GTA VI is likely to deliver a subpar experience.
GTA VI is likely to deliver a subpar experience.
Games aren't only tough to get right. To sell one, you need it to work on most devices. It can be tough if you push the settings and resolution, but if it aligns with current standards, it should run smoothly on cheaper and mid-range systems. Modern low settings actually look better now than they did before. This is just my opinion—no more than yours.
Your message is clearly expressing a perspective rather than seeking clarification. It seems you're emphasizing the evidence in your content and noting the early stage of the game. This approach is understandable given the current context.
You're referring to the performance of GTA V on modern hardware. It's still quite challenging. How do other high-end games manage to run smoothly even at the highest settings? Comparing it to current titles highlights just how intense the demands are. Modern games often push even older engines to their limits, making it clear why powerful GPUs like the RTX 4090 are essential. I'm not sure what the engine limits are for GTA V, but I think only the latest models can handle it at around 300 FPS with 1440p ultra.
I'm discussing something you didn't ask me to challenge. It seems like I'm making assumptions without being asked. What I meant was pointing out how the situation feels repetitive and like I'm trying to provoke a reaction. It's strange to see people jumping to conclusions or making it seem like they're trying to stir trouble. I just want you to consider the facts, not jump to assumptions. Also, the title you mentioned doesn't actually claim anything specific—it's just a guess.
I believe I should clarify that when I say the game will probably run poorly, I don't mean so poorly it will be un-playable. I just mean that it will probably run quite similar to the way star field handled Nvidia graphics cards at launch before the update balanced the performance out for Nvidia users. In other words, it will be playable but the FPS numbers will seem quite low especially for higher tier tech. I'm not sure why you guys would even doubt that, take a look at all the modern titles that have been coming out lately and how extremely demanding they are. Also, I imagine all of you have already seen the teaser trailer video so you already know how advanced the graphics are and considering those advanced graphics are also in a massive open world that needs to be rendered continuously It only makes sense to assume the game will run poorly overall. Yeah I'm aware of the game isn't out yet But people have discussions about things that aren't out yet all the time like that's literally about 25% of all the discussions on this website especially when it comes to selecting hardware and whether or not to wait for next generation. I mean did you guys forget that this is a forum? Did you forget what forums are intended to be used for? I'm straight up confused as hell right now by everybody freaking out over a simple conversation about some speculation.
you're very mistaken here, gtav runs on potato, its a PS3 game for crying out loud. would recommend to lay off the youtube for a year or so until reality has caught up. wrong again, it does have some quirks with cpu limitation yes (but again, its a PS3 game, power of the CELL, yada, yada) and there's no need to run an arcade shooter/racer at over 200 fps, its still a well balanced game that can run well on even really old hardware ~ i don't see anyone freaking out, i think we're just telling you that there's no reason to believe gta 6 will be somehow demanding, no, it's likely it'll run on potato again, rockstar *loves* money.
Crysis remains a challenging title due to its performance limitations. GTA V was designed to work on a wide range of systems, reflecting Rockstar’s goal to maximize sales. Have you checked the recommended specifications? GTA V launched for PC in 2015, yet the minimum GPUs advertised date back to 2008. In contrast, the suggested models are from 2012 and fall short of today’s top cards. Your reaction seems overly protective when your opinion is questioned, especially since past data contradicts your view.
I really don’t care what others think. How do you figure I only visit this site every few months? And when did minimum and recommended specs become important? Usually they’re way off, so it doesn’t make much sense. Sure, sometimes they get it right, but most of the time it’s not very accurate. @Administrator you’re free to close this thread—this isn’t about debate with kids. It was just a random thought, nothing more. I’m out.
Oh I think that's not true. You care very much what we think, given your reaction to even the slightest bit of push-back. Never mind that the point of a forum is discourse and you're actively discouraging that with your explicit refusal to engage with others and their arguments, other than to outright dismiss them. If it's just the WallacEngineering narcissism hour every 3 months, why even bother visiting at all? After all, you don't care what anyone thinks... Another pure conjecture that flies in the face of reality. The listed specs are there to help purchase decisions. If a game doesn't perform on the listed hardware, the publisher risks refunds. Again, video games are a business. Publishers want to sell as many copies as possible. Not being ballpark accurate with the specs is not beneficial to anyone. You don't just get to handwave that away.