Thanks for the feedback! - Tom
This was a once-great series that has been getting increasingly stale with each new release. Hopefully GTA IV will be a worthy revival of the series.
The graphics look awful, but I can't resist the temptation to have sex with prostitutes.
You're the second person to say this Sayed. What makes anyone think the graphics look awful? Sure, they're not the best out there but they're sure FAR from awful.
I expected the graphics to be next gen since the game is on the 360 and PS3. Instead, it looks like a Wii game.
Are you kidding me?
The Wii couldn't produce those graphics. Open your eyes mate, look at some of the screenshots. They beat Saints Row and Crackdown and they both look bloody excellent!
Compare the graphics of Uncharted vs GTA 4 or BioShock vs GTA 4, and you will see why I think the graphics are not impressive.
Lol, you can't compare the graphics to a game like Bioshock. Granted, GTA has never had the best graphics but just because the graphics aren't of Bioshock standard (which is hard for any sandbox game anyway) it doesn't mean they suck.
Every game is not going to be of Bioshock standard, quit setting your standards too high. If you compare a PS2 game to GTAIV the increase in graphics is pretty much Bioshock-esque in itself.
Assassins Creed was a sandbox game that had brilliant visuals.
It's hardly got the same level of detail than a GTA game. Plus it was split into loading areas whereas GTAIV isn't supposed to be.
You're talking cars, more intelligent pedestrians, gunfights, police chases, going inside buildings, weather effects etc. There's a lot more going on and that drives the graphics down. It's far more interactive.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the graphics. You're just being a typical graphics whore and that saddens me.
Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and BioWare can use the PS3 and 360 hardware to its full potential, so there is no reason that RockStar can't maximize the hardware capabilities to its full potential on those consoles.
Again, you totally disregard just how much processing power it takes to run a world like GTA.
Ok, take GTA3 and San Andreas. Not a superb difference in graphics but San Andreas was about five times bigger, had better drawing distances and had far more going on. Yes, some of the wide open spaces were probably intentionally put there to put less strain on the game but GTA3 was near the start of the PS2's lifecycle and San Andreas was near the end. Rockstar knew a lot more about developing for the PS2 by San Andreas so used to full potential of that. The Xbox360 still has a lot of unlocked potential and the PS3's power has barely been used in game development. So when you say 'so there is no reason that RockStar can't maximize the hardware capabilities to its full potential on those consoles' you're not thinking in development terms.
We're already seeing a drop in frame rate in some of the trailers which points to just how much detail Rockstar has packed onto the screen and just how much they have going on at the time. Maybe it also shows how they're using AI more than graphics, I don't know because I'm not a developer. You know that GTA games are incredibly detailed so try rendering a world like that in graphics as good as Bioshock without any drastic slow down. We just don't have the power yet.
You can't compare a completely open world to a closed corridor style game like Bioshock. Gears of War, excellent graphics, but it's not an open world. I've already mentioned Asassians Creed and it's loading times.
I don't see what's wrong with the graphics to be honest. Every game is going to have it's own graphical style and every new game is not going to be the best looking game on the market. It looks amazing to me and, yes, while it may not be as good looking as some other games it's the gameplay that counts. I don't understand why people have to nit pick and say stuff like what you said. Who really cares as long as we get a great game?
Commenting by HaloScan
