though the game is very detailed. Its rare you see a game that is that huge and so detailed. Its amazing how much work the developers put into that game. Instead of running around blowing up things, take a time and look around and hear how much of it city it looks and feels.
its more to do with the fact, that its a massive open game, so the CPU and GFX are working overtime because theres a lot of stuff going on in the screen. Where as lets say gears of war is smaller more of a tight path, GTA 4 is open, thats what makes it impressive.
The PS3 version is very blurry but the 360 version is generally pretty crisp. I'd say the most impressive part about the graphics is how well the game manages to transition from day->night and back again. Most games pre-calculate a lot of the lighting which makes it static, but you can't do that when the time of day is constantly changing like it is in GTAIV. The view from the helicopter is really nice as well.
However the low framerate at times can kinda kill things.
Its questions like these by most if not close to all under age posters on this forum who know nothing about graphics and how they work, that pisses me off. All of you think you know what a graphics king is, what the best art style is, and which developers are lying and which arent just by looking at a game and saying that its nice to your eyes. The reason GTA 4 has amazing graphics is that it has a a GPU render an entire city, which looks amazing and comparable to small environmen games such as uncharted and gears. (no GTA 4 does not look as good as those) but technicaly it does more. thats why one would come to the conclusion that t is technicaly better graphicaly then even KZ2. you cant friggin take a game such as Heavy Rain for example which is rendered in a TINY environment and compare it to a game like GTA and say that graphics are better. They arent. and thats a simple fact.
none of you know how to compare graphics because none of you understand how they work. I have NEVER seen more useless threads than these ones.
As far as it being blurry, I've been playing the 360 version and the visuals are generally pretty sharp.
GTA 4's visual strength isn't so much on a technical level. Where GTA 4 shines is from an artistic point of view. Rockstar set out to recreate New York City's many bouroughs and landmarks and that's what they did, right down to the tiniest of details. Ranging from grafitti on the walls to the behaviors of the many denizens of Liberty City, there has never been a more realisitic and believable game world (at least one set in the present day) in any game that I've ever played. The physics and animation are also highly notable for creating a sense of realism within the world.
It's not the best looking game out there (although, as Teuf said, the view from a helicopter is quite nice) but I've yet to find one that does what GTA 4 does quite as well.
Its questions like these by most if not close to all under age posters on this forum who know nothing about graphics and how they work, that pisses me off. All of you think you know what a graphics king is, what the best art style is, and which developers are lying and which arent just by looking at a game and saying that its nice to your eyes. The reason GTA 4 has amazing graphics is that it has a a GPU render an entire city, which looks amazing and comparable to small environmen games such as uncharted and gears. (no GTA 4 does not look as good as those) but technicaly it does more. thats why one would come to the conclusion that t is technicaly better graphicaly then even KZ2. you cant friggin take a game such as Heavy Rain for example which is rendered in a TINY environment and compare it to a game like GTA and say that graphics are better. They arent. and thats a simple fact.
none of you know how to compare graphics because none of you understand how they work. I have NEVER seen more useless threads than these ones.
A-LEGEND
I agree, which is why I'm comparing GTA IV to SR 2 which it completely outclasses.When you look around Stillwater EVERYTHING is low poly and the textures are just bland. The city has no personality at all, you barely notice the difference between one neighborhood to the next..
As a person that lives in NYC, in which the next gen Liberty City is patterened after, let me just say that Rockstar nailed it. The new Liberty City is an amazing achievement. I've lived in New York all my life and it's the absolute best homage to NYC that I have ever seen in a videogame.
It is phenomenally well deatailed, has wonderful touches, great animation, great physics, great draw distances, great likeness to NY, great art style and a really good atmosphere. I would be quite happy to give this game a 10 in graphics, because quite frankly-i dont think rockstar could have improved it any more.
The PS3 version is very blurry but the 360 version is generally pretty crisp. I'd say the most impressive part about the graphics is how well the game manages to transition from day->night and back again. Most games pre-calculate a lot of the lighting which makes it static, but you can't do that when the time of day is constantly changing like it is in GTAIV. The view from the helicopter is really nice as well.
However the low framerate at times can kinda kill things. Teufelhuhn
The low frame rate ? I played on PS3 and didnt experience any.
The Graphics are VERY nice.The shadowing,lightning,explosions,physics,sceneries,reflections(during rain its unbelievable)....etc...The physics especially of people are simply AWESOME.They are using a very good physics engine which doesnt use RAG DOLL.Infact it replicates the whole skeleton of a human.The things lying around and the interactable enviroment is also awesome.They could have improved alot on the graphics using the same engine and same requirements.But the fact is that they had to save something for the future.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The PS3 version is very blurry but the 360 version is generally pretty crisp. I'd say the most impressive part about the graphics is how well the game manages to transition from day->night and back again. Most games pre-calculate a lot of the lighting which makes it static, but you can't do that when the time of day is constantly changing like it is in GTAIV. The view from the helicopter is really nice as well.
However the low framerate at times can kinda kill things. lesner87
The low frame rate ? I played on PS3 and didnt experience any.
The framerate on the Ps3 version while not terrible, at times it can dip pretty low. I find the 360 version to run a bit smoother..But that really isn't saying much.
Nothing is great about the graphics but it is large improvement from GTAs of last generation. The pop-in is much improved along with the animation and textures. Plus the game runs more seamlessly.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]The PS3 version is very blurry but the 360 version is generally pretty crisp. I'd say the most impressive part about the graphics is how well the game manages to transition from day->night and back again. Most games pre-calculate a lot of the lighting which makes it static, but you can't do that when the time of day is constantly changing like it is in GTAIV. The view from the helicopter is really nice as well.
However the low framerate at times can kinda kill things. lesner87
The low frame rate ? I played on PS3 and didnt experience any.
It's most certainly there. Especially when you are driving. The 360 runs the game slightly better but not by leaps and bounds.
[QUOTE="clone01"]the GTA series has never been known for great graphics, really.Brainkiller05
I beg to differ.
don't get me wrong...i think the graphics are really good for a game of that size and scope, but its kind of hard comparing something like GTA4 to uncharted or gears.
Log in to comment