I\'ve got GTA3 too now - My first impressions.

Hi. Got GTA3 yestaday. Been playing for quite a bit. Here are my first impressions - which ill follow up with a full review when i\'ve played it a load more.

OK starting with the bad. My very first impression was wow how slow is this game. The game itself runs at around 18fps and worse still is that it slows down further - driving scenes as appose to walking scenes for example. Add this to the fact that the graphics aren\'t paticularrly the best we have seen on the PS2 and you could add GTA3 to the pile of games which make us worry if the PS2 is really a super console (that is slow fps and bad graphics) however...

As you start to play you will really notice the detail level of the city. I won\'t go into the stuff you can do as you will have read it time and time again but in short GTA3 shows the processing power of the PS2 by the vastness and detail of this living city as appose to the graphic quality and running speed! Its just a real shame that we didn\'t have both which yes I was expecting!

I\'ve already started to forget about the slowness of the game as i\'ve started to progress through it. The game seems really fun. I\'ve noticed a few things you can\'t do like smash up cars with bats but other than this its true - in GTA3 you pretty much can do what you like in the city. This makes the game have such a different feeling to what any other game has given us.

At the core of it though essentially its the same old stuff you did in GTA, GTA 2 and GTA London. Im not sure if this will get repetitive, prehaps it will - I don\'t think many people will complete all the missions in the game. However you couldn\'t really expect much more from this game. If you think up a good mission off the top of your head its probably in the game somewhere.

So far it seems like GTA 3 litterally is GTA but in 3d and not much else. However the way they have put this into the 3d world with all its detail and the way that the GTA gameplay is pretty much intact makes it feel like a fresh exprience.

Putting aside the lack of speed (UK pal version this is the extra 17.5% in the american version might help somewhat) this seems like a good - really good game.

Ill write a full review once i\'ve played some more.

GTA3 really rawks..

But the thing is I don’t think DMA really wanted to make GTA3 any more graphically photorealistic.. (Like The Getaway)

I think they wanted to have the "cartoony feeling" if you know what I mean..

But I still like the graphics..
About the slowdowns... Its a shame, I think DMA could have used  abit more time customizing the graphics engine to PS2.. (I believe the engine was designed for a PC in the beginning)
(Btw, HL for PS2 first ran at 5fps.. Now its up to 60fps.. Same with Halo for the Xbox.. 5fps now its 30fps.. Its all about the developers skills)

But apart from the slowdowns.. Its a damn impressive game :fro:

Yeah your telling me.

I\'ve played it some more since writing my first impressions. You sumed it up in one. The slowdowns do suck but apart from that the game is really cool.

Thanks for your review!   I still haven\'t pick up this game yet but the frames per second was my concern.  Is it really 18fps?  Maybe if DMA used some fog the frames will go up.  

I\'ve never had an issue with the frame rate, suppose its coz I\'m so used to playing Driver 2, that slowed down to near standstill with about 6 cars on screen, compared to that, GTA3 flies!

[nO-One]

I highly doubt that the game is running at 18fps, since it would make the game unplayable. Humans see the world at 24fps, so the minimum for a game would be around 30fps.

No thats completly wrong. Humans can\'t notice anything above 60fps.

I played quake 2 at around 18fps like most voodoo 1 owners back in the olden days.

Originally posted by RichGUK
No thats completly wrong. Humans can\'t notice anything above 60fps.

I played quake 2 at around 18fps like most voodoo 1 owners back in the olden days.

Yeah well I think you two should fight and the whoever is the winner is right!

Originally posted by EmperorRob
Yeah well I think you two should fight and the whoever is the winner is right!

To the death I presume? :nerd:

Im a lover not a fighter. - MJ

I also thought the low fps was a bit iritating in the beginning. But since i turned off trailer (motion blur or something like that) in the setup i think it is at least a little better. Maybe it\'s just my imagination but it worked for me....

What realy iritates me about this game is that it has hung two times, when loading a mission, in the few hours i have played it. That\'s not that fun if you haven\'t saved in a while. Has anyone else experiensed a freezing GTA3??

And as a contribution to the fps debate i only want to add that when the game freezes it\'s only one (or zero new) fps but my eyes can still see that frame..... but it is not much motion in it. The TV however delivers a constant fps (above 24) but it is the same frame all the time.

No game freezing for me, I can\'t comment on the rest of your post cos I don\'t understand what you are saying..

"And as a contribution to the fps debate i only want to add that when the game freezes it\'s only one (or zero new) fps but my eyes can still see that frame..... but it is not much motion in it. The TV however delivers a constant fps (above 24) but it is the same frame all the time"

Could you rephrase that?

Personally, I don\'t see any kind of problems with the frame rate, It may slow very slightly from what looks to be about 30fps, but this only lasts for about 1/5th of a second and can hardly be blamed for bad playing (which is why most people complaint about fps).

And yes, turning of the trails makes it look less like your using a lcd monitor, with all it\'s ghosties and such. Much better without .

yeah Ive only played it with the trails set to off and think for the most part the game runs smoothly.... only complaint Id have with the graphics is that the draw distance of the cars could have been better for when you\'re driving at high speed

Never mind.. It was just ment as a comment to nO-One who said the game would be unpayable if it was in 18fps since the human eye sees the world in 24fps. What i ment was that there can be as low frame rate as 1fps (or 0) in a game. The eye will still see the picture even if it very seldom changes. The TV however have to update the picture very often (>24fps) so the eye doesent notice it being gone. So as long as the TV keeps displaying the same frame all the time you will see it and be able to play the game (e.g. an old text adventure). But to make a motion that looks smoth the framerate probably has to be >24fps since the eye works in that speed (according to nO-One). If you lower the frame rate of the motion it will look more and more jerky but ju can still play the game. If you lower the frame rate on the TV however the picture will start to flicker and then the game will surely be unplayable.

Don\'t now if that made it clearer. It wasn\'t important anyway.....

Jas2k1: 30fps! Your joking right. The game is very slow!

Either way welcome to the boards!

Ozon: Yeah nicely put that made sense second time around.