I agree

Was so excited for it after San Andreas and wow just wow it was a horrid port.

Literally one of the worst ports

Rockstar cleared its name with Max Payne3. It was superbly optimised. Hopefully they can do the same.

I always get Rockstar game son pc even though I was burnt by gta4. Somehow im scared of gta v even though MP3 rocked

If those pics make you think OH PS3 is more superior than a PC, then keep fooling yourself..

It should have been a GTA IV PS3 vs GTA V PS3 comparison.

Consoles can not be compared to PC period.

Rockstar acted very sloppy on making the PC version of GTA IV, bad porting

wasnt the ps3 version of gta iv a port ? and going off the comments here a bad port ..
but that pc version looks bad. I think the ps3 version looks better.They shouldve just compared it to the 360 for fairness since the 360 was lead platform for gtaiv and ps3 is lead platform for gta v
But I dont think they could get those pics to compare without mods so I guess thats their reasoning for comparing to PC.

The reason most people are still upgrading their PC's to play WoW is because they keep failing to realize that WoW is a CPU intensive game and they keep upgrading their GPU instead. Not only does it require a massively more powerful GPU to compensate for a weak CPU in a CPU intensive game but it also creates a hardware bottleneck where the CPU becomes unable to pass the information from the higher speed GPU to the mobo and they end up loosing any potential benefit of the better GPU anyway.

Almost any CPU made within the last 2-3 years along with a basic $50-60 GPU will play Mists of pandaria at 100+ fps.

"It's an extremely small percentage of PC owners, let alone gamers, who can run those level of graphics yet."

Mid-ranged PCs can run these kind of graphics easy. The only problem was that GTA IV was HORRIBLY optimized for PC (and yeah, I don't even think an all caps "horribly" explains how badly optimized the game was).

Still, mid-ranged PCs can manage a moderate version of iCEnhancer that still blows the consoles clean out of the water. 4GB RAM and a good quad-core and anything above the 280 GTX will set most people straight for an iCEnhanced GTA IV.

I agree most can run an okay version of IceEnhancer. But, what is being compared against consoles aren't "okay" versions of IceEnhancer but maxed out versions with the highest of quality textures. Those people that can run that are a very small percentage of gamers (read: PC and console gamers, not just PC gamers), let alone PC owners as a whole.

Furthermore, the majority of PC owners are laptop owners who don't have GPUs in them that can run GTAIV at full, let alone IceEnhancer at moderate. But, most of those laptops can run WoW at medium or lower.

***Almost any CPU made within the last 2-3 years along with a basic $50-60 GPU will play Mists of pandaria at 100+ fps.***

That's great, but I best most WoW players have PC that average older than 4 years. That's their target audience. Has been from day 1 and is one of their key reasons for popularity. You can play the game on PC from a decade ago even.

---

I think a lot of people on this Web site tend to think their set up to be the norm or only slightly above average. It's not. My 2-year old gaming rig is above and beyond the majority of PCs out there that many people use to play games, let alone the average PC owner. $750 "gaming" PCs from companies like HP and Dell, which are typically the most purchased by non-hardcore gamers (not casual, they just don't game as much as you or I tend to game or play only a few games a year) fall below my specs from 2 years ago. This is the majority of the gaming audience. These are the people who buy all the sequels we complain about. These are the people who don't go to gaming sites for news. These people are greater in number than those who visit N4G or other gaming sites.

theres no point of explaining fanboys disagree with facts apparently LOL

Dude, hardware does determine how a game looks. Why do you think Battlefield 3 looks so different on PCs running DX11 compared to the console versions which were running DX9 equivalent APIs?

Vortis: I still disagree. Yes, there are limitations on current consoles, but not all games look the same. What about art direction? A game doesn't need to look photorealistic to look good and from these screenshots, it does not look photorealistic. Battlefield 3 looks way different from a Rockstar game.

I guarantee you that when GTA V comes out, it will look like those screenshots on the PS3 and 360 versions.

I won't be wrong.

You are an idiot. Rockstar is (with Nintendo) ONLY one that doesn't release bullshots. Always direct feed. Hell, they even released some MP3 shots and said "SCREENSHOTS FROM PC VERSION".

its a hard bet to make. hindsight is always 20/20.

After Driveclub's reception, hard to say it would have done well enough to compete. It's easy to dream of such a thing, but to make it happen? It's taken how long for CoD to be dethroned? And it was dethroned by Hogwart's Legacy and has gained it right back just the next year.

Futbol.

Agree that all you just posted are great games. Expedition 33 is one of my favorites. Spent a large chunk of time on BG3 in 2023. Another for my all-time list.

My point though not well articulated in the OG post is that we would get more of the games of the quality you mentioned if so many valuable resources were not allocated to FTP slop and/or heavy monetization schemes. Some of what used to be my favorite franchises have been ruined by them.

To sum it up, I would like to see games like 33 outperform the profits made by games like Fortnite so more resources are allocated to great games. When heavily monetized FTP games are at the top of the list, we end up being stuck with a significant chunk of games that are not good. Or worst case scenario games that spend years in development, but get cancelled due to industry trend chasing.

Perhaps, and I hope you’re right. A shift is needed IMO