Agreed -- Those 10 scores from all the websites were hype hype hype. Easily gets a 8 for the story mode, while it lasted.

I wonder if the PC version of GTAIV would lose me as fast as the 360 version did. It was just like when I played San Andreas on a PC and it was "like totally the coolest game I ever played" for about two weeks. Then I stopped playing and never went back.

Now I have GTAIV and I played it for about two weeks and it hasn't been in the tray since. (shrug)

Haven't played it since I beat it a few times (in a very short period to play all of the options/endings). Then again - haven't been playing much of anything since then.

You got a great body, but your record collection sucks....
BN 360 Scoreboard:
http://www.mygamercard.net/clboard.php?id=GW57kfq7

I wonder if the PC version of GTAIV would lose me as fast as the 360 version did. It was just like when I played San Andreas on a PC and it was "like totally the coolest game I ever played" for about two weeks. Then I stopped playing and never went back.

Now I have GTAIV and I played it for about two weeks and it hasn't been in the tray since. (shrug)

San Andreas had bugs on the PC? I've been playing it on and off pretty consistently for the past three years and haven't noticed any.

You must play pretty vanilla. ie: stay on the main roads.

You got a great body, but your record collection sucks....
BN 360 Scoreboard:
http://www.mygamercard.net/clboard.php?id=GW57kfq7

Yea its never going to happen.

There's no reason to believe they are an accurately sampling of gamers in general, and more to the point, it is limited to PC gamers.

Wasn't this whole debate centered around what PC gamers consider high resolution?

Im surprised no one has called it yet. Major thread derailment by resolution "fanatics".

You guys are just as bad as any of those religious funadamentlists.

The Valve statistics show that 1280x960 is the default resolution for most gamers.

No, the Valve statistics show that 1280x960 is the most commonly used desktop resolution for people who accepted the Valve questionaire. There's no reason to believe they are an accurately sampling of gamers in general, and more to the point, it is limited to PC gamers. What "most gamers" use, therefore, is still open to considerable debate.

But you can't prove any of that. What you consider to be high is worthless to me. So your rebuttal for Valve's hardware stats is "that's not what I do!" with absolutely nothing to back it up but an opinion?

Prove what..? The Valve statistics show that 1280x960 is the default resolution for most gamers. If that is the default resolution, it can't be "high" because it's standard. Size is completely relative. To an ant, a shoe is huge. To an elephant, a human is small. Since size is inherently relative, the only way to establish a concept of "high" is to set a frame of reference. In this case, the frame of reference is the default resolution that most gamers use.

You don't seem to understand that "high" isn't an objective measurement. If you consider 1280x720 to be a high resolution, that's fine. However, logic and statistics suggest otherwise.

The only thing worse than console joypad controls is the wii parkinsons controller. I feel like I am 90 years old when using that thing, but then again, wii does appeal to girls and the elderly.

The survey shows 1280x960 as the most common primary display resolution. In other words, what most people use as their desktop setting. When you're playing a game, you don't always use your desktop resolution. My desktop resolution is 1280x1024 but that's my absolute minimum resolution when it comes to games. I consider 1600x1200 or above to be high resolution, as it's higher than my minimum and far more desirable.

But you can't prove any of that. What you consider to be high is worthless to me. So your rebuttal for Valve's hardware stats is "that's not what I do!" with absolutely nothing to back it up but an opinion?

Regardless, 1280x720 definitely isn't a high resolution by PC standards, especially if 1280x960 is the regular resolution for most gamers.

Congratulations, you are correct by a technicality. I'd like to know your stock market picks since you clearly had insight to predict that the PC LCD market would choose to manufacture 16:10 LCDs rather than 16:9.

I think I'm done with this discussion. It's clear no one is interested in doing anything but recounting their personal experiences as fact and trashing consoles at every chance. It's boring.

Wow. I couldn't stand 60hz, especially with large white areas (like those found with coding and browsing the web). It would give me the start of a headache within an hour. That said I have heard plenty of other people say the same as you, so I'm not questioning your statement.

Yeah, I really have no idea what the reason is. I certainly know clients and friends that have that problem, bumping it up to 72/75 usually solves the problem.

I wonder what the percentage of people that are affected by this is? I suspect it might be more than less. I suspect it's biological and that considering I already have bad eyesight, my optical system might be inferior, or some peoples optical system is overly sensitive. I'm not sure what the norm is.

As to San Andreas, I'm thinking of buying it off Steam for twenty bucks. I played Vice City two years late for cheap and enjoyed the hell out of it. I can wait for number four, not a big deal.

You seem like you're just trying to justify your investment in hardware. Do other people's opinions threaten you for some reason? Are you okay?

Actually, I have to agree with the other poster - you sounded like you were trying to justify not being able to run higher resolutions.

I have plugged it into my tv and played at 1920x1080 and was not particularly impressed that it made the scene appear any more realistic. Of course, it was nice in many ways particularly the size, and I do like the widescreen format, but the color accuracy is not suitable for my computer use.

You're confusing so many issues. Colour accuracy has nothing to do with resolution; it's of no concern to this discussion whether the TV you bought isn't very good. Also, it's not about making a scene "more realistic" - it's about improving the quality of the visuals, which is something a higher resolution achieves.

A very large screen does need a high resolution, but this is just to keep the image from appearing pixelated at game-playing range.

And yet your point is how resolution isn't important to a CRT monitor, where you're running at a resolution with a lower pixel density than comparable TFT displays with fixed resolutions.

At the end of the day you come across as a cheapskate trying to justify why you running in lower detail is actually better than the rest of us. Now I'm not claiming that upping the resolution completely redefines the gaming experience but it has a definite impact and it sounds like you're in denial.

I run everything at 60Hz and have all my life. I can code for 20 hours or play games and it doesn't bug me in the least.

Wow. I couldn't stand 60hz, especially with large white areas (like those found with coding and browsing the web). It would give me the start of a headache within an hour. That said I have heard plenty of other people say the same as you, so I'm not questioning your statement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

Exactly... at 60hz, which is unusable due to the flickering common to CRT technology.

My ten year old 21" Compaq does 1600x1200 @60Hz as well. I realize that running at that frequency is a real problem for many people but I'm lucky in that it doesn't affect me.

I run everything at 60Hz and have all my life. I can code for 20 hours or play games and it doesn't bug me in the least. Perhaps there are advantages to having a defective or less than average optical system...

to me your whole argument just seemed like you were trying to justify the fact that you cant run your games at any higher resolutions to yourself.

You seem like you're just trying to justify your investment in hardware. Do other people's opinions threaten you for some reason? Are you okay?

Naturally, this is all a subjective thing, and I wouldn't say anyone's opinion is wrong. I have plugged it into my tv and played at 1920x1080 and was not particularly impressed that it made the scene appear any more realistic. Of course, it was nice in many ways particularly the size, and I do like the widescreen format, but the color accuracy is not suitable for my computer use. Naturally, this is an aesthetic thing so YMMV. You must remember that there are much more important things than simple numbers.

You might prefer it, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but you cannot deny there are limits to the benefit of increasing the resolution. A very large screen does need a high resolution, but this is just to keep the image from appearing pixelated at game-playing range.

My 19" CRT can do 1600x1200 at 80Hz. I can actually go all the way up to 2048x1536 or something, though at 66 Hz.

a 19" CTR cannot do 1600x1200.

My 19" CRT will do 1600x1200@75. Most of the time i play at 1280X1024@85.

EDIT:Just checked that again and I'm looking at a 1600x1200@85 desktop on a 19" CRT right now. Seems the max on this old Viewsonic is 2048X1526@60.

This comment was edited on Jul 27, 14:25.

Actually, my 19" has a highest res at 1600x1200 but at 60hz.

Exactly... at 60hz, which is unusable due to the flickering common to CRT technology.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

Actually, my 19" has a highest res at 1600x1200 but at 60hz. I don't use it anymore, though, since I hooked up the pc to my 50" hdtv. And I do primarily use 1280x768 on that (60hz), but with 16xaa and 16xaf games look fantastic.

I love using the mouse and keyboard and loathe the autoaiming crap the console version offers. My buddy lent me his GTA4 and I could only play for a little bit before the consoly gameplay and graphics made me want to puke on someones head.

And btw, I played san andreas on the pc and loved it and finished it. I would hardly call it bug ridden.

I work as a workstation support analyst for a call center and spec out and build pcs for free for whomever wants one. Lots of console noobs there but they love it when I bring the pc in and demo games on one of our video conference plamsa tvs. I've built 6 so far for willing users and I urge my users to buy their pc games and scorn piracy.

I'm doing my part!

I play at 1024x768 with high-AA (8 or 16) most of the time (and depending on the game). On my 19-inch CRT, with high levels of AA, I'm hard pressed to see any improvement with the higher resolutions. If I'm limited to 4xAA, I'll run in 1280x1024 though. The improvement in framerate is often worth it.

Usually running something like 1600x1200 or higher just makes the limited graphics detail all the more apparent. Regardless of the resolution, there is a limited amount of detail in the actual scene--sort of like how you can only blow up a photograph (on film) so far before it just becomes blurry; if you were to digitize the photo, beyond a certain resolution you would have a higher resolution digital image but with no more actual detail in it.

to me your whole argument just seemed like you were trying to justify the fact that you cant run your games at any higher resolutions to yourself.

your using a CRT for gods sake. 1024x768 on a bloody CRT. that is just beyond stone age. furthermore, a 19" CTR cannot do 1600x1200. so dont make assumptions about picture quality until you get a half way decent monitor.