GTA: SA slower on HDD?

[Hundert]

hi, I just installed GTA via WinHIIP and driving around during the first 2 missions I get like 10-25 fps. Somehow I just can't believe Rockstar would ship a game in this condition. (And I can't believe it would get ratings in the high 90s if this was indeed the case)

So can anybody confirm that it runs just as slow from DVD as it does from harddisk?

if that is the case this has to be the absolutely most overrated game ever... which would be a shame

[Vegeta]

Yes, the actual game itself, whether from DVD or HD has a low framerate, most of the time lower than 25 FPS.

The whole point of running games off HD is for "faster load times", not "better graphics or smoother frate rates".

Don't forget, the PS2 is nearly FIVE YEARS OLD and what Rockstar has managed to do with the PS2 hardware is simply amazing.

[choochoo_f]

I was kinda dissapointed of the game too...
The graphics are awful in some scenes (mostly in videos).
However this doesn't mean that the game isn't great.

[hiTCH-HiKER]

What Rockstar has done is big shitty crap, compared to great PS2 games like Transformers, WRC 4, Burnout 3, Onimusha 3, Ratchet & Clank 3, Killzone, MGS3, Sly 2 or Ace Combat 5...
Vice City ruled on the PC, but what low quality and stoneage gfx engine they deliver on the PS2 nowadays makes me really speechless.

[dick_strokum]

i agree that they could have put more effort into the visual presentation of the GTA games, however, you're hard-pressed to find any other games with the fun factor of the GTA series.

In my opinion, if a game is fun it can look crappy.

[Raventron]

I have both an Xbox and a PS2 and i have to say, the GTA:SA game is incredible for gameplay and a disapointment for graphics, but most games are like that, and i have yet too come across a single game (i own now, over 60) that i will overlook shithouse graphics for a great storyline, the fact is rockstar spent more time on the storyline then pushing graphics too the extreme, the graphics are pretty much equal compared too vice city on xbox, and i've had them running side by side. The fps does impact on the game and you can feel it at certain times, especially when its foggy or raining in san fierro. Also don't forget the size of the entire map, it takes about 5 minutes too fly from one side to the other by plane, let alone car.

It's exactly as dicko says, if the game is fun, you'll quit wasting time on bitching about graphics. How many games offer the options, missions, storyline and gameplay that the GTA series does? i've played it for over 50 hours since i got it 7 days ago, which doesn't match Burnout 3, Halo, Star Wars: Battlefront, Socom 2, BloodRayne, THUG2, Splinter Cell 2 & Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, which are some of my favourite games.

[choochoo_f]

I haven't played the game much because of the graphics.
I agree that a game can look crappy when it's fun BUT this does NOT stand for a game as popular as GTA.It's not a game that you will play for one week or even two.Rockstar could have done better...
I believe MSG3 will save the day for PS2 Gamers...

[Hundert]

I wasn't complaining about the gfx at all.. yeah they look crappy but as long as the game is fun I don't mind them. But low fps really suck the fun out of a game where you drive around in a car most of the time...

[elexio]

how do you tell what frame rate a game has

[w33d3d]

What Rockstar has done is big shitty crap, compared to great PS2 games like Transformers, WRC 4, Burnout 3, Onimusha 3, Ratchet & Clank 3, Killzone, MGS3, Sly 2 or Ace Combat 5...
Vice City ruled on the PC, but what low quality and stoneage gfx engine they deliver on the PS2 nowadays makes me really speechless.

LoL Tansformers better then GTA:SA keep off the crack my friend. PS2 is out dated. If GTA:SA came out when PS2 first came out. You would be cumming in your pants saying how great the gfx are. For as big as the game is and all the content Rockstar did a great job with the game. When the new Sony system comes out you can expect the GFX to be alot better.