GTA4 on PC!

MOH

Azza wrote: »

They should of made it clear where the console equivelent settings so us PC gamers could say aha! so this is what settings we are ahead at.
I have read but can't confirm myself (I swapped my PS3 version for another game) that the draw distance of 10/100 is where the console versions where set to.

Might have eased a bit of the rush to play on max settings alright.

I know there is a great game waiting to be played here and I have other games so I can be patient and wait for a patch and driver updates and to me its not the end of the world. No one should have too though so I can understand the frustration some people are feeling.

At this stage I reckon Fallout3 and FarCry2 will keep me going through Christmas, I'll probably pick GTA4 up second hand in the meantime and wait till its patched, or just leave it and get it on budget eventually.

They've got to be taking a serious hit on sales over all this.

In fact, there's reports (OK, rumours) on the Penny Arcade forums the Valve are actually offering refunds for those who bought it through Steam and are finding it unplayable. Which, if true, is unprecedented (I think?).

Auvers

got the following from another forum



Grand Theft Auto 4 PC Release Hunted by Bugs
By Hilbert Hagedoorn, December 4, 2008 - 9:20 PM


If you recently bought the PC version of Grand Theft Auto IV and are experiencing any minor to major difficulties, you're not alone. This is a PC release of a GTA game with the single most problems ever. The bugs have been well documented on the Steam forums, with one user compiling a list of potential fixes.

The game-loading RMN40 error can apparently be fixed in Windows XP by updating to Service Pack 3. If you are running Windows Vista, then download and install the Microsoft .NET 3.5 Framework and a reboot. A separate MMA10 error requires users to log out of the Rockstar Social Club multiplayer utility in order to play. While the missing texture problems have been attributed to corrupt graphics drivers, many users have been unable to fix the issue after a driver reinstall. The game is also restricting some users from changing their graphical settings.

Rockstar has sent out a general e-mail to fan sites to spread the word that the company is working on sorting out all the PC issues, be it audio, graphical, performance or network related. They advise anyone that is encountering difficulties to contact their local technical support helpline for advice and recommendations. These telephone numbers can be found in the game's manual. You can also refer to Rockstar's support site, which provides regularly updated technical information and solutions to common problems, including a complete list of error codes, and some advice on how to use the graphics settings.

Azza

The system requirements are extremely high. The highest on PC currently, there is no question about it.

I think the percpetion that OMG I have to play on medium settings means I got a game inferior to the console version is annoying alot of people. We PC players expect high graphical quality. While no high end rig is future proof no one was expecting a game that worked fine on a console to cause so much difficulty for PC's with better hardware, so the automatic assumption was crap-port.

I think alot of people assume high settings are what the console version is at (lol the PS3 version could not even manage 720p it could only reach 640) while the ultra high settings are what gives the PC the edge in terms of grahpics.

But I had difficulty accepting that such a big game could be so badly ported and that it ran badly on all hardware configurations from low to high. It still could turn out to badly ported in the long run. Perhaps it won't. Crysis for example had the perception of un-optimization when it simple was not the case. Simply people thought they had rigs powerful enough to run it when they did not. Again Crytek should shoulder the blame in that regard. They did get the message across that the game was mean't to be played on high settings now (at release) and ultra high settings latter (now). They only told us after the games release. Or at least stressed it after release.

I think we just have to avoid knee jerk reactions to stuff like this. We will have to wait and see how this pans out. Patches and drivers will hopefully improve the situation but I suspect a powerful rig will still be required.

As for getting refunds it would be kinda unheard of but nothing is confirmed yet.

delly

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

New cpu time friend!

I've just shelled out on a new Canon dSLR, so i've used my current batch of 'fun' money for a while.

I think the problem is that I got stuck in a timeloop and have been playing Company of Heroes non stop for the last two years. In the meantime I've picked up Supreme Commander, Bioshock, COD4 and others without really haveing a playability problem. This will probably be the first game that will tip the scale, but I live in hope.

ScumLord

Azza wrote: »

Rockstar have released a statement saying the highest settings are designed for future computers but I believe they only released the statement after the dissatisfaction expressed with the games current performance.

That's so stupid. They'd hardly release gta for the PS3 and tell people they won't be able to run it until the PS5 comes out. It's ridiculous! To me that's just an excuse for their own laziness. They had an additional YEAR to work on this. How different can Microsofts Xbox operating system be from Microsofts other operating systems.

I was really looking forward to playing this game I waited patently for 2 years and more, I'm even spending an additional €200 getting my pc up to a fairly respectable spec and I find out it probably still won't run.

I saw far cry 2 for the first time last night and I think I'll buy that and Left4dead instead at least they'll run and will look good.

TerrorFirmer

The think the critical part of that argument is that GTAIV simply isn't Crysis. I've played it on consoles and it's entirely unremarkable visually, and I highly doubt the PC version of the game is so drastically improved as to require triple the brute power to run these improvements. For example I've played COD4 on the PS3 and 360 to find it noticabely inferior to a PC capable of running it at highest settings; to run at these highest settings, a basic 2.4Ghz Core 2 and 512mb 8800GT is sufficient. Don't let anyone suddenly compare GTAIV to Crysis and pretend that it was built from the ground up to accomodate both current and future gen hardware - Crysis was, GTAIV most certainly was not. At the current performance levels, Crysis itself is performing better then GTAIV is on select 'mainstream gamer' systems. Notice how the minimum requirements are suspiciously similar to other crap ports relative to the time in which they were released. The minimum requirements listed for GTAIV would run something like COD4 at high settings, for example!

This is just another line up to add to shoddy console translations like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.....Imagine the outrage if either of those developers came out with statements about either games being built to accomodate future hardware? They'd be laughed at.

chops1990

I've got bad news. when you finish GTA 4 you realise how dissapointing the game is. There is nothing to do besides missions. The only plus to the game is the graphics are unreal and the driving is very realistic with realistic car damage.

Azza

In fairness Scumlord thats not they said.

They did say you can not run the game on current hardware they said you can't not run the highest settings on current hardware. There is a significant difference. From my understanding of it is that the game on medium settings is better looking than the console versions and at medium settings the game is playable.

Crytek developed the amazing Cry Engine 2 and they got hammered over its apparent shoddy state at release. Again they intended the higher settings for future PC's but did not stress that fact. Crysis was still graphical better looking at medium settings than most other games but so many people insisted on playing on high when there PC's were not up to the challenge..
What I find stupid is not stressing this point to its customers who feel let down.
Chances are had we they left out those higher settings and renamed medium as high there would be far fewer complaints. Although complaints against texture corruption and mutiplayer issues are justified.

A year of additional time is also incorrect they had 7 months which is not that close to a full year by my reckoning.

What are your system specs Scumlord?

Azza

TerrorFirmer.... Is GTA noticeable inferior to Crysis from a technical perspective?

Certainly from a lighting,shader and texture perspective yes it certainly is. Any screen shot of the 2 will tell you Crysis looks way better. Crysis is the best looking game available buts its much smaller in scope than GTA. GTA IV is an incredible complicated game in its own way. Its not a bad looking game considering the sheer size of Liberty City. There is a high number of AI vehicles and AI characters walking around a huge dynamic open city which has no load times bar when you go inside buildings. This is not like Crysis which has smaller play areas (but larger than most other FPS) with load screens seperating them. Both games have impressive and stressful physics engines powering them, but I'd imagine GTA physics engine is been used more constantly than Crysis physics engine. Adding in the COD series is abit pointless as technically its vastly inferior to both games. Sure it might looking a bit better than GTA texture wise. Buts its merely an outside-corridor shooter with little in the way of impressive A.I. or physics with vastly smaller playing area's to render (I still love COD games by the way) But GTA is a far more complicated game than any of the COD series for the reasons stated above.

I'm not saying the game is perfectly optimized. Patches and driver may improve the situation. I'm just saying lets hold back for a while before making up our minds on it.

Also I assume your refering to the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter series when you lump into the rubbish port category.

This is not the case. Its actually a signicantly different game from the console versions which where handled by Ubisoft where as the PC version was made by Grin. The gameplay is far more tactical as it was decided to keep the series more in line with the orginal Ghost Recon games for PC users as thats what they would come to expect. The engine was fine bar the lack of anti-alaising which is due to an incompatability with the lighting system used in the game.

I do agree with you on the Rainbow 6 Vegas games though.

GhostInTheRuins

My christ how long does this take to install? It's been at least half an hour so far :mad:

TerrorFirmer

Yes but the difference is that GTAIV was optimised for consoles - it might be a game originating on the PC but everyone knows at heart it's one of the most definitive console games around. The 360 and PS3 can run it, so the engine is obviously not overly ambitious compared to say Supreme Commander which at times flat out dies on the 360. Basic rationality would tell you that if it runs fine on a 360, then even a basic machine should be able to match those levels (for arguments sake, a 2.4Ghz Core 2, 2gb ram, 320mb 8800GTS/9600GSO; whereas in reality those spec's from the sound of things would have a very hard time even on quality levels matching the 360)

Yes, I accept that PC users are able to run it at console levels, but even that takes considerably beefy hardware. Why is that, when (decent) PC hardware is incredibly more powerful then 360 hardware? For example, we're seeing users with quad cores and 4870 cards experiecing heavy slowdown; I don't think you need me to tell you a Quad Core machine and a 4870 of any variant are infiniitely more powerful then their console counterparts. So why would such a setup have such a hard time rendering graphics fairly comparable to their console counterparts?

It'd be one thing if someone was comparing the 360 version with say, a machine struggling with 1920x1200 high settings - which is obviously going to be superior. But it's the number of people having dreadful problems with the mainstream settings - that is to say, settings that somewhat resemble the console settings- on powerful hardware.

That was my point about COD4 - not that COD4 uses an incredibly complex engine but that simply, it runs far better on a PC equipped with a 2.4Ghz Core 2, 2gb of Ram and a 100 euro video card then it does natively on the 360/Ps3. Again - if the PS3/360 can handle a given game, then any decent PC should tear it up at the same quality levels or above, no? And a game like GTAIV should in theory stress a CPU much more then a video card, but that still doesn't explain why people using fast clocked quads are experiencing bad gameplay - if GTAIV can utilize multiple cores, that only makes it way worse - GTAIV might have a lot going on but not enough to bog down 4 cores completely without being horribly un-optimized - unless you're looking at 100's of cars and 100's people in any given frame - something I doubt.

Crysis was built from the ground up exclusively for the PC. They've said it won't be released on consoles because the trade off of visuals to acheive constant fluidity would be too great and partly negate the experience. But surely you don't believe that the opposite works - a 360 games that runs fine on its native console dragging even powerful PC's to their knees? Not right.

And I mentioned Ghost Recon because it had horrible system requirements that didn't really tie in with what you received in return, sorry - I thought it was a console port. Even if not - the requirements were extremely steep at the time it was released. Not the best optimized engine, but still a bit out of context if it was an original game for the PC.

MOH

Bearing in mind that I'm talking out of my ass here (as usual) since I haven't even seen the game:

Most of the glitches being reported seem to be graphics related (that's for those who actually get it running). Surely whatever AI processing is going on will be done anyway, regardless of your graphics settings? Presumably things like draw distance and traffic density will affect the amount of AI needed, but I can't see how any other graphics settings are related?
So setting those two values to a resonable level, wouldn't you expect to be able to set your resolution, AA, etc. to similar levels as other recent titles?

It's all very well for R* to come out now and say they were building for the future, but that would have been a bit more credible if they'd said it before the wave of complaints. There's a lot of angry people out there who've been waiting along time for this, many of whom have upgraded their machines specifically for it, to find they're not getting anywhere near the performance they thought they would, and which could have reasonably been expected.

Oddly, there hasn't even been much in reviews about performance issues - PC Gamer in passing mentioned "major framerate wobbles", but went on to say that "it looks amazing on an 8800 and a dual core processor". It has been mentioned a couple of times on GTA forums that 8800s specifically seem to be faring well, so I dunno, maybe it's optimised for the 8800 and they gave every reviewer a free one?

ScumLord

Azza wrote: »

A year of additional time is also incorrect they had 7 months which is not that close to a full year by my reckoning.

What are your system specs Scumlord?

core 2 duo E6600, 2 gb ram and radeon x1900xtx. It runs every game I've tried on it with no problems but I'm going to put in another 4gb ram and a 4850 in next week.

It doesn't make any sense to release a game that most people won't be able to play. This is a very underhanded money grab. They knew it wouldn't work but they knew people would run out and buy it on the first day.

They had all the time in the world to make the PC version and still ****ed it up.

TinCool

Glad I got this on PS3 and didn't bother with it on the PC. Much better playing from the comfort of a couch and a 42" Plasma TV.

TC

MOH

Heh, good to know the crack tech support team are on the case:

I called them about the low FPS I get on my setup (GTX260/E6400) which was told it is strange but they will raise the call up.

and the tech support response:

Hello,

Unfortunately getting 15 to 20 FPS with you computer configuration is normal. The game requires very high specifications in order to run above 20 FPS

TerrorFirmer

I can only assume that his CPU is overclocked, at stock an E6400 is actually a bit slow for games that do tend to stress the CPU....

But at least it shows that they know the game is a **** to run.

MOH

It's overclocked to 3 gig apparently/allegedly.

I should have read further, he mailed back to insist the game should be running faster, their response was that:
"In order to get a better perfomance , the game requires a Tri/Quad core processor."

Now, aside from the ubiquity of tri-core processors, it's either optimised for quad core or not. If it is, tri-core isn't going to help all that much, is it?


In the interests of contributing something useful to this thread:
- textures to medium apparently help matters, given that setting them to high takes an extra bazillion of video RAM, and is designed for gfx cards of the 23rd century.
- Shadows to 0 too, which apparently improves performance without actually removing shadows entirely.
- problems with Buena Vista Social Club and multiplayer can sometimes be avoided by starting the game while logged out, then alt-tabbing and logging into it.
- explanations for meaningless error codes here

Sierra Oscar

I have yet to play it on the PC myself (I hope to this weekend), however I have been keeping an eye on the GTA forums over on the Steam User Forums, and there seem to be a lot of pissed off players who find the game extremely buggy and the optimisation poor.

I still cant wait to play the game myself though, and the sooner the first patch is released the better.

PogMoThoin

Rockstar are more hated by pc gamers than Creative now. How much do they expect to make from a game? They got $50 million from M$ for exclusive download content, which also ties the pc game to Live accounts as part of that deal. They have gambled on the quick buck (launch day sales like on consoles), it'll come back to haunt them. Greedy fcukers.

Azza

Played about more of it today. Just driving around listen to my own tunes on Independence FM

System Specs are
Core Duo 8400 3.0ghz
4GB 1066mhz Ram
4870 512MB
Vista Ultimate
game was installed on a 74GB raptor.
ati catalyst 8.11

My settings where
texture settings: medium
render settings: highest

view distance 47/100
detail distance 57/100
vehicle density 26/100
shadow density 8/16
resolution 1280x1024
used up 492/501mb video ram

the benchmark gave me an average frame rate of 35.12 fps
and in game playing for an hour frame rate never seemed to drop below 30.
It looked fine and played fine. But there was graphical glitches with certain textures popping up and dissapearing at close range and aliasing was an issue particular with chain link fences (as always in video games). The graphics glitches I'd rate as moderate. Hopefully the patch rockstar has promised fixes them.

It seems texture and vehicle density are the 2 biggest resource hogs. It will probaly take a slight lowering of settings but I'd expect to be able to play at 1680x1050 with a decent level of graphical quality and a playable frame rate when I get my new 24" monitor.

In reply to some of you.

Tincool
PC gamers can't very easily connect to a big HDTV too and the vast majority of PC games like GTA 4 have perfect joypad support.

Scumlord
Your graphics card is abit long in the tooth although the rest of your rig is fine. I had that card before my current one and I would not have expected to run the game on high settings with it if I still used it. I would still would have assumed I could of played on medium but this is not the case. The x1900xtx is not too far above what powers the consoles (I think only 1 generation above them) and as I said before the consoles are far easier to optimize for, with less hardware and software conflict to worry about. I think you be looking at low textures settings with that card. But aside from graphical glitches does the game look terrible at low texture settings on the PC. I have not tried it myself and I'm trying to compare it the PS3 from memory.

Having played through Crysis with it DX9 certain stages really struggled on that card. Even the new COD WAW would struggle with that abit. Dependent on resolution of course.

MOH
I agree with you that Rockstar should of told people early what to expect just like Crytek should of did with Crysis.

Also from a technical perspective the game has no anti-aliasing support.

As for the reviews overlooking the performance issue. Perhaps they realised that medium settings where still pretty good. Check out eurogamers review.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=322028
I think he sumed the pefromance perspective quite well in the 3rd and 2nd last paragraph on page one.

TerrorFirmer
Are PC's incredible or Infinitly more powerful than current generation consoles? Yes they are more powerful the consoles but I believe its only with this current generation of graphics cards has mainstreamed PC gaming machines surpassed console machines. If you look at the cards a 7900gt/gtx powers the PS3. The 8800 was a reasonable step up from that but the 9800 series was simply a rebaged 8800 series the gt200 series was the next step up. From ATI's perspective there equivelent to the 7900gtx was the 1800/1900 series and we know the 2900 series flopped the 3800 series was an improvement and now the 4800 series has the edge on the gt280s. So really we only 2 graphics generations ahead. Factoring in the better optimization of consoles I would only be expecting slight to moderate performance improvements from current generation PC gpus.

All I can imagine about the large number of complaints is that mainstream users are suppose to be playing the game at low settings while the high-end users are suppose to be playing on medium settings but the users are trying to run the game at settings above what they should. Rockstar should of informed people of this of course. If your feeling sorry for people below mainstream settings rockstar did publish minimum requirements and if you don't meet them don't buy the game.

Again there maybe indvidual issues with certains graphics cards I'm pretty sure if I can play at settings listed above then people with quad cores can too with slightly better settings. (I'm just below recommeneded system requirements as I don't have a quad core)

Weather the game is un-optimized time will tell. Perhaps there was difficult with getting the Euphoria engine working on the PC and that is the major issue. Yes it would be nice if all games whered designed from the ground up but mutiplatform is the norm now and the PC will be slightly handicapped as a result but its unavoidable. Games cost to much to release on a single platform these days.

Finally COD 4 was locked at 60fps on both consoles. I prefer the PC version and know it has a slight edge. But really when the consoles run at those speeds then it does not matter how much quicker the PC version is its really not going matter unless your a die hard CS player who needs 100 fps.

Pog
Why would a develop do this so called quick money grab. I'm sure Rockstar are not idiots and they realize that selling a shoddy game would result in lower sales over an extended peroid and that a decently made game on the other hand would sell more over time. I mean they get the same sales on day 1 either way but get more if word of mouth is positive over time?

Sorry for writing such a long post.

.

PogMoThoin

Azza wrote: »

Pog
Why would a develop do this so called quick money grab. I'm sure Rockstar are not idiots and they realize that selling a shoddy game would result in lower sales over an extended peroid and that a decently made game on the other hand would sell more over time. I mean they get the same sales on day 1 either way but get more if word of mouth is positive over time?

Is it Rockstar tho, they're only the developer, maybe they're tied to it by M$? I mean, why bother porting the game when it runs so badly, its not as if they haven't made their money on it? What exactly did they do to port it to pc, very little by the looks of it. Maybe it should have stayed a console game. Lower sales on pc will not affect their console game sales in the future, they know this.

Azza

Right guys here is the Rockstar statement in full and my notes on it are in bold. Bare in mind Rockstar is working on a patch and that should address the texture corruption issue.

The GRAHPHICS SETTINGS OF GRAND THEFT AUTO PC

Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available.

Graphics settings are limited by system resources by default. 256MB video cards force minimum settings by default. If a user bypasses these safety measures using command line arguments and exceeds their system resources, the users gaming experience may be compromised.


Video Mode
Resolution scaling effects water, reflections, shadows, mirrors and the visible viewable distance. The resolution settings relate to the amount of available video memory. At 2560*1600 the game will require 320MB of video memory in addition to all the memory required for content. At 800*600 the game will require 32MB of video memory in addition to the content. Medium resolution settings are recommended for most users as higher settings are only usable if there is available video memory. I was able to run at higher resolution than the console versions at 1280x1024. (Xbox 360 720p PS3 640p)

Texture Quality
Texture quality affects the visual quality of the content of the game. High setting for textures will require 600MB of video memory at a setting of 21 View Distance in addition to the memory taken by the Video Mode. A medium texture setting is recommended for most users. It does not matter for users of a 4870 1GB card as that card is only like 1 FPS faster than the 512MB version. Apparantly the card only counts the ram of one core so 4870x2s only have 1GB or ram accessable, this maybe fixed in a patch. It makes sense that enabling high textures on such a vast place as Liberty City would consume vasts amounts of resources no?. I've read elsewhere that medium textures are higher resolution than the console versions but I will try to get confirmation of that

Render Quality
Render quality is the texture filter quality used on most things in the world rendering. Most people would know this as anisotropic filtering. Medium settings are recommended for most users and will provide filtering beyond what the console versions can execute. I was able to enable 4 settings higher (highest setting) than the console version but in fairness anistropic filtering is not to resource consuming

View Distance
View distance scales the distance in which different objects in the world such as building and cars are seen. Raising this option increases the distance in which high quality objects must be loaded and will increase the memory it requires. Restrictions are established to ensure the game runs optimally for most users. A setting of 22 or more will provide PC users an enhanced experience over the console versions.I was able to achieve a view distance just over twice what the console versions can. This is significant from a technical perspective but in actually gameplay terms its going be obscured by buildings alot. Pop up was only midly noticable on the console version and the millions of people who played GTA on the consoles never cited this as an issue. So while the improvement would not be hard to overlook its there and I'd reckon thats accounts for alot of resources

Detail Distance
Detail distance scales aspects of the environment that the View Distance setting does not including vegetation, trash and other moveable objects. A setting of 10 would be the equivalent to the performance on a console. This setting has little effect on memory. I can confirm this as well I did seem to able to enable this to max with little performance hit

Vehicle Density
Vehicle density scales the traffic density of the traffic in the game. It has no effect on the mission vehicles or difficultly of the game, but can have a significant impact on CPU performance. Pretty logical and makes sense. Not sure what level it surpasses the console version at though

Shadow Density
Shadow Density controls the number of shadows generated for positional lights in exterior environments. These shadows are exclusive to the PC version and can have a major impact on CPU and GPU performance.Again makes sense. I'm pretty certain the shadow quality level I enabled was higher than what the console versions have

Crossfire/SLI
With the latest ATI driver (8-11 series) the game supports crossfire modes (ie. 4870x2)
SLI is currently unsupported.* Support will be added*through a future game patch*as well as*an updated Nvidia driver.


NOTE: Background Processes
Certain background processes can have a detrimental effect on system performance when playing GTA IV, especially on systems with minimum required system memory.* Users should ensure they disable their Virus scans (especially “on-access” type scans) when running the game to maximize performance.

**************
It must be to do with the sheer size of Liberty City that adding these extra features has a far greater performance impact than people would expect. Some gamers will not have played the console versions and just assumed that the this is a crap port. Others I reckon just will not notice that major a visual enhancement upgrade but its there.

Here is the tool checker for system requirements.
http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10171/?start=true
If you don't meet the minimum requirements avoid the game or upgrade.

yomamasflavour

That link though to the 3dmark06 'can my system run it'
is totally off, according to it a 3000 3dmark systen can run it - I seriously doubt anything under ~10000 can run that game decently (And before people start bitching 800*600 at low details is not decent or acceptable)

Azza

You sure you got the right game. It tells me the minimum system rquirements is slightly over 6,000 3D Marks.

PogMoThoin

Judging by that link, I just meet the recommended requirements, specs in sig.

Azza

Pog I think you be able to achieve 1680x1050 with medium texture settings (everyone should just forget about high for now).
Rendering Quality you be able to go highest.
Draw distance probably around 40-55.
Detail distance 80+
Shadow quality at least a 8
And traffic density 20-40.

Your quad core would probably give you a bit of a boost over me in terms of shadows and traffic density. Otherwise we are pretty similar.

ScumLord

That thing says I fail for not having windows vista?

PogMoThoin

Being forced to 1680x1050 is bollox, will look terrible on a 24'. FFS I can play Crysis on high @ 1920x1200. Is there an option to run it in a window?

Not gonna bother with it yet till they fix it, plus its 13GB, big download.

yomamasflavour

Azza wrote: »

You sure you got the right game. It tells me the minimum system rquirements is slightly over 6,000 3D Marks.

Ah yes, I was looking at the wrong game:rolleyes:, still though given all the complaints and rants on other forums about how its very heavy on resources I'd be quite sceptical of a system under 10000 3dmarks running it properly or even decently.

My laptop hits about 6000 3dmarks and I know it hasn't a hope of running it, So I'm kind of dissapointed as I won't get to play it till christmas when I head home - My desktop however should have no bothers gunning it.

witnessmenow

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Being forced to 1680x1050 is bollox, will look terrible on a 24'. FFS I can play Crysis on high @ 1920x1200. Is there an option to run it in a window?

Not gonna bother with it yet till they fix it, plus its 13GB, big download.

Saying 1680x1050 is going to "look terrible" on a 24" is just ridiculous