GTA V in 4K requires at least an AMD HD 7870 or Nvidia GTX 760

Quote:

---

That's for 30fps fun, for 4K 60fps gameplay you will need an SLI or CrossFire setup.

---

Read more.

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game, on PC people think about the graphics first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game, on PC people think about the graphics first.

---

Not really. This is more a case of 'can my PC run it?' which isn't something console users have to worry about.

And the point of this newsbit is that the required specs are astonishingly low. I would not consider 4k gaming to be a 30fps playable in most cases on my 7870, but they're saying for this game it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game, on PC people think about the graphics first.

---

Well, I would say the difference is actually the platforms and not the gamers.......but with the advent of next-gen even the console owners are being quite vocal about graphics options to the point where some devs are now giving them the option of 30fps vs 60fps.

But it's human nature to think about what something would be if certain variables changed.

I thought this would be another poor console port. Was pleasantly surprised.

Come to think of it however that 30 fps may look like Minecraft and the glove is back on the other hand.

I had GTA 1. Never really been bothered about the others.

Yes because this one article equates to all discussion in the PC gaming community about GTA V. So therefore all discussion is about resolution and graphics.

Frankly 30FPS at 4K on a gen behind and mid range card seems to suggest they were doing good work on the port. I hope this is true for everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game, on PC people think about the graphics first.

---

Not really. This is more a case of 'can my PC run it?' which isn't something console users have to worry about.

And the point of this newsbit is that the required specs are astonishingly low. I would not consider 4k gaming to be a 30fps playable in most cases on my 7870, but they're saying for this game it is.

---

I assumed that is with all other tweakables on the lowest/fastest settings. Although considering I just bought a GTX970 to make Attila: TW run nicely at 2560x1440 I do think it sounds as if Rockstar have done a decent job if they can run 4K at all on a 760.

These predictions are shockingly low surprisingly. If they are indeed correct then hurray, theyve done a brilliant and heavily optimised port. I have to be a little skeptical as to what specs theyre actually talking about here though. They discuss resolutions but not actual graphics options. Time will tell.

The framerates aren't that surprising once you've seen the videos though. The faces seem directly lifted from the XBox360 version. Yes, the game is rendered at a higher resolution and textures will probably be higher resolution but I don't see any major differences in poly count.

Wasn't impressed by the trailer at all, glad I have no interest in buying it now.

I was mulling over an upgrade to my GTX 760 to play GTA V at 4K.

This is impressive, though I'm still on the fence as this isn't going to be a great experience at 30 fps.

So I guess I'll stick with 1024x768 on medium settings with my 9600GT. Good for a 7 year old graphics card!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

I was mulling over an upgrade to my GTX 760 to play GTA V at 4K.

This is impressive, though I'm still on the fence as this isn't going to be a great experience at 30 fps.

---

GTA V is a great experience. It was only 30fps (or maybe less) at 720p(might have been upscaled too) on release but everyone had fun, slept with prostitutes then shot them, etc. People enjoyed it, as I will probably again in a few years time.

8k with an octopus rift donkey kong country 8 at 500fps isn't going to make the game any better other than the way it looks as the game is much more that just visuals.

Now where is my super skunk seller, I want to kill some clowns.

Buy the game, end of.

|I already have this on XBox360.... might get it again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game, on PC people think about the graphics first.

---

No shame in that, and even if console players acknowledge it less, they're in that bracket too.

Game mechanics only make up a portion of what a game is, or what it does to your intellect. A good driving game doesn't just trade on great steering simulation or physics, but in making your brain feel like it's floating enjoyably on a kind of light show: the trees whipping past your vision, the god rays breaking the clouds, the sunlight cresting the horizon. Shooters are much of a muchness, but unique aesthetics can be vital to their appeal. Batman: Arkham City is not really that great a game if you look at it objectively and divorce the mechanics from their appearance, but put it all together in one package and the thing is an enthralling classic. Nice graphics fill all those spaces between the direct adrenaline of input demands, and neither thing is more honest than the other.

We like having the best visual effects possible because they tickle our brains in a pleasant way, and this is an entertainment medium. However, few of us care to boost our settings to the detriment of the frame rate, and that's precisely because we do care about gameplay and we want our experiences to be fluid and tightly responsive. You might ask why PS4 and XBO owners were willing to sacrifice frame rate just to get pretty graphics, but that would be a reductive argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Otherhand

No shame in that, and even if console players acknowledge it less, they're in that bracket too.

Game mechanics only make up a portion of what a game is, or what it does to your intellect. A good driving game doesn't just trade on great steering simulation or physics, but in making your brain feel like it's floating enjoyably on a kind of light show: the trees whipping past your vision, the god rays breaking the clouds, the sunlight cresting the horizon. Shooters are much of a muchness, but unique aesthetics can be vital to their appeal. Batman: Arkham City is not really that great a game if you look at it objectively and divorce the mechanics from their appearance, but put it all together in one package and the thing is an enthralling classic. Nice graphics fill all those spaces between the direct adrenaline of input demands, and neither thing is more honest that the other.

We like having the best visual effects possible because they tickle our brains in a pleasant way, and this is an entertainment medium. However, few of us care to boost our settings to the detriment of the frame rate, and that's precisely because we do care about gameplay and we want our experiences to be fluid and tightly responsive. You might ask why PS4 and XBO owners were willing to sacrifice frame rate just to get pretty graphics, but that would be a reductive argument.

---

But that breaks the law of immersion. Less is usually more as suspension of belief is harder to achieve the better things look. Our mind prefer filling in the blanks.

The sad truth is that 'aaa' graphics are much easier to implement than great gameplay is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

The sad truth is that 'aaa' graphics are much easier to implement than great gameplay is.

---

I don't think that's true at all. It takes a huge amount of man power and therefore cost to implement AAA graphics. On the other hand great gameplay can be done by one person in her spare time - see all the games like Papers Please, not to mention all the 'casual' games that are more popular than AAA games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

GTA V is a great experience. It was only 30fps (or maybe less) at 720p(might have been upscaled too) on release but everyone had fun, slept with prostitutes then shot them, etc. People enjoyed it, as I will probably again in a few years time.

8k with an octopus rift donkey kong country 8 at 500fps isn't going to make the game any better other than the way it looks as the game is much more that just visuals.

Now where is my super skunk seller, I want to kill some clowns.

Buy the game, end of.

---

I've already bought the game, as I know I'll enjoy it. GTA:SA is still one of my favourite games ever and the visuals are terrible compared to modern, inferior games.

The question is whether I invest in a new graphics card now, or delay a bit longer and make do with 1080p at decent fps or 4K at v. low fps. I just don't like spending money when I don't need to, and a reasonable upgrade, i.e. a 970 / 980 is not cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I don't think that's true at all. It takes a huge amount of man power and therefore cost to implement AAA graphics. On the other hand great gameplay can be done by one person in her spare time - see all the games like Papers Please, not to mention all the 'casual' games that are more popular than AAA games.

---

AAA graphics are a function of cost, when gameplay isn't. Ie you can 'buy' a good looking game but yout can't 'buy' a good playing game.

I think gameplay with testers and development is a function of time and therefore cost too.

Indie developers have a focused team, not subjegated to the corporate elephant.

I'm under the impression after watching indie game the movie the pressure to get it done and get paid is pretty large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

AAA graphics are a function of cost, when gameplay isn't. Ie you can 'buy' a good looking game but yout can't 'buy' a good playing game.

---

I still don't agree. You need talent and cost for a good looking game. Just throwing money at it doesn't achieve anything other than death by shader bloom.

I think the only situation where you might be right is where you have already fixed on the gameplay, and then you can do something about how the game looks but you can't do much about the gameplay (you can still do quite a bit however, but if the general gameplay concept is bad then it's going to stay bad.) There's no inherent reason why games have to have fixed gameplay in their development though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

But that breaks the law of immersion. Less is usually more as suspension of belief is harder to achieve the better things look. Our mind prefer filling in the blanks.

The sad truth is that 'aaa' graphics are much easier to implement than great gameplay is.

---

There's a law of immersion?

Perhaps you are referring to the "uncanny valley"? That was a prediction rather than a law, borrowed from robotics, and it proved to be incorrect for computer graphics and video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

I guess this marks the difference between pc 'gamers' and console players.

On console people play the game

---

At 30 fps. So just barely playable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggy

At 30 fps. So just barely playable.

---

Have a look at the top games on metacritic..... most games are 30fps or less.

I recently finished the main story on the PS4 version and, given that I played GTA 4 for an hour and got bored, I was amazed by this game. It is by far the most 'alive' feeling game world I have ever experienced. It was honestly a joy just to pootle around in it. The Devs did an amazing job with it.
As for the graphics - if they are bringing even more spit and polish to the PC version then that can only be a good thing - especially since the PS4 version already looked excellent.

Attempting to Pre-load and it seems the launcher doesn't resume where it left off if you close it out which is very annoying. Could just be that the game is stored in multiple compressed files and that the 6GB I tested didn't fully complete any files but either way it seems it will be a nightmare to download for me.

I download 12-8AM as my data usage doesnt count then, seem I'll have to download (assuming rockstar's servers hold up, apparently they arent) half the game one night then pause the download, do whatever I need to do the next day all while leaving the downloader open without switching off PC then set it off again at 12.

Hopefully when it finishes one of the big files it can autoresume though, so far though 6GB in and it wont autoresume. Kinda regret not getting the steam version now since that should actually download properly (unless it just downloads the launcher like some games)