The Jaggys are killing me.

  • 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Crysack (341 posts) -

I could get over the (comparably) sub-par graphics if the game maintained a constant frame-rate but it frequently drops down to the low 20s and teens - especially during action sequences which just makes the shooting not fun at all.

#52 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@jsnyder82 said:

@sooty said:

I am still amazed at how good the draw distance is / how far you can see traffic. It does look pretty bad at times but nice lighting helps a lot.

Though having said that, the frame rate drops constantly and that's fucking annoying. It seems to hold up better than GTA IV though. (and at least it's technically far more impressive, which makes the framerate dips more tolerable)

That's funny. I actually haven't noticed too many heavy frame rate drops. But yeah, the draw distance is incredible for the hardware this game is running on. I'll take a few jaggies any day. Definitely not something to complain about when the game runs as well as it does, there's a wealth of things to do, the world is huge, and it looks otherwise really pretty.

I play every other game (except console exclusives) on PC at 60 FPS so playing this in comparison is pretty jarring as it is constantly dropping far below 30. It runs smoother than IV which seemed to drop low even when not much was going on.

It is what it is. At least it's not a chore to play like GTA IV. Funnier, doesn't take itself too seriously, better crazed characters, better stuff to do. This actually feels like GTA.

#53 Posted by Barrock (3551 posts) -

@rowr said:

Well now that the first couple day sheen has worn off on whats technically great with this game, the jaggies are just raping my eyes. The textures I can live with but god the AA. just let this console generation be over.

Between the game destroying my soul everytime an establishing shot comes on displaying a plethora of funky cross hatch across los santos and trying to gunfight on a ps3 controller (playing shooters with this thing is like wrestling a bear) in a game catered for the laziest auto-aim ever, i'm regretting my choice to grab it early.

Now i'm stuck in that shitty limbo where I either have to push through it at much lesser enjoyment, or pick it up much later and play through the first 10 hours again.

Anyone else used to the luxuries of AA and high res textures wishing they waited? Just announce the PC version already and stop toying with our emotions Rockstar.

Did you change the control scheme to the alternate controls? Makes L1 Aim, R1 shoot.

#54 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

#55 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@missacre said:

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

Yeah it could be that...or maybe he just wanted to fucking play it.

#56 Posted by GreggD (4510 posts) -

@missacre said:

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

Yeah it could be that...or maybe he just wanted to fucking play it.

Then maybe he should play it instead of complaining about miniscule things.

#58 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre said:

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

Yeah it could be that...or maybe he just wanted to fucking play it.

If he wanted to fucking play it, then he shouldn't bitch that much. He should have known what he was getting into when he got the 8 YEAR OLD CONSOLE VERSION.

#59 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre: Hahaha Christ you're an idiot. That gave me a good laugh though! Im sure he super worried about looking cool to strangers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#60 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@greggd said:

@mariachimacabre said:

@missacre said:

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

Yeah it could be that...or maybe he just wanted to fucking play it.

Then maybe he should play it instead of complaining about miniscule things.

I'm not saying he's not complaining about silly things, but claiming that people who bought the game on release only do it to look "cool" is sort of hilariously dumb.

#61 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@greggd said:

@mariachimacabre said:

@missacre said:

It's your own fault, OP. You wanted to be part of the "cool crowd" and get the game day 1 just to say that you have it and look "cool" to complete strangers. Now you just have to deal with it until the PC version comes along.

Yeah it could be that...or maybe he just wanted to fucking play it.

Then maybe he should play it instead of complaining about miniscule things.

I'm not saying he's not complaining about silly things, but claiming that people who bought the game on release only do it to look "cool" is sort of hilariously dumb.

I like the passive-aggressiveness, there.

#62 Posted by Andorski (5351 posts) -

The aliasing doesn't bother me nearly as much as the muddy textures and the slow loading of texture (and even objects on some occasions). I had a blast with the single player and intend on playing the multiplayer, but I'm not going to bother with any of the side activities (gold medals, races, etc) until I get the PC version.

#63 Posted by BigJeffrey (5141 posts) -

I stopped noticing cause the game is fun. Did the same with State of Decay this year, had a much better time.

Online
#64 Posted by TheHT (11673 posts) -

@missacre said:

@demoskinos said:

@missacre: Hahaha Christ you're an idiot. That gave me a good laugh though! Im sure he super worried about looking cool to strangers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well this just got weird.

#65 Posted by Demoskinos (15097 posts) -

@theht: Like this whole thread hasn't been weird already?

#66 Edited by Hailinel (25201 posts) -

@rafaelfc said:

You mean these guys? They're really easy, just roll around a bunch to dodge their attacks, when they stop you beat the crap out of them.

That gave me a chuckle.

#67 Posted by Maajin (1079 posts) -

I think it looks awesome! =D

#68 Posted by Shivoa (642 posts) -

But what do you mean about jaggys? Didn't you hear from that reputable site for technical analysis of console games that everyone else quotes for definitive guidance outside of PC rendering...

The expensive 2x multi-sample anti-aliasing used on 360 is now gone, and so too is the PS3's forceful blur filter - both releases now opting for a refined post-processing approach. The resulting image is minimal on blur, and very reminiscent of Rockstar's Max Payne 3, covering all details such as geometry and alpha transparencies at minimal expense to tackle jagged edges.

Yep, this game certainly renders out a 720p buffer with a 'refined post-processing approach' to anti-aliasing. It tackles all the areas of concern, from polygon edges to the more difficult transparencies. Making for an incredible visual feast on the purely technical level. On both platforms.

Or maybe GTA V doesn't have an anti-aliasing solution and is filled with a world of 'jaggys'. Personally I prefer 30-60 fps (no <20fps times to make the driving less joyful than it needs to be and cause the occasional car crash) but would also like some AA to be enabled. But with what they're pulling off on 2005 era silicon this is quite staggering and the deft touches in lighting and the volume of faking that has to be done to make that look good without a unified lighting model (lights are a lot of texture work and clever approximations, rather than going for an actual model of the physics of the situation with something like the DoF blur and HDR lighting on modern engines, often running on PC - why work out a real Bokeh filter when you can just approximate it and use a set of textures where they have the blurred out point lights doing a nice smooth blur radius and get 75% of the way to making the scene seem like it has that lovely night-time city photography effect).

GTA V is really impressive. A next gen / PC release would be really cool but if you want to play it today then this is how it looks. You'll get used to it.

#69 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2713 posts) -

Didn't have many problems with jaggys, and the framerate only dipped in that spot on the river like Jeff mentioned.

#70 Posted by OurSin_360 (941 posts) -

People worry more about "jaggys" than playing fun games. I only saw a little of it at a friends house but it wasn't that bad at all, but then again i grew up on games since NES, so i remember jaggys on ps and ps2 and just like to play good games regardless of graphics. From what i saw the framerate was constant, probably 25-30 but it looked fine. Just buy a 50 inch screen sit way back, enjoy and stop bitching bout Anti aliasing.

to yo mutha

#71 Edited by HurricaneIvan29 (672 posts) -

"8 year old console version" as if games today look the same as games at launch of this generation. Just because the hardware is that old doesn't mean the development on it doesn't improve. Read an article a while back that was linked from a forum on here that basically stated how console hardware manages to have a long lifespan compared to PCs. The author described how developers find new and innovating ways to use the hardware to push its performing limits and what it can offer for the games being developed for it, compared to hardware that's constantly being updated on the PC where developers can just drop whatever requirements they want and tell PC gamers to go update their hardware or deal with it. And of course they will. With consoles you can expect developers to improve the production of games without the need of updating any hardware.

Elitists I tell ya. Either they're self-entitled, or they're magnanimous.

#72 Posted by SomeJerk (3361 posts) -

If your framerates drops for more than a moment to reach unplayable levels in more than one part of the game then your console either is a 2006-2008 360 or having a bad HD.

#73 Edited by Dark (398 posts) -

@hurricaneivan29: Any game coded on the PC has to go through a software interpreter to work on every combination of hardware effectively, consoles have one specific set of hardware and can be designed with tricks related especially to that configuration of hardware. If you want to blame anyone over this blame Microsoft's DirectX, this is why AMD's new Mantle API has the chance of being somewhat amazing.

#74 Edited by OurSin_360 (941 posts) -

@somejerk said:

If your framerates drops for more than a moment to reach unplayable levels in more than one part of the game then your console either is a 2006-2008 360 or having a bad HD.

Well that fucking sucks, guess ps3 then? They shouldn't allow consoles to have that big a difference in performance and punish long time users.

#75 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

@shivoa said:

But what do you mean about jaggys? Didn't you hear from that reputable site for technical analysis of console games that everyone else quotes for definitive guidance outside of PC rendering...

The expensive 2x multi-sample anti-aliasing used on 360 is now gone, and so too is the PS3's forceful blur filter - both releases now opting for a refined post-processing approach. The resulting image is minimal on blur, and very reminiscent of Rockstar's Max Payne 3, covering all details such as geometry and alpha transparencies at minimal expense to tackle jagged edges.

Yep, this game certainly renders out a 720p buffer with a 'refined post-processing approach' to anti-aliasing. It tackles all the areas of concern, from polygon edges to the more difficult transparencies. Making for an incredible visual feast on the purely technical level. On both platforms.

Or maybe GTA V doesn't have an anti-aliasing solution and is filled with a world of 'jaggys'. Personally I prefer 30-60 fps (no <20fps times to make the driving less joyful than it needs to be and cause the occasional car crash) but would also like some AA to be enabled. But with what they're pulling off on 2005 era silicon this is quite staggering and the deft touches in lighting and the volume of faking that has to be done to make that look good without a unified lighting model (lights are a lot of texture work and clever approximations, rather than going for an actual model of the physics of the situation with something like the DoF blur and HDR lighting on modern engines, often running on PC - why work out a real Bokeh filter when you can just approximate it and use a set of textures where they have the blurred out point lights doing a nice smooth blur radius and get 75% of the way to making the scene seem like it has that lovely night-time city photography effect).

GTA V is really impressive. A next gen / PC release would be really cool but if you want to play it today then this is how it looks. You'll get used to it.

I don't disagree that it is very impressive, especially for the hardware it's playing on. Yeh if i play it today then this is how it looks, i guess what i'm saying is i'm not sure if i want to play it today anymore.

And to be fair it's probably a combination of the AA, framerate and controller. All three shortcomings combine to really take a level of enjoyment off the game and pull me out of the awesomeness of whatever mission i'm in, the general gameplay is fine, but when they go for those big establishing shots designed to impress when establishing/finishing a scene - it's just kind of depressing.

I just can't help but think, i'm not going to have time in my life for multiple playthroughs I want my playthrough of such an awesome game to be the best it can be.

I knew in my mind this might be an issue going in and i did intend to wait, so it's all on me personally for being impatient.

"8 year old console version" as if games today look the same as games at launch of this generation. Just because the hardware is that old doesn't mean the development on it doesn't improve. Read an article a while back that was linked from a forum on here that basically stated how console hardware manages to have a long lifespan compared to PCs. The author described how developers find new and innovating ways to use the hardware to push its performing limits and what it can offer for the games being developed for it, compared to hardware that's constantly being updated on the PC where developers can just drop whatever requirements they want and tell PC gamers to go update their hardware or deal with it. And of course they will. With consoles you can expect developers to improve the production of games without the need of updating any hardware.

Elitists I tell ya. Either they're self-entitled, or they're magnanimous.

All this talk of being an elitest doesn't really sit well with me. I'm not running around declaring how much consoles suck and PC is the master race.

I've got the consoles, they all hold a special place in my heart for different reasons and different franchises. I guess it really just comes down to the fact this console generation has worn out its welcome, when the blockbuster of blockbuster games come in I wan't it to blow me away, especially a franchise so close to my heart.

People worry more about "jaggys" than playing fun games. I only saw a little of it at a friends house but it wasn't that bad at all, but then again i grew up on games since NES, so i remember jaggys on ps and ps2 and just like to play good games regardless of graphics. From what i saw the framerate was constant, probably 25-30 but it looked fine. Just buy a 50 inch screen sit way back, enjoy and stop bitching bout Anti aliasing.

to yo mutha

Like i said above, thats all cool. But this is GTA V, not fucking mario party.

@barrock said:

@rowr said:

Well now that the first couple day sheen has worn off on whats technically great with this game, the jaggies are just raping my eyes. The textures I can live with but god the AA. just let this console generation be over.

Between the game destroying my soul everytime an establishing shot comes on displaying a plethora of funky cross hatch across los santos and trying to gunfight on a ps3 controller (playing shooters with this thing is like wrestling a bear) in a game catered for the laziest auto-aim ever, i'm regretting my choice to grab it early.

Now i'm stuck in that shitty limbo where I either have to push through it at much lesser enjoyment, or pick it up much later and play through the first 10 hours again.

Anyone else used to the luxuries of AA and high res textures wishing they waited? Just announce the PC version already and stop toying with our emotions Rockstar.

Did you change the control scheme to the alternate controls? Makes L1 Aim, R1 shoot.

Yeh i did, those triggers are fucking awful, problem is it wont let me change the driving aswell? Holding that R2 down is fingercramp central. My main issue is the godawful sticks. I had a great time playing through RDR on the 360 in free aim, but on the sony i'm just fighting them non stop no matter the practice, uncharted was the same - though less of an issue. The most annoying thing is that it's virtually impossible to get any decent rating on any of the missions requiring shooting - which just kind of leaves a sour taste in my mouth when the iconic "mission passed" comes up.

#76 Posted by kindisaurus (2791 posts) -

Nothing like waking up to a whole lot of whining and bitching.

#77 Posted by warxsnake (2650 posts) -

Dude, been playing GTA5 on a 2560x1440 monitor. My eyes have been thoroughly fucked.

#78 Posted by me3639 (1837 posts) -

@rowr:

I was just going to post how long it took for players who started the game, before they were asking themselves, "Why didnt i wait for the PC version?". Its an impressive game(Im on PS3), but yea that AA, and lack of sharpness in details that i am used to in honestly most $15 PC games is dissapointing, though i knew that would be the case. Anyway, they got my $60 and its still worth it.

#79 Posted by ValeYard (149 posts) -

I haven't played GTAV yet, but I totally get the impetuous for this thread. It's got to the point now that even my graphics-blind wife can see the difference between games running on my consoles and on my Macbook Pro in bootcamp (that really isn't a good PC to game on), mainly just because it can have medium AA settings. I just started up Saints Row the Third recently on my computer hooked up to the TV after platinuming it on PS3 and straight away my wife was like, "oh that's much clearer". Also, comparing Diablo on console to PC makes the PC version appear much prettier.

For my part, I hope the next consoles have better AA because I can't afford to get a gaming PC for the next year or so. Now, when will they announce GTAV for X1 and ps4?

#80 Posted by ch3burashka (5176 posts) -
#81 Posted by face15 (1305 posts) -

I'm mostly a PC gamer so I was a bit concerned about the AA at first but after about 30 minutes I just got used to it and didn't really notice it at all. All round it's a pretty amazing looking game and I can totally forgive a few technical shortcomings considering it's running on hardware that's 7 years old at this point.

#82 Edited by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

@rafaelfc said:

You mean these guys? They're really easy, just roll around a bunch to dodge their attacks, when they stop you beat the crap out of them.

I love you.

#83 Posted by onarum (2228 posts) -

Yeah well, the jaggies are fucking terrible and the framerate is nowhere near great but hey, the fact that they managed to do it on ancient hardware alone is worth the praise.

#84 Edited by thatdutchguy (1273 posts) -

I don't think it looks that bad.but hey.. i also still enjoy games on the N64 so i'm not that much of a graphics whore.

#85 Edited by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

I don't think it looks that bad.but hey.. i also still enjoy games on the N64 so i'm not that much of a graphics whore.

Bit off topic but earlier this year I had a little mission to play N64 games then their Gamecube versions. Paper Mario -> Thousand Year Door, Mario 64 -> Mario Sunshine, Mario Tennis -> Mario Power Tennis. When I went from tennis on the 64 to tennis on the Gamecube it was honestly like suddenly having a super power that let me see things at a molecular level. It was amazing. There wasn't the same feeling with Sunshine but I still absolutely loved it and had more fun playing those games than the 4 years on the 360 put together. N64 tennis is actually a better game than the Gamecube ones because the stupid power ups ruin it. They so should have been optional.

GTA V looks amazing and crap at the same time. It's the stiffness on the chase camera that needs to be fixed. Just like IV I have to use the right stick to follow the car when cornering or use inside view. It needs a slider in the options.

#86 Posted by jsnyder82 (762 posts) -

@sooty said:

@jsnyder82 said:

@sooty said:

I am still amazed at how good the draw distance is / how far you can see traffic. It does look pretty bad at times but nice lighting helps a lot.

Though having said that, the frame rate drops constantly and that's fucking annoying. It seems to hold up better than GTA IV though. (and at least it's technically far more impressive, which makes the framerate dips more tolerable)

That's funny. I actually haven't noticed too many heavy frame rate drops. But yeah, the draw distance is incredible for the hardware this game is running on. I'll take a few jaggies any day. Definitely not something to complain about when the game runs as well as it does, there's a wealth of things to do, the world is huge, and it looks otherwise really pretty.

I play every other game (except console exclusives) on PC at 60 FPS so playing this in comparison is pretty jarring as it is constantly dropping far below 30. It runs smoother than IV which seemed to drop low even when not much was going on.

It is what it is. At least it's not a chore to play like GTA IV. Funnier, doesn't take itself too seriously, better crazed characters, better stuff to do. This actually feels like GTA.

I play every other game on PC at 60, too.

#87 Posted by BBQBram (2280 posts) -

@missacre said:

@demoskinos said:

@missacre: Hahaha Christ you're an idiot. That gave me a good laugh though! Im sure he super worried about looking cool to strangers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What the fuck is your problem?

#89 Posted by RandomHero666 (3182 posts) -

I thought this community was different than others.

But no, we too have the stupid PC vs Console shite. Why not just go to youtube to argue about this guys? That's where it belongs.

#90 Posted by GamingMichael (108 posts) -

News just in, Rockstar are making a PC version of Gta 5, for the 10 people that think they're too good for the version that everyone else has.

As a disabled gamer, this kind of comment is disappointing to me. If it wasn't for PC games allowing me to have things like toggle aiming, toggle sprinting, and complete key remapping, I would have wasted so much money by now. Before switching over to PC, if I couldn't play with the default control scheme, I was pretty much SOL and would have to eat $60. If it weren't for PCs, I would not have been able to play LA Noire. Thanks to Amazon, I was able to get a refund on the PS3 version when I explained my situation (which they usually do not allow).

#91 Posted by jsnyder82 (762 posts) -

@nitrocore said:

News just in, Rockstar are making a PC version of Gta 5, for the 10 people that think they're too good for the version that everyone else has.

As a disabled gamer, this kind of comment is disappointing to me. If it wasn't for PC games allowing me to have things like toggle aiming, toggle sprinting, and complete key remapping, I would have wasted so much money by now. Before switching over to PC, if I couldn't play with the default control scheme, I was pretty much SOL and would have to eat $60. If it weren't for PCs, I would not have been able to play LA Noire. Thanks to Amazon, I was able to get a refund on the PS3 version when I explained my situation (which they usually do not allow).

It was a light-hearted, jokey comment. Not really worth getting up on that high-horse for.

#92 Posted by thatdutchguy (1273 posts) -

@thatdutchguy said:

I don't think it looks that bad.but hey.. i also still enjoy games on the N64 so i'm not that much of a graphics whore.

Bit off topic but earlier this year I had a little mission to play N64 games then their Gamecube versions. Paper Mario -> Thousand Year Door, Mario 64 -> Mario Sunshine, Mario Tennis -> Mario Power Tennis. When I went from tennis on the 64 to tennis on the Gamecube it was honestly like suddenly having a super power that let me see things at a molecular level. It was amazing. There wasn't the same feeling with Sunshine but I still absolutely loved it and had more fun playing those games than the 4 years on the 360 put together. N64 tennis is actually a better game than the Gamecube ones because the stupid power ups ruin it. They so should have been optional.

GTA V looks amazing and crap at the same time. It's the stiffness on the chase camera that needs to be fixed. Just like IV I have to use the right stick to follow the car when cornering or use inside view. It needs a slider in the options.

Yeah, I just like the N64 games more than the gamecube ones.... must be because of nostalgia and they kinda overdone it with Mario Kart DD and other mario games on the gamecube, I didn't like Mario sunshine because of the water jetpack and weird character design,but it was also kinda fresh,and the music from Super Mario 64 is still used till this day in other mario games because it´s so good !

Ok, back to GTA 5, I agree that GTA 5 doesn't look good up-close but sit like 2 to 3 meters(10 feet) from the screen and it looks great,as for the chase camera, it's just something to get used to i guess,I don't even notice it.

#93 Posted by MachoFantastico (4860 posts) -

They bothered me at first but I don't notice them as much because I simply accept them. It's easy to become obsessed with the visuals, but than the sun rises and we get to see that beautiful lighting brighten up San Andreas and it's difficult to care.

We've been spoiled by PC ports, but it's pretty amazing what Rockstar have achieved on current consoles. The jaggies are worth it in my opinion, especially when you consider it runs on hardware that's now many many years old.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.