GTA4 graphics sub-par

Not another one of these thread.

Is it just me, or do the graphics in the GTA4 trailers look like less then we seen from some of the other games coming out? They don't look terrible, just not as good as a highly anticipated Next-gen game should look..Andrewguy360

LOL New to gaming hugh. 20 bucks to who explains this best.

Yes GTA will look worse than any other game out this year. Well almost any other. As Did GTA SA, and GTA VC at the times. Both top notched fantastic games.

Is it just me, or do the graphics in the GTA4 trailers look like less then we seen from some of the other games coming out? They don't look terrible, just not as good as a highly anticipated Next-gen game should look..Andrewguy360

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

[QUOTE="Andrewguy360"]Is it just me, or do the graphics in the GTA4 trailers look like less then we seen from some of the other games coming out? They don't look terrible, just not as good as a highly anticipated Next-gen game should look..justifythegame

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

I agree with the Blu Ray thing. But GTA rendering a full city. You know how render works on screen right. Its not like their doing a few pasted building, and one little shoot em up yard. Plus all the cars moving and people nad stuff. But Ill judge more after I see the two side by side. And even thow I did pre pay, I may not buy. If Take 2 scre5ed the PS3. Let EA have them for the taking.

On the PS3 the graphics should be better considering there is more space for them to work with...swade

The game is multiplatform, they're not going to devote their resources into one platform.

Not another one of these thread.

lol love that pic

LuckyLy

what do you expect from GTA? the graphics are almost always gonna be subpar. But what made GTA 3 popular? the gameplay! If the gameplay can match up to GTA San Andreas or even better- then i won't give a **** about the graphics. Neither should you if your a true GTA fanbamfer3

GTA always has subpar graphics which is unfortunate because its game world isn't bigger than say Oblivion, and yet its graphics are far inferior to that 2 year old game.

What made GTA so popular is the mindless driving and shooting... And for some reason, it's VERY popular in some part of the world.

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

justifythegame

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

[QUOTE="bamfer3"]what do you expect from GTA? the graphics are almost always gonna be subpar. But what made GTA 3 popular? the gameplay! If the gameplay can match up to GTA San Andreas or even better- then i won't give a **** about the graphics. Neither should you if your a true GTA fanhenry4th

GTA always has subpar graphics which is unfortunate because its game world isn't bigger than say Oblivion, and yet its graphics are far inferior to that 2 year old game.

What made GTA so popular is the mindless driving and shooting... And for some reason, it's VERY popular in some part of the world.

Oblivion reuses textures and there isn't much going on on the screen. Oblivion world maybe bigger but it's very empty, which isn't the case in GTA IV.

Is it just me, or do the graphics in the GTA4 trailers look like less then we seen from some of the other games coming out? They don't look terrible, just not as good as a highly anticipated Next-gen game should look..Andrewguy360

its GTA, its always been like this, but considering the size of the game, and fantastic story and gameplay, graphics just plays a small part. It still looks great though! :)

[QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

The_Rick_14

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

[QUOTE="henry4th"]

[QUOTE="bamfer3"]what do you expect from GTA? the graphics are almost always gonna be subpar. But what made GTA 3 popular? the gameplay! If the gameplay can match up to GTA San Andreas or even better- then i won't give a **** about the graphics. Neither should you if your a true GTA fanLuckyLy

GTA always has subpar graphics which is unfortunate because its game world isn't bigger than say Oblivion, and yet its graphics are far inferior to that 2 year old game.

What made GTA so popular is the mindless driving and shooting... And for some reason, it's VERY popular in some part of the world.

Oblivion reuses textures and there isn't much going on on the screen. Oblivion world maybe bigger but it's very empty, which isn't the case in GTA IV.

And you do realize that at any given point, GTA4 isn't (or doesn't have to) render the entire city at all right? At any given point, the game only needs to output the city section you are playing in. And this game's city, except the landmarks, also look just the same. All the buildings and streets can be reused with mild modification from one section to another. Given that, there aren't more stuff happening during your character's city section than many other games. So why should GTA be excused for the bland and bad graphics?

[QUOTE="The_Rick_14"][QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

Takiwara

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

What game play... just mindless driving and killing poeple. That's all my American friends do with this game, and even they commented that this game is about mindless fun. Thank you, I can't enjoy mindless "fun" gameplay.

If the game has a great graphics, which makes the environment and characters a lot more believable, then I might endure the mindless gameplay and just play the game to see New York city. But well, I guess that hope is now out of window.

[QUOTE="Takiwara"][QUOTE="The_Rick_14"][QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

henry4th

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

What game play... just mindless driving and killing poeple. That's all my American friends do with this game, and even they commented that this game is about mindless fun. Thank you, I can't enjoy mindless "fun" gameplay.

If the game has a great graphics, which makes the environment and characters a lot more believable, then I might endure the mindless gameplay and just play the game to see New York city. But well, I guess that hope is now out of window.

It's all how you treat it. I've still yet to play a game with more mission variety than San Andreas. Don't feel like killing someone? Steal a cop car and click R3 and start a Vigilante mission where you track down bad guys. Steal a firetruck and go put out a fire. Take a girl out on a date. Go rob a casino. Go get in a dogfight. These are only a handful of examples.

[QUOTE="Takiwara"][QUOTE="The_Rick_14"][QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

henry4th

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

What game play... just mindless driving and killing poeple. That's all my American friends do with this game, and even they commented that this game is about mindless fun. Thank you, I can't enjoy mindless "fun" gameplay.

If the game has a great graphics, which makes the environment and characters a lot more believable, then I might endure the mindless gameplay and just play the game to see New York city. But well, I guess that hope is now out of window.

[QUOTE="henry4th"]

[QUOTE="bamfer3"]what do you expect from GTA? the graphics are almost always gonna be subpar. But what made GTA 3 popular? the gameplay! If the gameplay can match up to GTA San Andreas or even better- then i won't give a **** about the graphics. Neither should you if your a true GTA fanLuckyLy

GTA always has subpar graphics which is unfortunate because its game world isn't bigger than say Oblivion, and yet its graphics are far inferior to that 2 year old game.

What made GTA so popular is the mindless driving and shooting... And for some reason, it's VERY popular in some part of the world.

Oblivion reuses textures and there isn't much going on on the screen. Oblivion world maybe bigger but it's very empty, which isn't the case in GTA IV.

yeah every single GTA game has had crap graphics. It's like socom in the regard that ppl play it for the gameplay despite the poor quality of graphics; however GTA games just don't impress or interest me gameplay wise bc the missions and story bore me and I never feel compelled to do anything other than go on random rampages.jyoung312

This rampage thing is exactly what all my american friends do with GTA, which they states as mindless fun.

[QUOTE="Takiwara"][QUOTE="The_Rick_14"][QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

henry4th

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

What game play... just mindless driving and killing poeple. That's all my American friends do with this game, and even they commented that this game is about mindless fun. Thank you, I can't enjoy mindless "fun" gameplay.

If the game has a great graphics, which makes the environment and characters a lot more believable, then I might endure the mindless gameplay and just play the game to see New York city. But well, I guess that hope is now out of window.

if it is really about gameplay as you say it is, whats the point of going next gen? why did i spend $600 on a new ps3? why don't they just make it for ps2 then, heck why don't they just make it for ps1 and save us some money..it would be 39.99 right, gimmie a break.

I can safely say that GTA has always been about gameplay and fun factor first and everything else after. That's what made is so popular. ^_^Sokol4ever

[QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

The_Rick_14

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

Only thing I want to add is that... Since when was GTA considered a graphic game? The world is simply yet elegant enough with good dynamic loading that allows you to zoom around for good hour without ever a loading screen. I actually bought SA on PC as well even if graphic was extremely lacking. Graphic is nice and all, but for most part gameplay is even more so. If graphic was GTA's big selling point, they failed from the start. (although I have to admit their engine's really good at building atomsphere of the surroundings).

BTW, SA's only about 4 gb or so. So the game may not be gimped as much with twice the space.

tbh i think that the GTA4 graphics are pretty impressive considering how much is in the game:roll:seany_lad

[QUOTE="henry4th"][QUOTE="Takiwara"][QUOTE="The_Rick_14"][QUOTE="justifythegame"]

Basically the developers are lazy. They have always been lazy when it comes to graphics. If you played the ps2 gta games, the graphics look like ps1 graphics. So i would expect the ps3 version to have like ps2 graphics. Why would they care? They are going to sell a ton even if its great graphics or not, all you have to do it put the name GTA on it and ppl will come running. Kind of like Madden.

Also i have heard this will be the shortest GTA yet. Since they chose to go multiplatform, they can only fit enough data to go on a DVD...not bluray. So i was under the impression they chose to sacrifice graphics for length. But it seems like both will lack while still fitting on only a DVD meanwhile still costing you $60 for no apparent reason.

I got sick of playing GTA towards the end of vice city, beginning of san andreas. You can only play the same type of game for so long, thats why i stopped playing shooters too. I would rather wait for them to make a new innovative game much like when GTA3 first came out or Halo. I want to play something new. But i guess as long as people keep paying $60 for the same crap, a lot of developers won't have to make anything new.

justifythegame

Please tell me you are kidding calling R* "lazy"? Their attention to detail is incredible past most other developers. Just look at the comparison shots from Liberty City Landmarks and their New York City counterparts.

The tone down in graphics in all GTA games is most likely due the MASSIVE amount of things going on at any given time. This isn't a linear game at all like all of the great games graphics wise that you're going to mention. Also, it's always been R*'s style to make the game real, but not too real. So I wouldn't be surprised if having the characters look a little funny was actually the direction they took.

Then again, I completely disagree all you graphics fans who won't buy a game because a few textures aren't up to snuff. It's all about gameplay to me. If the graphics are good enough that they don't distract me from the gameplay objective, then I'm thrilled.

What game play... just mindless driving and killing poeple. That's all my American friends do with this game, and even they commented that this game is about mindless fun. Thank you, I can't enjoy mindless "fun" gameplay.

If the game has a great graphics, which makes the environment and characters a lot more believable, then I might endure the mindless gameplay and just play the game to see New York city. But well, I guess that hope is now out of window.

if it is really about gameplay as you say it is, whats the point of going next gen? why did i spend $600 on a new ps3? why don't they just make it for ps2 then, heck why don't they just make it for ps1 and save us some money..it would be 39.99 right, gimmie a break.

You must be joking. Just because a dev wants to focus more on gameplay rather than graphics, it means they should charge less for it and put it on less powerful hardware? Remember, better hardware doesn't always mean better graphics. Things like physics, AI, and the amount of things happening at once on screen can be increased, thus making it a better game compared to the last gen predecessors. And remember, just because Rockstar chooses to focus on gameplay doesn't mean they have to scrap graphics for good. Have you seen the character models for the game? They look awesome!