Topic: Grand Theft Auto 4

[Cobra951]

Well I have a 56" HDTV and I dont know how many of you have played this mission so I'll spoiler tag it, but its one I found really fucking annoying.

(click to show/hide)

The mission where you had to snipe a guy through his window from the rooftop across the street. But you had to make him get up to get into view. Your suppose to zoom in on his telephone to get his number so you can call him, I saw this but I could not for the life of me read that fucking number, it was just too small on the screen, the 5s looked like 8s. So I had to wait for the game to babysit me so Reily (I think his name is?) would finally tell you.

But yea, I agree some of those HUD details can be hard to see as well.

(click to show/hide)

I couldn't read the number either.  I ended up shooting the TV.  The guy then came to see what happened, and I nailed him.

[scottws]

Crappy picture but you get the idea. Just go to phone options and scroll down a little.

I'm wondering if it's an HD only setting.  I definitely do not have the option as I just checked again.  Plus, I only have two settings per screen, not three like yours shows.  Maybe it is already large text by default on SD.

[ren]

That could be. When I set mine to large I only get two settings per screen as well.

[idolminds]

PC version to release Nov 21

[MysterD]

PC version to release Nov 21

I knew that was coming eventually!
Count me in!
Great news!

[Xessive]

Sweet! Now I'm glad I didn't pick it up for my PS3 (it was a toss up between GTA4 and MGS4).

I hope the new multiplayer features will stand out.

[MysterD]

Sweet! Now I'm glad I didn't pick it up for my PS3 (it was a toss up between GTA4 and MGS4).

I hope the new multiplayer features will stand out.

I'm curious if the new GTA 4 PC MP content will be what the upcoming GTA 4 X360 MP DLC will be....
...Whatever it might be...

[Quemaqua]

I just wonder what the new features will be.  I really, really enjoyed the GTA4 multiplayer on PS3.  It was quite a bit of fun, pretty well balanced, and absolutely roll-on-the-floor hilarious.  I'd put it right up there with Smash Bros. in terms of just how much I laughed and shouted when playing with others, even if only online instead of in the same room.  Really good fun.  And a lot of the players didn't seem that great, because I managed to dominate a whole lot of matches when I first tried it.  By now people have probably played a lot more and I'd get creamed, heh... but still.

[MysterD]

Que, I know you own GTA4 on the consoles -- but would you pick up GTA4 PC?
Or would you wait til it hits the bargain bin?

If I recall, you've had a lot of troubles w/ GTA's on the PC.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I don't trust Rockstar's ability to develop a stable game for the PC.  If it turns out to be a great port and there's some decent extra incentive, there's definitely a chance that I might, but it isn't likely at this point since I've got a much better display for my consoles right now.  Once I invest in a good widescreen monitor, that may change, but it mostly depends on whether or not there's any good reason to get it for PC.  If they clean up the visuals a bit (I thought they were too muddy in some respects) and maybe have DLC available as an option (and if that DLC is any good, which I'm not betting on), there's a fair chance.

[Xessive]

I main reason I generally prefer getting titles like GTA on PC is aiming. I have a lot of trouble tolerating aiming with an analogue stick. Auto-aim doesn't cut it either. Unless there's a lock-on button (which would pretty much defeat the purpose of aiming and potentially ruin a game).

My brother and I don't understand the appeal of waddling a stick around to try to aim.

I hooked up a wireless keyboard + mouse to my PS3 and was pleasantly surprised to see it work! I could navigate the PS3 menus and type, etc. Sadly it doesn't work in any of the games I have. Which made me wish that all developers would make their games compatible with Mouse+KB configuration as well as the gamepad.. Kinda like a PC.

[Cobra951]

I played the GTA games I have on PC (VC and SA mostly) with both forms of control, depending on whether I was on foot or driving something.  You're absolutely right about aiming.  Nothing beats a mouse yet, I don't care what anyone says.  But by the same token, KB+mouse is not the best way to pilot any kind of vehicle.  I've seen terrific emulation of a joystick with a mouse in some games, so good that you swear the mouse is the top of a good stick.  The one missing thing is the spring-loaded auto-centering.  Not hard to get used to.  A more glaring fault is the lack of other analog controls, for things like throttle and brake.  A good dual-stick controller is nearly ideal for the driving in GTA games.  Mouse+KB in them has so far been much worse, even if you ignore the lack of analog stop and go.  I wonder if they'll fix that problem with IV on the PC.  Given how many traditional GTA problems remained unfixed in IV on the consoles, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[sirean_syan]

Yeah, I always played the PC versions of the games switching between mouse and keyboard for shooting/footslogging to a duel shock clone for the driving. It was slightly cumbersome while transitioning from car to foot, but it worked very well. Almost too well because the shooting parts were extremely easy.

GTA IV fixed a lot of the problems with shooting this time around and plays like a top tier 3rd person shooter now. I could actually see it not working so well with a mouse because of intelligent use of auto-targeting, cover, and the like. Even driving with a decent gamepad will be hard to move over to PC because GTA IV really made use of analog triggers in the driving sections. That isn't so much of a problem now that you can use a 360 controller, but I wouldn't expect Rockstar to really make sure the game uses the pad to the fullest extent even if all they have to do is transfer over the controls from the 360 version.

[Cobra951]

Really?  Why wouldn't they transfer the driving controls without change?  The 360 wired controller has become sort of a favorite on the PC.  And you're right, the triggers as throttle and brake are used perfectly.  It would be a huge shame if that gets sidestepped in the PC version.  A greater fear should be that mouse aiming gets a poor development effort, since it has to be added from scratch.  If it were up to me, I'd have aim lock go to the target closest to the cursor, with an option in the settings to auto-switch to another target if you move the cursor (while holding down the lock button).

[sirean_syan]

It's my general feeling on how the GTAs (and most games recently) have been ported to PC. Things just usually seem pretty lazy in general.

Really though, if anything on the PC side of things I'd be more concerned with performance than control. Historically, all the GTAs rarely performed like they should on the PC. Considering this one even pushed the new consoles, I wouldn't expect great performance pretty much across the board. At HD settings, it wasn't even going at full 720p. Pump that up to PC standard resolutions and there's going to be problems.

[Quemaqua]

Sy said everything I was thinking in regards to all that.

[Ghandi]

It's my general feeling on how the GTAs (and most games recently) have been ported to PC. Things just usually seem pretty lazy in general.

Even though I hold a certain affinity for PC gaming, you can't really blame them. All the money is in the console games. Many of the games are clearly made with a console-oriented affiliation in mind, GTA4 included.

Speaking of which, you can't really expect great things out of driving with a kb/mouse. I played GTA:SA on PC and it was glaring how bad the driving controls were with the combo. But then again, all shooting aspects were really easy. There's a pretty big differential between the two.

[Quemaqua]

You can't say all the money is in consoles, because it's not.  There's a big PC market, consoles just happen to be bigger.  But that still leaves a percentage of money to be lost if you don't take advantage of releasing for the PC platform, and the market is plenty big enough for profit there.  Maybe that means ports instead of primary platform to some companies, but still.

[Ghandi]

No, clearly the money is not all in consoles because then we wouldn't see any PC games.

But just look at the decline in the number of AAA PC-exclusive titles.

Something's gonna give. It has to.

[Quemaqua]

Not necessarily.  Maybe we'll have less AAA-exclusives, but so what?  Frankly, most of the AAA games are starting to piss me off because a lot of them end up being derivative graphics-fests, and I can do without that.  I'll take an Aquaria over a Crysis any day (and don't take that as an in-depth review of Crysis, because I haven't even played it, and I'm sure it's not a bad game... but you see what I'm saying).

[MysterD]

Not necessarily.  Maybe we'll have less AAA-exclusives, but so what?  Frankly, most of the AAA games are starting to piss me off because a lot of them end up being derivative graphics-fests, and I can do without that.

I have no problem w/ companies -- like Rockstar making GTA series; UbiSoft w/ AC; Lionhead with Fable; Bioware with KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect; etc etc -- making their games for consoles to make tons of the money so that they decide to then port it over the PC, as long as we keep getting our PC ports. Usually, when this occurs, things can be added and fixed for the PC version -- like extra content, new game features, better graphical enhancements, some gameplay issues fixed, etc etc.

Now, I have a problem when companies take the Epic route and make GoW for consoles where it comes out fine, but then port it to the PC lazily. So lazily, it still has a stuttering issue and STILL has NOT been fixed on the PC. C'mon, Epic -- go fix this. 

I'll take an Aquaria over a Crysis any day (and don't take that as an in-depth review of Crysis, because I haven't even played it, and I'm sure it's not a bad game... but you see what I'm saying).

As good as Far Cry was, it was NOT Crysis. Crysis is just superior to FC in so many ways -- zero gravity levels in Crysis are awesome, the frozen levels rocked, much better voice-acting, and better presentation. I think Crysis was more "artsy" than FC, myself -- see the alien levels in zero gravity and the frozen levels. FC wasn't too artsy in regards to the way the enemies looked; it just looked great, technically. Crysis just needs some performance improvements, whereas FC (still) needs a freakin' better save-system.

Even though I hold a certain affinity for PC gaming, you can't really blame them. All the money is in the console games. Many of the games are clearly made with a console-oriented affiliation in mind, GTA4 included.

WoW would prove otherwise that NOT ALL the money is in console games.

I think heavily-KB/mouse driven games (such as the strategy games) have a better shot at making money on the PC than they would on the console.

Speaking of which, you can't really expect great things out of driving with a kb/mouse. I played GTA:SA on PC and it was glaring how bad the driving controls were with the combo. But then again, all shooting aspects were really easy. There's a pretty big differential between the two.

GTA: SA's driving with KB/mouse is fine, if you ask me; it was designed fine, since the camera's are less wonkier than they are in the past when using the KB/mouse. Really, though -- gamers respond quicker w/ the control pad for driving elements, in general, anyways.

Plus, if you got a problem w/ driving elements in PC games, there are good PC gamepads out there supported -- such as the X360 Controller For Windows. GTA: SA supports that controller just fine.
 

[scottws]

No, clearly the money is not all in consoles because then we wouldn't see any PC games.

But just look at the decline in the number of AAA PC-exclusive titles.

Something's gonna give. It has to.

I don't think that's a great PC vs. console argument anymore.  Excluding Nintendo games, how many single-console-exclusive AAA games are there?  There is certainly a decline in that number in comparison to five years ago as well.

[Cobra951]

I don't think that's a great PC vs. console argument anymore.  Excluding Nintendo games, how many single-console-exclusive AAA games are there?  There is certainly a decline in that number in comparison to five years ago as well.

It's not a question of exclusivity, but of where the development resources get focused.  I see the trend of developing the big games for the 2 more powerful consoles, then porting them to the PC.  It was just the opposite not too long ago.  And of course there are still developers like id who focus on the PC first.

[scottws]

I see what you are saying, but I was simply responding to Ghandi's statement.

[Cobra951]

Well, I'm a bit confused then, because I thought the gist of his comment was that, yes, there are still PC games, but look at the decline of big money focused on them.  If you consider the Xbox 360 and the PS3 as a single platform ("the console market") then it is getting the up-front exclusivity, with PC ports following months later, if ever.

[MysterD]

Well, I'm a bit confused then, because I thought the gist of his comment was that, yes, there are still PC games, but look at the decline of big money focused on them.  If you consider the Xbox 360 and the PS3 as a single platform ("the console market") then it is getting the up-front exclusivity, with PC ports following months later, if ever.

I'm still waiting for a Condemned 2 PC port...

[scottws]

Can't quote on mobile...

Cobra, I see what you are saying and that is a valid point, but there is another argument that could be made as well: there are far more console games ported to the PC now than there have ever been before.

[MysterD]

Bare minimums are not stated. (unless these are also them).

But, the Reccommended Specs released for GTA4 PC from Games For Windows Website go as follows:

RECOMMENDED REQUIREMENTS
   
OS:            Windows XP SP2
Processor:    Dual core processor (Intel Pentium D or better)
RAM:    2GB
Hard Drive: 18GB free hard disk space
Video Card:   512MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card or Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader
Drive:    DVD-ROM dual-layer drive

[ren]

Out of curiosity, who finished the game and who didn't?

I have about 30 to 35 hours and 70ish missions completed but I haven't touched the game in a month and don't plan on going back for the forseeable future.

Too much too the same.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I'm about the same as you.

[Ghandi]

I think that I played too much San Andreas before picking this up, because I haven't played it much at all. Maybe 10-15 hours or so. I dunno why, but I haven't felt compelled to play it much. It's just one of those games where, once I start playing it, I'll be really into it for a week or so and beat it. But I haven't gotten there yet. Part of the problem is that I haven't really gotten into the story.

[iPPi]

I put about 10-15 hours in the game but haven't played much more of it.  While the scale of the game and pretty much everything about it is amazing, in the end, I don't have the motivation to go and play it again.  Not sure why though.

[MysterD]

I think that I played too much San Andreas before picking this up, because I haven't played it much at all. Maybe 10-15 hours or so. I dunno why, but I haven't felt compelled to play it much. It's just one of those games where, once I start playing it, I'll be really into it for a week or so and beat it. But I haven't gotten there yet. Part of the problem is that I haven't really gotten into the story.

My problem w/ San Andreas -- any namely many of the GTA's -- is that there's no checkpoint style auto-saves within those multiple-part missions.

So, if you die in a long mission and fail it, you have to start that entire mission over. That just makes me want to either go do another mission or shut the damn game off.

Take a cue from Freelancer, Rockstar and GTA -- auto-saves within long missions with multiple pieces to them IS a good idea.

[sirean_syan]

I managed to finish the game, but I did just have to put my head down and push through the last few hours. The last mission is actually pretty tough as well and that took a good couple of tries. The story petered out about 2/3 through the game, which was a shame because that really seemed like the biggest upgrade from the previous games. It did manage to come together pretty well in the end, but the impact of the resolution was lost because of that lull. It wasn't even so much of a lull, but it seemed like the interpersonal relationships between Niko and the other people that were potentially interesting were sort of forgotten for the usual GTA thing for a bit of time.

[scottws]

I lost interest. It seemed like too much of a downgrade over GTA:VC and GTA:SA. Also it's just like Si said: the interesting interactions are put away for a bit and you're just doing stuff you did in the other GTAs a million times over.

I think its clear the series needs to break new ground again or be put to rest for awhile.

[Cobra951]

Out of curiosity, who finished the game and who didn't?

I have about 30 to 35 hours and 70ish missions completed but I haven't touched the game in a month and don't plan on going back for the forseeable future.

Too much too the same.

I finished it.  Then I played it a lot more after that.  Got hooked on just being there.

[Ghandi]

Got hooked on just being there.

You're all about the games where you can explore big, open cities. GTA4, Crackdown, Burnout Paradise, Assassins Creed...

Just an observation.

[Quemaqua]

I'm with him.  I love all that stuff, especially when it has to do with a city or cities.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time as much these days.

[Cobra951]

Yes, yes.  It's true.  It's escapism, I'm sure, though I don't consider that as I'm doing it.

[Quemaqua]

The irony is that I could really fucking use the escape, but I just don't have the time for it consistently.  Gaming is getting harder to achieve these days.