimal' but it's easily good enough to pretty much fully enjoy (or dang close to it) the 'single player' game your playing.... i understand in multiplayer shooters FPS can be of more importance, but still ;) .. im mainly referring to 'single player' games.

Spoiled? Hardly. We like what we like and we have our reasons for it. I can detect the slightest framerate drops and jolts and they bug the crap out of me. I wish I couldn't to be honest; I wish I could be blissfully happy at 30fps, but I can't. Anything under 60 annoys me and makes the experience less enjoyable. I don't have the nicest computer out there, and I'm anything but spoiled. It's just a matter of opinion.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

thats why console is better than PC sometimes. no need to upgrade just for a game...

A fixed hardware platform can be a blessing and a curse.

[notuptome2004]

that really sucks... dual core 'REQUIRED' ? :(

cause im pretty much 'good enough' besides the CPU which is my main issues im worried about as all i have is a AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2ghz overclocked to 2409mhz single core CPU)

you should either save to upgrade or get some change and find a soket 939 dual core chip

[Nagisan]

Spoiled? Hardly. We like what we like and we have our reasons for it. I can detect the slightest framerate drops and jolts and they bug the crap out of me. I wish I couldn't to be honest; I wish I could be blissfully happy at 30fps, but I can't. Anything under 60 annoys me and makes the experience less enjoyable. I don't have the nicest computer out there, and I'm anything but spoiled. It's just a matter of opinion.

Completely agree, I know many people can play at 30-40 FPS, but anything under 60 for me looks choppy and just gets on my nerves, to the point I dont like playing the game. Take a look at Crysis, when it came out I was still on 1280x1024 monitors, and I turned everything on low with only the physics on high, just to play at a high enough FPS that it didnt bug me. Now, I can play it on 1920x1200 on max settings (except for AA turned down a notch or two), but I get maybe 30 FPS and it just bugs me, so I decide to turn it down until I get high enough FPS to look smooth, which is around 60 (maybe not exact, but close to it). Granted I dont really play Crysis anymore, but the same mentallity carries over to every game I do play.

[inactive]

you should either save to upgrade or get some change and find a soket 939 dual core chip

that's the problem.... in my situation... only way i could upgrade is to pretty much build a entirely new PC since i figure in general once you swap out motherboard and CPU... you might as well just redo the entire thing cause my ram would need to be upgraded since it's only DDR400 and possibly PSU to (i got a pretty good one right now (Enermax Liberty 500watt) but i aint sure how much of a power hog newer stuff is vs my current setup)

cause i built the PC i currently have back in March 2006... just in time for the game Hitman Blood Money... it's just a shame not long after Intel made the "core 2 duo's" and prices plummeted on AMD's stuff in general :( ... cause i paid about 200 dollars for my CPU when it was new... then once those came out it was a massive price drop all at once which sorta upset me but i guess there aint much you can do... i was just a little more upset than usual cause usually PC stuff drops a little here and a little there not from 200 to half that in a month or so :( lol ... o well i guess i just had bad timing is all.

as for the buying a dual core CPU ... i would but i would not want to spend more than 50 dollars on it tops... cause i figure generally speaking getting a similar CPU in speed and then getting dual core... probably aint THAT much better than my current one and i just dont think it's worth spending to much on it considering i got my current CPU (which aint worth nothing now) for 200 dollars back in March 2006.

so i guess i just figure i dont want to invest to much into my current PC ... and i figure major surgery like CPU or MOBO swap... i might as well just get a entirely new PC.

but like i say as long as i can run Mafia 2 (on PC, when it comes out) that's all that matters cause if i cant play that game with my current CPU i wont be happy.... cause i been waiting for that game for ages and it's BY FAR the main game i want right now... nothing comes close.

[notuptome2004]

well Dual core would be a massive improvement in almost any new games compared to your current and as for Mafia 2 i doubt it run well on a single core chip considering the way the game currently looks

[aussiefloyd_fan]

i wish it would be for psp too

[inactive]

well Dual core would be a massive improvement in almost any new games compared to your current and as for Mafia 2 i doubt it run well on a single core chip considering the way the game currently looks

i sure hope not... main thing is even if it dont run great... i just hope dual core aint 'required', recommend yes, but required no :( ... i.e. to where game wont even start up without it sorta thing.

i figure either way though... i wont be expecting to get great performance on it... but i figure if my current pc can run mafia 2 like my old pc (1.2ghz Athlon 266fsb, 512MB ram, Geforce 3 ti200 64MB) ran Mafia ... then i will be 'overall' good enough.... wont be best experience but it will still be 'fun'.

and when you say 'massive' , how much we looking at? .. cause if it's only on average of 10fps more i would probably not consider that massive.... so me massive would be something like going from 30fps or so to like 60 give or take a little.

p.s. just took a quick look on ebay... for a dual core socket 939 CPU (which is what i need) there generally going for 100+ dollars which is quite steep considering you can find a MUCH BETTER intel equivalent for not much more... which is primary reason i would rather never upgrade CPU on my PC unless i can find one around the 50 dollars range... 'maybe' 75 MAX MAX out the door.

Edited November 24, 2008 by ThaCrip

[notuptome2004]

most games now days minimum require a dual core chip of some kind

[notuptome2004]

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon-X2-64-4200-...1QQcmdZViewItem

right ther starting at $33 might be worth it AMd athlon 64 4200+ X2 2.2ghz

you will see big improvements in just about everything you do so go for it .

by the way what latest games have ya played on your current rig

[inactive]

thanks for the link but i hate 'bidding' i would rather have a 'buy it now' sorta thing.

cause most likely that CPU will end up going for way more than it's worth... i.e. i aint going to even attempt bidding.

but i thank you for your efforts for the help ;)

[alphaomegainfinity]

A few more screens:

[Unimatrix Xero]

i so need to get some cash for this game, well i have a week, so heres hoping

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

A few more screens:

...

That looks like crap :/

I hope you can turn whatever's causing that off.

[SMELTN]

lol looks like some sort of horrible HDR

[Elliot B.]

i wish it would be for psp too

:rofl:

[Pupik]

Man, been a while since I excited for a game release. Only one more week!

[Dance.]

A few more screens

<snippity!>

Are those screenshots at all settings maxed? Because if they are, this game looks mediocre.