Will GTA IV ever be patched correctly?

S

SHRED

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
129
My understanding is that when it was ported over to become a PC game the coding was sloppy and this is why it stutters and makes poor use of system resources.

By far it is the most "stuttery" (is that a word?) game on my system. In fact it is the only one.

---
 
for what the game offers it work very well, and every patch give you more option to reduce detail if it dont work for you, every game sttuter if you add to much detail
 
addomino said:
for what the game offers it work very well, and every patch give you more option to reduce detail if it dont work for you, every game sttuter if you add to much detail
Click to expand...

i think this guy did the coding
 
I haven't seen any stuttering on my setup.

What I want to know is when the PC is going to finally the expansion DLC content that the consoles, or at least the 360, got several months ago.
 
From what I read on the gta forums, rockstar software-emulated some hardware features of the 360 in the PC version, which is why it's so much of a resource hog, especially on the CPU.

So unless they re-write the code to be native to PC instead of emulated console-code (which they definitely won't bother doing), there won't be any major performance patches.
 
Q-BZ said:
I haven't seen any stuttering on my setup.

What I want to know is when the PC is going to finally the expansion DLC content that the consoles, or at least the 360, got several months ago.
Click to expand...

It was a 360 exclusive, I heard on GTA Forums that The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony won't be ported
 
Last edited:
from what i gather, you basically need an i7 rig to run this game smoothly. for me, it's not worth upgrading to play one poorly coded console port. i just feel like a sucker for paying $50 for it on steam.
 
Zinn said:
from what i gather, you basically need an i7 rig to run this game smoothly. for me, it's not worth upgrading to play one poorly coded console port. i just feel like a sucker for paying $50 for it on steam.
Click to expand...

I have an I7 and compared from my dual core E8400 this game doesn't give a shit what you have running in your computer, it just runs horrible. You need a computer from NASA to run this game properly.
 
It's sad because capcom as of late has been getting my $$$ for their excellent ports. I would be buying the shit out of R*'s titles if they just gave a shit enough to cater properly to PC... then again the game CHUGGED (probably 10-15 fps at times) on the consoles too for that matter...
 
Typical GTA whining.

I have 2 PC's and this game runs great on both. Both are Quad Cores; one is a 9800+GTX powered with Q9550 and the other a Q6600 powered by 260GTX SLI. The game requires CPU not graphics power. Get a good CPU and overclock it then you will have zero complaints about running this game. Sick of people bitching about how supercomputers are needed...more like a $200 cpu!
 
SHRED said:
My understanding is that when it was ported over to become a PC game the coding was sloppy and this is why it stutters and makes poor use of system resources.

By far it is the most "stuttery" (is that a word?) game on my system. In fact it is the only one.

---
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of people have claimed that the coding was sloppy or unoptimised, no one I've ever asked has given any proof to back that up other than it doesn't run very well.

To understand that it's making poor use of system resources you'd have to prove that it could be done more efficiently and I don't see anyone doing this.

The bottom line in the game needs a quad core, it's in the recommended specs, people playing it with quad cores are getting smooth experiences, it was a very enjoyable game for me.

The game suffers from max settings syndrome, see here http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.asxp?blogid=3
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Quite a lot of people have claimed that the coding was sloppy or unoptimised, no one I've ever asked has given any proof to back that up other than it doesn't run very well.

To understand that it's making poor use of system resources you'd have to prove that it could be done more efficiently and I don't see anyone doing this.

The bottom line in the game needs a quad core, it's in the recommended specs, people playing it with quad cores are getting smooth experiences, it was a very enjoyable game for me.

The game suffers from max settings syndrome, see here http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.asxp?blogid=3
Click to expand...

I agree, quad core recommended and essential and was very playable from day one for me (with lowered settings, esp traffic density/volume or whatever it was called)

Your link is broken!
 
chaikovski2002 said:
I have an I7 and compared from my dual core E8400 this game doesn't give a shit what you have running in your computer, it just runs horrible. You need a computer from NASA to run this game properly.
Click to expand...
Rofl, FALSE
There is something wrong with your PC if its running like crap then.

Check it:

http://www.hardforums.com/showpost.php?p=1033879736&postcount=25

Lowest of 33 fps with the game complete maxed the f*** out.

If you think >30fps is "running horrible" then you have some kind of problem. I get 40-50's constant unless I am in times square. If I lower the graphics settings Ill get even more fps.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone read the guy with the i7 for which the game still runs shitty for?
It's like 5 or so posts up.
 
It's very possible that something else is conflicting with his game, for most people with i7's including myself, the game runs between 40-60 fps rock solid. I myself went from averaging barely 30 fps to averaging over 50 when I went from my e7400 @ 3.6 to my stock clocked i7.
 
Yeah, TBH the game runs smooth as silk for me.

1920x1200 with details, view distance maxed, medium textures, high traffic density, shadows enabled (set to 5).

Looks and runs superb.

Performance wise, I have no issues with GTA IV at all, but the game definitely still needs some patchwork. Would be nice if they could decrease load times on Vista when v-sync is enabled. That issue has been around since day one and they don't even seem to acknowledge it.
 
spicey said:
It was a 360 exclusive, I heard on GTA Forums that The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony won't be ported
Click to expand...

Yep. MS paid a lot of money to make sure PC and PS3 owners wouldn't be allowed to play that content.
 
I just wish they'd fix the ugly shadows - from what I understand, this is a platform-independent problem.
 
You guys are idiots.

Of course it runs well on your top end i7 builds, but for us average users, there is alot to complain about.
 
BladeVenom said:
Yep. MS paid a lot of money to make sure PC and PS3 owners wouldn't be allowed to play that content.
Click to expand...
Microsoft has been screwing Windows gaming. They are doing it with Alan Wake also. They screw themselves gaming on PC wise in order to benefit their console business, since no one else has a big grasp on PC OSes.
 
BladeVenom said:
Yep. MS paid a lot of money to make sure PC and PS3 owners wouldn't be allowed to play that content.
Click to expand...

It's a shame. I'd love to return to the game and play the two DLCs. I refuse to get an XBOX so will go without
 
Last edited:
A semi modern 2.4Ghz core2duo and a current gen $150 vid card plays that game quite well. I don't see issues with it performance wise. It's no Crysis.
 
3far4shot said:
You guys are idiots.

Of course it runs well on your top end i7 builds, but for us average users, there is alot to complain about.
Click to expand...

You have a QX6700 and a 8600 GTS?

The game ran just fine on my Q6600 and 4870, then on that same Q6600 and a GTX 260. That was 1920x1080 w/increased draw/detail, shadows on max, etc. Although the game is said to be more CPU dependent, I think it's your video card holding you back as I can say that a Q6600 was enough to run the game fine (CPU-wise). I doubt an 8600 with 256MB will be able to run it very well. :(

When I moved the GTX 260 to my i7 rig, I really didn't notice it running all that much better. Maybe a little, but it wasn't night and day by any means.

Yes, I wish they would fix the crappy looking shadows. That's my main gripe with the graphics on the PC version. Everything else looks better than the console versions.

And I wish they would patch the game for f-ing SLI. I haven't checked recently but last time I seriously played the latest patch was 1.0.3.0 and only CrossFire multi-GPU setups were supported. Booo...
 
imyourzero said:
You have a QX6700 and a 8600 GTS?

The game ran just fine on my Q6600 and 4870, then on that same Q6600 and a GTX 260. That was 1920x1080 w/increased draw/detail, shadows on max, etc. Although the game is said to be more CPU dependent, I think it's your video card holding you back as I can say that a Q6600 was enough to run the game fine (CPU-wise). I doubt an 8600 with 256MB will be able to run it very well. :(

When I moved the GTX 260 to my i7 rig, I really didn't notice it running all that much better. Maybe a little, but it wasn't night and day by any means.

Yes, I wish they would fix the crappy looking shadows. That's my main gripe with the graphics on the PC version. Everything else looks better than the console versions.

And I wish they would patch the game for f-ing SLI. I haven't checked recently but last time I seriously played the latest patch was 1.0.3.0 and only CrossFire multi-GPU setups were supported. Booo...
Click to expand...

I plan to get a GTX 260, so i hope it runs better. I still wish the game had some AA.
 
It's too bad that once you finish the storyline in GTAIV single player, you basically have nothing left to do. Sure, you can ride around, screw around, creat havoc but there's just nowhere to really go and money is pretty pointless in the game.

I'd have to say, for its own flaws, Saints Row 2 actually did a few things better. You had incentive to use money and spend it and try to get more of it. You had TONS of customization you could do for just about everything. Acquiring properties and expanding your power and influence was something that SR2 and the older GTA games did and none of that is in GTAIV.

I play GTAIV online once in a while but I guess if they're never going to bother bringing over any of the DLC (stupid) I'll probably be uninstalling the game and freeing up a bunch of hard drive space before too long.

What a pity.
 
GTA died after vice city.....it's been down hill since. Vice City was perfect gameplay wise.
 
GTA 4 performance is disappointing in my opinion. I'm running a Q9450 w/a GTX285, but it requires a monster CPU (especially quad core) to run smoothly. It runs "fine," but I still find that quite disappointing given what I feel are reasonable machine specs. Previously I had an 8800 Ultra, and it wasn't pleasant.

Perhaps I expect too much, given how much higher the settings and resolution are on my machine compared to that of the 360 or PS3. My native resolution is 1680x1050. Not high, but higher than console. If I remember correctly, Rockstar was quick to point out how much higher the res is on PC games...

On a side note, I agree somewhat with the above about Vice City -- while I still think GTA4 is a great game in its own right, I preferred the funnier presentation, story, and gameplay elements Vice City had. The grittier, more "realistic" feel of GTA4 is good, but not unique.
 
Q-BZ said:
It's too bad that once you finish the storyline in GTAIV single player, you basically have nothing left to do. Sure, you can ride around, screw around, creat havoc but there's just nowhere to really go and money is pretty pointless in the game.

I'd have to say, for its own flaws, Saints Row 2 actually did a few things better. You had incentive to use money and spend it and try to get more of it. You had TONS of customization you could do for just about everything. Acquiring properties and expanding your power and influence was something that SR2 and the older GTA games did and none of that is in GTAIV.
Click to expand...

I agree and basically echoed your sentiments in another thread a few months ago. The GTA fanatics loved to bash SR2 because of the unrealistic driving and gameplay, but after you get through the story missions (which are fun in themselves), SR2 is a whole lot more fun to screw around with. I loved derailing trains with the rocket launcher or explosives and hijacking planes at the airports. The amount of things you can do in SR2 is greater and more fun, and you don't have to worry about entertaining your annoying buddies like Brucie and Roman after the game is done (yeah I know you can turn off the cell phone to "pause" the story).

That's not to say that I didn't enjoy GTA IV...I actually liked the realistic approach which was a fresh change to the gameplay (once I got used to the driving) but everything feels a lot slower-paced and the game is pretty empty once you complete it unless you just like driving around. I found myself trying to get all of the stunt jumps, which were pretty fun but trying to find all those pigeons was NOT very fun so I didn't even bother.

Bigbacon said:
GTA died after vice city.....it's been down hill since. Vice City was perfect gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

I absolutely loved Vice City but I must say that I found San Andreas very fun to play. I loved the California-esque locales and the fact that they added so much to do. One thing Vice City really needed was the ability to swim, which was a welcome addition in SA. I also quite liked the airplanes and jetpack, since driving from one end of the map to the other was a PITA and taking a jet was so much faster. It was enjoyable to be able to ditch the plane and parachute down to the landing spot of your choice (thank you SR2 for giving us the airplanes and parachute that GTA IV left behind). The map was huge which was both a blessing and a curse. It was neat to be able to traverse wide open areas but it was a pain if you had to take a car to get from one major area to the other because it took so darn long. So I thought GTA IV's map was refreshing in that it focused on less open space and more substance; there were buildings and businesses everywhere, even if the number of places you could actually go inside were limited.

In short I guess I love sandbox, open-world games like this and enjoyed GTA IV's serious approach, along with the earlier games' more humorous approach. I hope they really do something with the next GTA to prevent it from becoming stale, because just implementing flashier graphics doesn't make it a better game. Some additions like being able to upgrade your weapons or accomplish missions in multiple ways would go a long way towards keeping the game fresh.
 
Its playable on my system. Definitely NOT silky smooth, it has its occasional stutter or slowdown. Its been out for ages now though. Ive already beaten it and am done with it. Couldn't care less if they patch it now.
 
imyourzero said:
I agree and basically echoed your sentiments in another thread a few months ago. The GTA fanatics loved to bash SR2 because of the unrealistic driving and gameplay, but after you get through the story missions (which are fun in themselves), SR2 is a whole lot more fun to screw around with. I loved derailing trains with the rocket launcher or explosives and hijacking planes at the airports. The amount of things you can do in SR2 is greater and more fun, and you don't have to worry about entertaining your annoying buddies like Brucie and Roman after the game is done (yeah I know you can turn off the cell phone to "pause" the story).
Click to expand...

SR2 is a lot better post patches than it was when it came out. Everyone should give it a shot.

I'll say it point blank: As much as I like GTAIV, in a lot of ways I like SR2 even more and simply found it to be more FUN and more like old school GTA taken over the top and to the next level.

Perfect? Hell, no. But real good fun nonetheless. I'm ecstatic to see a SR3 on the docket for some time next year last I checked.


That's not to say that I didn't enjoy GTA IV...I actually liked the realistic approach which was a fresh change to the gameplay (once I got used to the driving) but everything feels a lot slower-paced and the game is pretty empty once you complete it unless you just like driving around. I found myself trying to get all of the stunt jumps, which were pretty fun but trying to find all those pigeons was NOT very fun so I didn't even bother.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about any of that. Basically when the story is done, single player is done.

I absolutely loved Vice City but I must say that I found San Andreas very fun to play. I loved the California-esque locales and the fact that they added so much to do. One thing Vice City really needed was the ability to swim, which was a welcome addition in SA. I also quite liked the airplanes and jetpack, since driving from one end of the map to the other was a PITA and taking a jet was so much faster. It was enjoyable to be able to ditch the plane and parachute down to the landing spot of your choice (thank you SR2 for giving us the airplanes and parachute that GTA IV left behind). The map was huge which was both a blessing and a curse. It was neat to be able to traverse wide open areas but it was a pain if you had to take a car to get from one major area to the other because it took so darn long. So I thought GTA IV's map was refreshing in that it focused on less open space and more substance; there were buildings and businesses everywhere, even if the number of places you could actually go inside were limited.
Click to expand...

I liked SA better than Vice City in some ways myself. Agreed on these points.

In short I guess I love sandbox, open-world games like this and enjoyed GTA IV's serious approach, along with the earlier games' more humorous approach. I hope they really do something with the next GTA to prevent it from becoming stale, because just implementing flashier graphics doesn't make it a better game. Some additions like being able to upgrade your weapons or accomplish missions in multiple ways would go a long way towards keeping the game fresh.
Click to expand...

Right.

I really think fans of these kinds of games really should give SR2 a look or (another) look by now. :)
 
Ron FTL said:
Same. Run fine.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the game.
Click to expand...

same... the other guys must have crappy computers..

oh amd regards to SR2... I own it, and played for two hours and uninstalled it... its actually too arcadish... more than SA and VC, Driving is actually more of a chore than any of the GTA Series.
 
Q-BZ said:
I really think fans of these kinds of games really should give SR2 a look or (another) look by now. :)
Click to expand...

Do you think SR2 is stable and better performing than GTA4? I believe initially it was worse, though I might be wrong..
 
quadnad said:
Do you think SR2 is stable and better performing than GTA4? I believe initially it was worse, though I might be wrong..
Click to expand...

It's going to depend.

I never had a lot of problems with GTAIV to begin with because I understood how the sliders were supposed to work and I simply made sure my values "kept me in the green." Post patches it simply got even better and I was able to turn more settings up. It ran well out of the box...it runs great now post patches. Key phrase: On my rig.

I have a nice rig with a GTX280, 8 gigs of RAM, and an Intel qx9650. So obviously YMMV along with anyone else's.

Post patches, I thought SR2 ran great as well again key phrase being: On my rig. It runs WAY better post patches vs. when it first came out of the box.

Pre patches that thing had some obvious frame rate issues, stuttering, and possibly even a memory leak. I pretty much quit playing it early on until after they patched it then I more or less fell in love with it, lumps and all.

All told: Both games are much better today post patches vs. the day they came out. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top