Rockstar Games "Considers" GTA V Wii U and PC Versions

[Mindweaver]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Seriously, give it a rest, it wasn't unoptimized, it wasn't a poor port, for what it was it ran extremely well. No other game, even to this day, has dozens of fully destructible vehicles and NPCs on screen constantly. Of course that is going to be CPU intensive. THAT IS WHY THEY GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO TURN THE NUMBER DOWN. That is also the reason that the settings used for consoles were basically low.

If all you idiots cared about was the ability to run it on max settings on your mid-range hardware, then the only thing Rockstar would have had to do to optimize the game would be to limit max settings. Make what they called medium the max, and you all would have been happy. The game would have run perfectly fine on mid-range hardware on "max" settings. And you all would have talked about how well "optimized" the game was. And it still would have looked way better than 720p Low settings we got on the consoles.

The fact of the matter is that when the PC version game out I played through it on a Athlon X2 4400+ and an HD4670, and it looked better than the console versions.

Yea, it looked great on my Q9550 @3.8ghz and GTX285. If you turned it up it looked amazing. I need to go through this again with my 2600k @ 4.5ghz /w GTX570.. hehehe I want to play through Mafia 2 as well.

EDIT: SSD should help with this game as well!

[sutyi]

They haven't given a flying crap about the PC gaming community in the last couple of years. To be honest I found it a miracle that LA Noire got ported to the PC platform...

[douglatins]

Considers = Crap bad port

[MxPhenom 216]

People need to chill with the bad optimization and crappy port talk. Upgrade your $400 systems and deal with it.

[Steevo]

Bunch of cry babies as they doubt the need for so much RAM, VRAM and cores to process the logic behind the awesome that is GTA4. I wonder how much more you would have cried if there would have been load screens every few blocks, or no subways, NPC, cars, police, and much else.


I bought it, and have bought almost all the other editions, and would buy GTA5 if they make it available within reason.

[Edgarstrong]

I'll buy when the full edition including DLC's is at 75% off on Steam.

[lyndonguitar]

"Theres not that many limitations" yes GTA V can run on consoles but I don't want to play @ 30FPS with occasional drops. I need PC

[DannibusX]

Don't care about PC GTA5, I want PC Red Dead Redemption.

GTA4 ran fine on all of my systems. There were some slow downs from time to time, but it looks and played great.

[Shihabyooo]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No other game, even to this day, has dozens of fully destructible vehicles and NPCs on screen constantly.

Mafia, Mafia II, Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row:The Third, and -though not with so many vehicles- Prototype. Not to mention previous versions of the game.

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the game's "un"optimization was too provocative. So I think us PC gamers have the right to voice our complaints. You can't just justify Rockstar selling games they obviously never bothered to break a sweat porting by saying there are/were no games with the same gameplay

Originally Posted by sutyi

They haven't given a flying crap about the PC gaming community in the last couple of years. To be honest I found it a miracle that LA Noire got ported to the PC platform...

They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.

[sutyi]

Originally Posted by Shihabyooo

They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.

True that. Forgot about Max Payne 3.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Shihabyooo

Mafia, Mafia II, Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row:The Third, and -though not with so many vehicles- Prototype. Not to mention previous versions of the game.

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the game's "un"optimization was too provocative. So I think us PC gamers have the right to voice our complaints. You can't just justify Rockstar selling games they obviously never bothered to break a sweat porting by saying there are/were no games with the same gameplay

Ok, I'll say that there are some games that have matched it recently, so I kind of misspoke, but those games came out at least 2 years after GTA 4 was released on the PC. Mafia is an exception, but the original Mafia didn't come close to doing what GTA 4 did, you were lucky to get 10 cars on screen at the same time, as the same with NPCs. But the more recent games are comparable to GTA 4.

However, the game still wasn't unoptimized. It ran very well on the PC, it ran on low end PCs very well, that shows they put some time into optimization. Again, the fact that I ran it, with it looking better than consoles, on a mid-range system when it was released is a testimony to the fact that they did put time into optimizing it.

People bitched because they couldn't play it at max settings, but your post points to the fact that it took other games 2+ years to reach the same level as GTA4. The developers said when they released the game that they designed it beyond what the hardware of the day was capable of, they allowed the options of the engine to exceed what current hardware could handle. They knew that. But they also allowed the settings to go extremely low, and the game ran very well on low-end hardware, and looked good too. That is what defines an optimized game. It isn't the fact that max settings can be played on high end hardware, but that the game is playable and looks good on current hardware. If you think max settings being playable is the only test of an optimized game, then all Rockstar had to do to optimize the game would be to cut all the options in half and call those max. BAM, I just optimized the game to your definition in 5 seconds.

They didn't do a crappy port, crappy ports are what we are getting now, ones that don't even let us raise the graphics options beyond what they were on consoles. Rockstar letting us set the settings as high as we wanted, way beyond what consoles are capable of is a good thing, and idiots just bitched about how max settings were too high.

[timmyisme22]

Originally Posted by Edgarstrong

I'll buy when the full edition including DLC's is at 75% off on Steam.

I'll probably do the same.. but that's just because you and I both are cheap bastards with limited money. That's life.

[Iceni]

I'd be worried about his one TBF. The lead programmer (Matt Shepcar) on the previous GTA games for console went and set up double eleven a few years ago along with a few other accredited people from the GTA projects (Lee Hutchinson) . It could be why there is no PC version, If the consoles were proving labour some to get sorted within budget then the PC is the platform that will be cut.

Matt has just had a very real success with the rest of double11 with the success of little big planet on the PSV. I still need to pop in and have a Guinness with him

Oh before you flame my bud he never touched any of the PC versions, Just the console variants.

[Ikaruga]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

it wasn't unoptimized, it wasn't a poor port, for what it was it ran extremely well.

If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!) about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.

[reverze]

Originally Posted by timmyisme22

I'll probably do the same.. but that's just because you and I both are cheap bastards with limited money. That's life.

Should only take a few weeks, right?

[FYFI13]

Oh well, i'll consider if i buy another "Rockstar Games" game ever.

[natr0n]

when they finish milking the console versions after a year then dlc and such when the console cow runs dry then PC will get it.

[v12dock]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!) about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.

PC have a A LOT more overhead than consoles. Even with an Athlon X2 with a 8800gt I was able to run at medium settings. There must have been wrong with your computer.

[St.Alia-Of-The-Knife]

Originally Posted by v12dock

PC have a A LOT more overhead than consoles. Even with an Athlon X2 with a 8800gt I was able to run at medium settings. There must have been wrong with your computer.

there must also have been a memory leak as severe as a fat man on laxatives

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Shihabyooo

They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.

Originally Posted by sutyi

True that. Forgot about Max Payne 3.

Most probably because Max Payne 3 were made by four Rockstar studios (Vancouver, New England, Toronto, London), compared to GTA's one (Rockstar North).

[EpicShweetness]

Was gonna point out Max Payne 3, but never mind. If they do as good of a job with GTA5 as they did with the optimization of Max Payne 3 I'll consider it. I didn't think they could get a GTX 460 with a I5 750 to run playable at max tessellation, SOMEHOW!

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!) about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.

As v12Dock says, something must have been wrong with your computer. Because as I've pointed out, I played through the game without issue on an Athlon X2 4400+(a processor that was 3 years old when GTA4 came out) and an HD4670(admitted a current gen card when GTA4 came out, but the mid-range of the current gen).

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!) about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.

Runs reasonably fine on my rig. Maybe you just had a poorly built PC.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!) about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.

Aren't you the same guy who .......


http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...89#post2676789



What kind of computer are/were you running exactly. I had a quad core with 4GB of RAM and a 4850 1GB edition that I overclocked.


It ran medium high settings at 40-60FPS on my machine at 1920X1200, and more when I got my 940 and 5870.

[poorya_lion]

I hate when a game first came out for console
I want to play GTA V with my PC before they kill the concept of fun with consoles.