I played it for the first time since it came out recently. Swore it was my least favorite GTA and by the end of it was my favorite, by far. Just taking the train, listening to friend conversations, so much little details. I don't understand why the game seems to have more pedestrians than GTA V? Random NPCs speaking rapid fire Ukranian at a payphone, the only repetitive dialogue I ran into was the homeless guys. In GTA 5 no matter what version you play, wherever you go, a Mexican guy shouts frick me in the ass 24/7. The driving is great too, you actually have to use your brakes and the lack of any first person means the roof can be squat down after a nasty flip. I swear the effects looked better too, the way rooms turn smokey in IV during a gun fight is satisfying, plus the ragdoll physics engine is still so fun to play with. Shooting guys in the leg until they're backed up to a guard rail, then they do a dramatic flip to their death. Speaking of friend conversations earlier, can't believe how good the optional conversations are. Packie crying in the passenger seat talking about his dad molesting him and his brothers. One of the women you can date going on an unhinged rant about how her mother deserves to die of abdominal cancer. I feel bad for not playing it more in depth when it came out, it's basically a late 2000s, pre-iPhone crime sim. A true 10.
People talk about how IV is too serious but I think it had the best mix between humor and drama. It had actual characters not just caricatures. I don't really care about anyone in V or the earlier games because they're pretty much just cartoons. I liked the side mission where Niko helps out a girl named Marnie, it's heartwarming but of course they ruined her as they did with many other characters from IV when they showed up in V.
I think GTA V (and probably VI) is the worst of both worlds. it's neither dark, gritty and serious like 2, III, and IV, nor is it dumb and cartoony like 1, VC and SA. it's this safe and lame middle ground that's not interesting in any way and has the same shitty heckin wholesome chungus Reddit humor all games post-Borderlands 2 have.
It was pretty good. I liked it better than 5, but that's not saying much 5 isn't that great in the scheme of things.
t. have played every GTA on every console since 1 on ps, including 2 on Dreamcast.
>just lower the graphics settings
there's very little performance difference between lowest and near-max settings. only thing that really ruins performance is changing shadows from high to very high and maxing out texture distance and details.
The engine fricks itself if the game runs too well, you need to use a frame limiter to cap it at 120fps or below, the physics in IV also get progressively more broken after exceeding 60fps.
my GPU isn't actually that good, but still IV shouldn't be performing worse than a near-max setting Crysis or Crysis 2. those are more playable than IV for me. also it's weird there's no performance difference between lowest and near-max settings? maybe I should set FPS to 30
is your PC power supply plugged straight into the mains or does it go thru an adapter (or whatever its called when you get 2 or 4 plugs from 1, often with a surge protector)
bros call me a schizo, but don't you guys think that Rockstar is doing to GTA IV what Bethesda is doing to New Vegas? they're trying to memoryhole it and pretend it never existed. the 3D era games and even V got multiple ports and remasters and definitive editions, while IV is stuck on PS3/360 and a broken PC port. it's joining 1,2 and CTW as abandonware.
with Bethesda at least the excuse is that NV makes them seethe, but what is making Rockstar ignore IV?
yeah I hate SAgays for not giving IV a chance. they just wanted IV to be SA2, which is what they got with V. yeah it sucks some of the features were lost like planes or customization, but IV was 10 steps forward 2 steps back. they could've taken what they did with IV and added stuff to it for V, but instead they just threw everything in the trash and made a shitty San Andreas remake
I'm inclined to agree since they devoted time and effort into porting RDR instead, despite its source code being an alleged mess.
underperformed and sold less than the previous, something unthinkable for a franchise that resurrected into the big leagues after III.
Granted, San Andreas was the best-selling game on the best-selling console of all time. While IV was released during the great recession on next-gen consoles. Speaking of which, I still feel like it was a missed opportunity to not have cost of living being a gameplay mechanic. Would have solved IV's issue of not having anything to do with your money and been one of those nice examples where the themes of the story actually align with the gameplay (anyone else remember "ludonarrative dissonance").
I'm inclined to agree since they devoted time and effort into porting RDR instead
Which confuses the frick out of me, considering it's the one rockstar game people have been begging a remake for the most. Shit they already pretty much ported the entire RDR1 map into 2, it wouldnt be that hard at all to make a remake with the sequel's engine+ new content to tie it closer to the prequel.
Instead they just made a bug infested port that no one really wanted.
My experience was buying the game on PS5 recently, ran into several soft locking bugs and other annoying issues.
Can't speak for switch but from what I heard it's not much better.
ZoomerBlack folk are absolutely pathetic, saying anything to justify their nostalgia that is pure shit. This same shit is said about Saints Row 2 about LE HECKIN FIX! Nothing is preventing you from playing the games currently except you wanting to consume it on a different platform.
I wouldn't fault anyone for saying San Andreas is the better game, but it's my personal favorite. I think it holds up the best out of all the major 7th gen grey and brown titles because NYC can actually look like that sometimes.
it's sort of the same for 5 in LA, but not close to what 4 is to NYC
they really condensed the sprawl that is LA into a mishmash of sorts, but there are sections that do resemble real life LA, strong emphasis on resemble, because it's very much not 1:1 on anything
IV isn't really 1:1 either. The Bronx doesn't go nearly as far north as I'd like. But it does an excellent job of capturing landmarks and other minor details you'd only really notice if you visited.
car physics were way better, maybe took it slightly too far but the rest feel like complete vidya games, cheaper games like saints row and sleeping dogs
i miss all the great side activites of the older games, i will never understand why they didn't do emergency vehicle missions. firefighter would have been great with the games explosion and fire effects and the overall physics. just blasting people with the vehicle water cannon would have been barrels of fun. imagine doing ambulance missions with the driving physics and having your patients go flying out the ambulance on hard turns, such a missed opportunity.
If you play GTA for driving, moody atmosphere, interesting story, humor, or visceral murder simulator fun where your chaotic actions feel impactful, GTA IV beats the rest easily. It doesn't let you drive jets and tanks or get fat, and the graphics aren't very good, though.
>Missing basic features >Only 3D GTA with no planes >Mostly boring map >Weakest soundtrack in the series >Entire middle part of the game is directionless >Game about getting money but you can't do anything with it
But it improved over time by encapsulating the mid 2000's vibe in a way few other games did or ever will.
>Only 3D GTA with no planes
III had a plane you could only fly by fricking around and VC only had water planes. IV's map is too small for planes anyway >Mostly boring map
agree but still better than VC for me >Weakest soundtrack in the series
better than V but not much. don't blame IV. blame 2008. >mid 2000's
no such thing. 2000-2007 is now "early 00s" while 2008-2009 are late 00s nowadays.
>Mostly boring map >can go into so many buildings seamlessly unlike older games and GTAV just out right closes most buildings
GTAIV's map looks boring on the surface but is probably the most built with character.
It had its up ands downs >The physics were extremely impressive for it's time, felt like an improved version of the Half life 2 ragdolls. >They did a great job with immersion, with realistic npcs and great world design, to date the most immersive feeling hubworld of any GTA >Story was surprisingly enjoyable too, one of my favorite GTA campaigns behind Vice city.
On the other hand >the driving physics sucked ass, cars felt slippery and made driving at fast pace not fun in the slightest >friends calling mechanic got extremely annoying quickly >Arguebly the worst offender of the greyscaled dark shooter era of the late 2000's, game was downright ugly at certain points. >As others said, the removal of stuff like planes and series trademark sidemissions made side content lacking.
Overall it's decent, but not even close to the masterpiece Ganker props it up as.
Delusional, no wonder you like IV and pretend it is not the black sheep and the one that misses the point of the series. Sadly a youtuber cuck had to empower your homosexual ass first
I think GTA V (and probably VI) is the worst of both worlds. it's neither dark, gritty and serious like 2, III, and IV, nor is it dumb and cartoony like 1, VC and SA. it's this safe and lame middle ground that's not interesting in any way and has the same shitty heckin wholesome chungus Reddit humor all games post-Borderlands 2 have.
gta peaked with san andreas. the amount of stuff you could in that game is insane compared to what you can do in 4 and 5. and much more memorable characters, roman or trevor weren't that great honestly
I've literally never played any GTA game as anything other than a murderhobo simulator I would boot up for an hour or two, wreak havoc then forget about for another 2 or 3 months.
No, but it certainly was way better than V.
I'm replaying V right now and I noticed how has the writing is in comparison, and more important, the game is filled with side content that is extremely boring, just like some of the main missions that feel like nothing but interactive cutscenes.
gameplay and music wise? No, not even close. San Andreas and even V blow it out of the water in every way. I just like it for the story and the fact that the "edgy topical toilet and shallow political, rick and morty humor" isn't AS insufferable and down your throat AS much as the other games.
ya
Never was. SA and V better.
He's also right, SA shits all over this slop.
Yes. Next question.
second best, with the best atmosphere and narrative. first best is san andreas.
I played it for the first time since it came out recently. Swore it was my least favorite GTA and by the end of it was my favorite, by far. Just taking the train, listening to friend conversations, so much little details. I don't understand why the game seems to have more pedestrians than GTA V? Random NPCs speaking rapid fire Ukranian at a payphone, the only repetitive dialogue I ran into was the homeless guys. In GTA 5 no matter what version you play, wherever you go, a Mexican guy shouts frick me in the ass 24/7. The driving is great too, you actually have to use your brakes and the lack of any first person means the roof can be squat down after a nasty flip. I swear the effects looked better too, the way rooms turn smokey in IV during a gun fight is satisfying, plus the ragdoll physics engine is still so fun to play with. Shooting guys in the leg until they're backed up to a guard rail, then they do a dramatic flip to their death. Speaking of friend conversations earlier, can't believe how good the optional conversations are. Packie crying in the passenger seat talking about his dad molesting him and his brothers. One of the women you can date going on an unhinged rant about how her mother deserves to die of abdominal cancer. I feel bad for not playing it more in depth when it came out, it's basically a late 2000s, pre-iPhone crime sim. A true 10.
People talk about how IV is too serious but I think it had the best mix between humor and drama. It had actual characters not just caricatures. I don't really care about anyone in V or the earlier games because they're pretty much just cartoons. I liked the side mission where Niko helps out a girl named Marnie, it's heartwarming but of course they ruined her as they did with many other characters from IV when they showed up in V.
?feature=shared
I think GTA V (and probably VI) is the worst of both worlds. it's neither dark, gritty and serious like 2, III, and IV, nor is it dumb and cartoony like 1, VC and SA. it's this safe and lame middle ground that's not interesting in any way and has the same shitty heckin wholesome chungus Reddit humor all games post-Borderlands 2 have.
It was pretty good. I liked it better than 5, but that's not saying much 5 isn't that great in the scheme of things.
t. have played every GTA on every console since 1 on ps, including 2 on Dreamcast.
No, it was the best at being the worst though.
Yes.
Is there a way to play this on PC that doesn't feel like putting your balls in a meat grinder ?
why is GTA V so choppy on PC?
>just lower the graphics settings
there's very little performance difference between lowest and near-max settings. only thing that really ruins performance is changing shadows from high to very high and maxing out texture distance and details.
The engine fricks itself if the game runs too well, you need to use a frame limiter to cap it at 120fps or below, the physics in IV also get progressively more broken after exceeding 60fps.
my GPU isn't actually that good, but still IV shouldn't be performing worse than a near-max setting Crysis or Crysis 2. those are more playable than IV for me. also it's weird there's no performance difference between lowest and near-max settings? maybe I should set FPS to 30
have you tried installing it on an SSD? When it was on my HDD it would stop for loading a lot
NVMe. DXVK
IIRC it runs on a single core. Check out this link
He's the only one that I've seen to be able to fix the performance.
I already have it running on DXVK. my CPU turboclocks at 4GHz. it's weird.
I mean fair enough it runs on one core. the Core 2 series were only brand new at the time. most games were still single core
is your PC power supply plugged straight into the mains or does it go thru an adapter (or whatever its called when you get 2 or 4 plugs from 1, often with a surge protector)
well my laptop charger comes with an AC adapter
so
wall -> ac adapter -> laptop charger -> laptop?
windows 11?
yes. Artix Linux with Wine and DXVK
>linux
i dont frick with it because its underengineered and overly complex so yeah...
have you got vsync turned on?
and what are the settings for the refresh rate of the screen? variable or set to 60/120/240?
vsync is off in-game.
didn't touch refresh rate settings so I assume 60
turn on vsync and maybe try fixing the refresh rate in the linux display settings
well when vsync was on the performance was worse. I'll check the display settings later. but in the in-game settings the display is set to 1080p 60Hz
GTA PC ports in general are terrible for some reason. Rockstar never cared about the platform.
they started with V and now that cucksole gaming is dead and more companies are respecting the PC hopefully VI will be more PC-based
Didn't Rockstar recently announce that the GTA 6 PC port is not coming at launch? I doubt that
no but it's really damn good. liberty city has great personality
For gunfights absolutely.
Only grand theft auto game where npcs don't immediately die from pistol shots just bleed out.
No that would be San Andreas
Oh boy, another Black persontuber circlejerk thread
>ANYTHING brown and piss
>good
bros call me a schizo, but don't you guys think that Rockstar is doing to GTA IV what Bethesda is doing to New Vegas? they're trying to memoryhole it and pretend it never existed. the 3D era games and even V got multiple ports and remasters and definitive editions, while IV is stuck on PS3/360 and a broken PC port. it's joining 1,2 and CTW as abandonware.
with Bethesda at least the excuse is that NV makes them seethe, but what is making Rockstar ignore IV?
underperformed and sold less than the previous, something unthinkable for a franchise that resurrected into the big leagues after III.
yeah I hate SAgays for not giving IV a chance. they just wanted IV to be SA2, which is what they got with V. yeah it sucks some of the features were lost like planes or customization, but IV was 10 steps forward 2 steps back. they could've taken what they did with IV and added stuff to it for V, but instead they just threw everything in the trash and made a shitty San Andreas remake
Yeah and add controversial talk radio content and contact dispute with Hollick, there’s no chance it gets ported imo
I'm inclined to agree since they devoted time and effort into porting RDR instead, despite its source code being an alleged mess.
Granted, San Andreas was the best-selling game on the best-selling console of all time. While IV was released during the great recession on next-gen consoles. Speaking of which, I still feel like it was a missed opportunity to not have cost of living being a gameplay mechanic. Would have solved IV's issue of not having anything to do with your money and been one of those nice examples where the themes of the story actually align with the gameplay (anyone else remember "ludonarrative dissonance").
I'm inclined to agree since they devoted time and effort into porting RDR instead
Which confuses the frick out of me, considering it's the one rockstar game people have been begging a remake for the most. Shit they already pretty much ported the entire RDR1 map into 2, it wouldnt be that hard at all to make a remake with the sequel's engine+ new content to tie it closer to the prequel.
Instead they just made a bug infested port that no one really wanted.
the RDR port is bad? I wanted to get it on PS4. so it's still best on 360?
My experience was buying the game on PS5 recently, ran into several soft locking bugs and other annoying issues.
Can't speak for switch but from what I heard it's not much better.
ZoomerBlack folk are absolutely pathetic, saying anything to justify their nostalgia that is pure shit. This same shit is said about Saints Row 2 about LE HECKIN FIX! Nothing is preventing you from playing the games currently except you wanting to consume it on a different platform.
I wouldn't fault anyone for saying San Andreas is the better game, but it's my personal favorite. I think it holds up the best out of all the major 7th gen grey and brown titles because NYC can actually look like that sometimes.
it's sort of the same for 5 in LA, but not close to what 4 is to NYC
they really condensed the sprawl that is LA into a mishmash of sorts, but there are sections that do resemble real life LA, strong emphasis on resemble, because it's very much not 1:1 on anything
does LA also have desaturated washed out colors like LS?
IV isn't really 1:1 either. The Bronx doesn't go nearly as far north as I'd like. But it does an excellent job of capturing landmarks and other minor details you'd only really notice if you visited.
I know exactly where you took this. I used to live like 4 blocks away.
I wish this were ported to PS5. I want to replay it so I can remember 2008 when I was happy and had hope for my life.
car physics were way better, maybe took it slightly too far but the rest feel like complete vidya games, cheaper games like saints row and sleeping dogs
3 and VC are the only ones I've played more than 30 minutes.
GTA ended with 2
daily reminder
soulless vs soul
the PC version is worse in many ways. no car reflections, worse colors, no rain effects, and worse gamma.
yes resolution and performance are better but that's a given.
all GTA games adjusted with the same graphics, 2 will EASILY be the best in the series
i never owned IV, but played it at a friend's house on xbox a lot. i liked it for driving around and stuff, but i remember the game being a bit ugly.
i played and liked vice city, san andreas, and V more
>GTA III and Parasite Eve
>New York is a wonderful colorful magical place full of amazing things happening
>GTA IV
>New York is a shithole were dark and shady things happen and everything is broken down and everyone is miserable
did NYC change THAT much between the 90s and 00s?
where the FRICK did III portray LC as magical?
No 5 is the best
i miss all the great side activites of the older games, i will never understand why they didn't do emergency vehicle missions. firefighter would have been great with the games explosion and fire effects and the overall physics. just blasting people with the vehicle water cannon would have been barrels of fun. imagine doing ambulance missions with the driving physics and having your patients go flying out the ambulance on hard turns, such a missed opportunity.
If you play GTA for driving, moody atmosphere, interesting story, humor, or visceral murder simulator fun where your chaotic actions feel impactful, GTA IV beats the rest easily. It doesn't let you drive jets and tanks or get fat, and the graphics aren't very good, though.
IV had better looking character models and (relatively) better art direction than V
The best fricking ragdoll physics of all time
PROVE ME WRONG please
It wasn't even better than SA.
The radio is so shit compared to VC and SA
>Vladivostok
Great, you're just proving my point further, slavBlack folk
>Missing basic features
>Only 3D GTA with no planes
>Mostly boring map
>Weakest soundtrack in the series
>Entire middle part of the game is directionless
>Game about getting money but you can't do anything with it
But it improved over time by encapsulating the mid 2000's vibe in a way few other games did or ever will.
>Only 3D GTA with no planes
III had a plane you could only fly by fricking around and VC only had water planes. IV's map is too small for planes anyway
>Mostly boring map
agree but still better than VC for me
>Weakest soundtrack in the series
better than V but not much. don't blame IV. blame 2008.
>mid 2000's
no such thing. 2000-2007 is now "early 00s" while 2008-2009 are late 00s nowadays.
basic features
>>Only 3D GTA with no planes
boring map
soundtrack in the serie
Tastelet GankerBlack person
>Mostly boring map
>can go into so many buildings seamlessly unlike older games and GTAV just out right closes most buildings
GTAIV's map looks boring on the surface but is probably the most built with character.
IV and STALKER are the ultimate slavKINO games.
It had its up ands downs
>The physics were extremely impressive for it's time, felt like an improved version of the Half life 2 ragdolls.
>They did a great job with immersion, with realistic npcs and great world design, to date the most immersive feeling hubworld of any GTA
>Story was surprisingly enjoyable too, one of my favorite GTA campaigns behind Vice city.
On the other hand
>the driving physics sucked ass, cars felt slippery and made driving at fast pace not fun in the slightest
>friends calling mechanic got extremely annoying quickly
>Arguebly the worst offender of the greyscaled dark shooter era of the late 2000's, game was downright ugly at certain points.
>As others said, the removal of stuff like planes and series trademark sidemissions made side content lacking.
Overall it's decent, but not even close to the masterpiece Ganker props it up as.
>the driving physics sucked ass
skill issue, you can do real life weight based maneuvers in GTAIV that you cant in other games.
Going fast is overall more fun though.
You feel less fast in GTAV than you do in GTAIV in most high end cars/bikes.
dem jumps though
IV was just another 7th gen LE DARK AND LE MATUREZ FOR MATURE GAYMURZ soulless brown and piss slop
4 was good but really really let down by it's on foot handling and shooting. Shut was clunky and frustrating
Ignoring the first two because they are hyper dated and 3 which was too early the best ones were Vice, San and 4.
>too stupid to play 2 and
zoom zoom
Sorry bro plenty of better old games I can play and replay.
best gta is still not good
San Andreas is easily the best. GTA4 is a good game but not a good GTA game. Yes I used the line.
It had the best story and characters
V was better even slightly. V was also more replayable.
>replayable
lol. nobody played V single player. V was just a bootloader for GTA Online
GTAO is a grindfest though
Delusional, no wonder you like IV and pretend it is not the black sheep and the one that misses the point of the series. Sadly a youtuber cuck had to empower your homosexual ass first
V misses the point of the series too. see
gta peaked with san andreas. the amount of stuff you could in that game is insane compared to what you can do in 4 and 5. and much more memorable characters, roman or trevor weren't that great honestly
I've literally never played any GTA game as anything other than a murderhobo simulator I would boot up for an hour or two, wreak havoc then forget about for another 2 or 3 months.
No, but it certainly was way better than V.
I'm replaying V right now and I noticed how has the writing is in comparison, and more important, the game is filled with side content that is extremely boring, just like some of the main missions that feel like nothing but interactive cutscenes.
Frick no, San Andreas mogs. V wanted to be the new San Andreas but it fricked so much shit up that it ended up being worse
IV just wasn't fun to me, and every character beside Nico was insufferable
gameplay and music wise? No, not even close. San Andreas and even V blow it out of the water in every way. I just like it for the story and the fact that the "edgy topical toilet and shallow political, rick and morty humor" isn't AS insufferable and down your throat AS much as the other games.
Definitely the most underrated one. It didn't deserve all the hate.
it was given 10/10 by most big reviewers
No one cares about "video game journalism".
who hate GTA IV except some morons on this board ?