GTA4 graphics sub-par

[QUOTE="henry4th"]

[QUOTE="lionelb22"]this is an open world game, they can only push the graphics so much, and they have all of these gameplay elements within the game, so cut them some slack jeez the game's gonna be great, people dont bye GTA for its graphicsfirebreathing

One world for you, Oblivion. Bigger game world, better graphics, more or equal quests...

oblivion was a massive joke and paled in comparison to morrowind. Also, you're forgetting that oblivion didn't even feature euphoria, probably don't even have a clue what that is do you??? Oblivion might have been fun, if you enjoy looking at the same 4 environments throughout the entire map. Possibly it could be you enjoy the fact that NPCs wonder around aimlessly with no real goal in mind. Mentioning the fact that, if you would have actually read one of the developers interviews, they use a different texture for practically EVERYTHING in GTAIV isn't enough for you, maybe you should just GTFO and leave everyone else alone.

Lol. We are talking about graphics here only. For an idiot like you who can't even tell the topic of the thread, should really GTFO and leave this thread alone.

You are saying that GTAIV's graphics isn't a repetition of itself? You must be a blind idiot.

I agree with you localgod_tm^

[QUOTE="aaron6581230"][QUOTE="justifythegame"][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.

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.

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!

But the AI is not improved at all. More happening on the screen? Maybe. But if they lower the graphics further, they can make these much things happening on a PS2.

All the TC and I'm saying is that, this game's graphics really doesn't look good. The character models sucks big time comparing to many many many other games out there.

Now since you love GTA so much, wouldn't you love it MORE if the graphisc looks 3 times better than it is now? You would!

Now those of us who don't care about the gameplay in this game that much, if the graphics looks 3 times better, wouldn't we like the game a bit more? We would too!

So, what's your problem about us wanting a better graphics in this game? Having a better graphics on this game would make everyone like the game a bit more? Why is it a BAD thing?

Coming from the expert, right?

Has it ever dawned on you that sandbox games, like GTA are very hard to create - I saw a comparison above to Oblivion, that's an awful comparison. Oblivion can work around the fact that one, the movement around the world is slow, and the fact there's a whole heck of a lot less going on. I own Oblivion, and it's a great game on its own... and it aswell has somewhat lackluster visuals in some ways due to it's sandbox nature. Sandbox games are simply more complex, and expecting Uncharted quality visuals on a city wide scale is not practical.

GTA's visuals look fantastic IMO, nothing is too extremely detailed and that is good in the case of this game - city wide mayhem and ultra detailed models don't mix well, and I mush prefer a smoother framerate over visuals upgrades.

[QUOTE="aaron6581230"][QUOTE="justifythegame"][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.

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.

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!

But the AI is not improved at all. More happening on the screen? Maybe. But if they lower the graphics further, they can make these much things happening on a PS2.

All the TC and I'm saying is that, this game's graphics really doesn't look good. The character models sucks big time comparing to many many many other games out there.

Now since you love GTA so much, wouldn't you love it MORE if the graphisc looks 3 times better than it is now? You would!

Now those of us who don't care about the gameplay in this game that much, if the graphics looks 3 times better, wouldn't we like the game a bit more? We would too!

So, what's your problem about us wanting a better graphics in this game? Having a better graphics on this game would make everyone like the game a bit more? Why is it a BAD thing?

Coming from the expert, right?

Has it ever dawned on you that sandbox games, like GTA are very hard to create - I saw a comparison above to Oblivion, that's an awful comparison. Oblivion can work around the fact that one, the movement around the world is slow, and the fact there's a whole heck of a lot less going on. I own Oblivion, and it's a great game on its own... and it aswell has somewhat lackluster visuals in some ways due to it's sandbox nature. Sandbox games are simply more complex then your average game, and expecting Uncharted quality visuals on a city wide scale is not practical.

GTA's visuals look fantastic IMO, nothing is too extremely detailed and that is good in the case of this game - city wide mayhem and ultra detailed models don't mix well, and I mush prefer a smoother framerate over visuals upgrades.