Shiny: Watch This Grand Theft Auto V 60fps PC Trailer

I shall live virtually in this forest.

Barring any further delays, Grand Theft Auto V [official site] is due to finally, finally arrive on PC on April 14th. Our version looks awfully pretty in those screenshots Rockstar have been trickling out, dangling before our hungry eyes, but how is it in motion?

A brand spanking new trailer gives a peek at the land of San Andreas, home of naughty crimes, running in 1080p at 60fps on PC. Come see:

If you’ve sort of forgotten about the possibility of ever getting to play GTA, what with all these delays, you might want to check the system requirements – you’ve still got a fortnight to upgrade if needs be. I happen to have bought a new system this week, and the two games I specifically checked specs against were GTA V and The Witcher 3.

I can’t lie: one of my main plans for GTA V is playing in that new first-person view and wandering through the foggy forests. I’m nothing if not predictable. But gosh, it’s one of the best-looking first-person views I’ve seen with all those slick animations. Crimes, also. I’ll do a lot of crimes. Really cool-looking crimes. But that foggy forest!

56 Comments

  1. int says:

    There Will Be Greed. There Will Be Vengeance. There will be… Cars!

  2. Premium User Badge

    Qazinsky says:

    Yeah, I also look forward to the first person view. I hope they’ve ported the movement to the keyboard and mouse this time, GTA IV was a bit iffy.

    • Artist says:

      Was not the only iffy thing with that lackluster GTA4 port…
      To fail or not to fail – that is the question!

  3. IcyBee says:

    I am looking forward to playing this when it features in a 75% off Steam sale.

    • iainl says:

      As am I, because 75% of the game (all the story, most of gunplay) doesn’t interest me, but I’ll happily chuck ’em what I payed for Ethan Carter to go off exploring the world in much the way I did on that title.

      • Ross Angus says:

        Shhhhh! Don’t say that out loud.

      • Banks says:

        Yeah, I think GTAs are terrible but I’ll happily pay the usual 3.75€ just to mess with the mod tools.

  4. MrLoque says:

    Amazing environment, amazing vehicles, amazing buildings, lighting effects, etc. PC wins over anything else, sure, but what could we expect one year and a half later?

    Now let’s talk about…characters. Good Lord, they look like wax models with gazing eyes. This is the pinnacle of the uncanny valley. I am all about better textures and higher resolutions but those characters look weird… It’s like watching plastic puppies moving around :-(

    • Awesomeclaw says:

      To be fair, the character you see the most of in that trailer is Trevor and I feel like he would actually look like that in real life.

      • MrLoque says:

        You can see the uncanny valley effect everywhere, here for example: link to i.imgur.com and in many other frames where you see a face. Gazing eyes, puppet-like movements… wax-like skin…

        • Awesomeclaw says:

          I see what you mean about the staring eyes. I went back and took a look at a Max Payne 3 trailer and there’s staring eyes a-plenty there as well, so I guess it might be an engine limitation.

        • Beanbee says:

          The guy on the left genuinely looks like a vaudevillian doll.

          Maybe it’s a grand metaphor on how these characters are just the puppets our our macho-centrist video games culture?

          Or, you know. They are just abit shit.

  5. Gryz says:

    I’m really looking forward to play this on my brand new Acer XB270HU. 1440p, good colors, G-Sync. Can’t get any better. GTAV and The Witcher 3 are the first new games in a while that I’m looking forward to.

  6. Michael Fogg says:

    Are games now required to feature the PEGI ratings affixed to the front of in-game vehicles?

    • The First Door says:

      Professor Tanya Byron has gone mad with power after her review of game ratings, clearly!

  7. Shadow says:

    Hmm. The 60fps is nice and all, but I wasn’t particularly astounded by the texture quality. There’s plenty of effects: reflections, heat distortion, lens flare and bloom (standard obfuscation trick), but the textures aren’t what I’d expect from a 2014 or, hell, a 2012 game. Mark of a console game, I suppose.

    I don’t want to be pessimistic and speculate the game’s optimization can’t produce constant 60fps on the highest settings, and therefore that they’ve subtly recorded that video on lower quality, but there it is. Maybe there is no higher settings.

    Speak your mind.

    • inf says:

      Look at the VRAM recommended system requirement, and you have your answer regarding textures. I’m fairly sure their engine wasn’t designed for much more, as it would stutter every (low and mid end) machine to hell as it is streaming it all in, what with the relatively big viewing distance of the PC version. Alternatively, on machines with limited frame buffer (as most machines are now barring those sporting a Titan), they could configure it like they did on PS3, decent textures for the hardware at close range, but horrendous pop-in and LOD artifacts once you start moving around at speed in the environment.

      In any case, that 2 GB VRAM requirement should tell you all you need to know about what kind of textures we are gonna get. In the end it’s only logical, you just can’t have it all yet, a huge rendered world AND large textures and fancy effects across the board. When mainstream affordable video cards start getting more VRAM, combined with a more efficient API, it may be possible in the near future however.

    • Awesomeclaw says:

      They would have no reason to record the video at lower settings, since they aren’t having to show it in real time.

    • Shadow says:

      I very much doubt any framerate drops or inconsistencies would be made invisible merely because the video itself runs at 60fps, Awesomeclaw. For example, imagine that at one point, during one second the game can only process 15 frames (meaning the game’s running at 15fps), that only means the 60fps video recording that second will, in this case, record each frame four times. It wouldn’t “fix” anything.

      inf’s point makes sense, I suppose. GTA V is probably either built on the GTA IV engine (improved as much as possible), or a newer one they didn’t see financially reasonable to make adaptable to hardware more advanced than that present in current-gen consoles.

      • Awesomeclaw says:

        My point is that on each frame, they would simply wait for it to finish rendering before writing it out. How do you think Pixar etc. render their movies?

        • Shadow says:

          I think you’re missing a step.

          CGI movies render directly to video, and have nothing to process but the 3D graphics.

          In theory, this video’s recorded from actual gameplay (video of video output, so to speak), which has a lot of processing considerations in addition to the graphics. If it’s not, and it’s just fully scripted engine output, then that’d be a shame as it wouldn’t in any way be representative of the game’s actual performance. Might as well do a 90 or 120fps video if it doesn’t represent how the game actually runs.

          • Awesomeclaw says:

            I think it’s fairly obvious from the video itself that everything that’s happening is scripted – at no point is there a ‘third person’ perspective or any UI elements – but is still happening ‘in-engine’. Max Payne 3 did all of its cutscenes in-engine and IMO it meant that the game flowed smoothly and the cutscenes still looked great when you upped the resolution.
            It seems to me that it’d be a lot more hassle to set up video capture on a machine, run through the game to get all those cutscenes (hoping that you don’t get a single frame rate drop in any of the cutscenes), and then stitch them together, when they could just render the cutscenes ‘offline’ directly to video files.

    • Shadow says:

      Well, to add on what could be expected, I think it’s far from unreasonable to expect 2014-2015 PC hardware to handle the open world of a game which looks only somewhat better than GTA IV (released in 2008) with considerably better textures. The problem certainly isn’t that PCs couldn’t handle more, but rather that it only makes financial sense for console-oriented game engines to harness console hardware, which is as old as the game looks.

      So in the end, we’re lucky we PC gamers are getting GTA V at all, looking like it does, perhaps with some bells and whistles added and running as well as it can be expected from its outdated graphics.

      • inf says:

        Well make no mistake, GTA V looks a lot better than GTA IV, even on PS3. If you definition of good textures means “better than GTA IV”, you will most certainly get that. What you won’t get, is textures akin to what graphic-focused AAA titles have been putting out the past, say, 2 years.

        You want proof of what high resolution textures look like and require in an open world game? Play Shadow of Mordor by Monolith with the ultra texture pack at 1440p or higher, but please, don’t try it without at least 6GB of VRAM.

        • Shadow says:

          About the graphics comparison between GTA IV and GTA V, I’ll take your word for it, inf. What I don’t see, however, is six years worth of technical evolution. That’s why I merely define the difference as “somewhat better”.

          Obviously, I’d never expect ground-breaking textures on Low graphics settings nor 6 GB VRAM minimum requirements. Simply the standard array of PC quality settings: Low, Medium and High. Ultra as well, if available. GTA V seems to cap at what generally corresponds to Medium as far as textures are concerned (despite requiring a whooping 65 GB of hard drive space).

          But I suppose this is an aimless rant at this point. I know what GTA V is and can’t really expect more.

          However, that’s not because PC hardware can’t do better, but rather because the software-side optimization can’t be economically pushed too far past the requirements of the latest console. Granted, if PC gaming had remained independent of consoles, perhaps we’d also have seen steeper PC hardware progression, and 6 gigs of VRAM wouldn’t be particularly high. But as it is, hardware can’t be too far above requirements because it would be no use.

          Anyway, despite these ultimately minor concerns, I’ve pre-ordered this. I want a new San Andreas and hope this is it. Time will tell.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            The discrepancy between hard drive requirement and texture quality is one of those things that sets GTA5 world building apart, this evidence tells an important story about how many unique assets are there and it’s something i remember i could see even on PS3.

            Other than that i personally feel the texture resolution is an adeguate compromise. Sure, we could have better, but huge open world games like this are something a bit more complicated than that and indeed the game would need 100+ GBs anyway. I’d say this also tells a lot of much graphics are about a LOT of other technical elements rather than just textures ( as important as they still are ), because this one sure still looks great.

      • Janissaire says:

        Man,don’t be ATC,my G75V republic of gamer laptop(low end pc,now)can run my moded skyrim with more than 250 mod(batch file)Who add shitload of new a(animal reproduction,life,natural death,body decomposition,new combat ai-they can set up ambush,and other thing,use special combat move,ect-water and weather impact on gameplay and are simulated,some dragon like the sun dragon have custom script-he fly,it’s the day,he land,it’s the night-Gigantic army of NPC,incredible graphic-game look like this link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com
        link to steamcommunity.com

        For some reason,i can’t share my better screenshot(the blood one,and,the high quality model one)

        So,i am sure,i can run the small GTA V.

        • Bereil says:

          I heard somewhere that Steam’s screenshot capture doesn’t capture things as well as ENB or SweetX can.

          Pretty sure I’ll be able to run it, but 60+ gig download. Yowzers. That’s going to be a pain here in Canada where our telecoms are now charging if you go over your monthly data allowance: link to blogs.vancouversun.com

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          Not to downplay either your impressive work or your point as a whole, but the very definition of “can run” is incredibly broad.

    • lovcol says:

      I’ve finished the game on PS4. It looks and plays great! If the PC version has that and more, and there isn’t anything especially wrong/buggy about it, you should all be very golden.

    • wodin says:

      When I watch a trailer and then someone says it didn’t look all that I think back to the mid eighties and then early nineties and then now and something like this I find very impressive. I just don’t understand what more you want. Things are looking so good I barely notice any improvements over the last couple of years. The visuals will do me just fine:)

      • 7vincent7black7 says:

        I don’t even pay all that much attention to textures like others do sometimes. I mean, I enjoy it when I am walking in a forest in a game and its absolutely gorgeous, but if the game has textures as good as or better than Oblivion, then you’ll be getting no complaints from me. It doesn’t need to be Crysis 3 with a textural upgrade, it just has to look moderately humanoid. :3

  8. Laurentius says:

    I played GTAIV at roughly ~30-40 FPS when it came out, now I can play it 60, fluidity adds so much to this game, driving through LC hasn’t found match so far, even after all this years. I hope I will be able to finish Pillars of Eternity till 14th April.

  9. Shooop says:

    While nothing astonishing about how it looks, this game is still an incredible feat for draw distance.

  10. Simon_Scott says:

    I have flipflopped on buying this several times in the long hard wait for its release. Content’s iffy in places, with the satire seeming to revel in punching down rather than up, but it looks wonderful and fun at the same time. Revisiting GTA IV didn’t help either – a game that early on introduces you to a funfair that has been closed down, which seemed to be a metaphor for what Rockstar had done with their franchise. GTA:SA was superb – somehow managing to bridge the gap between its Boyz n the Hood roots and the grand opera, Saintsesque silliness of riding bikes onto planes. GTA:V looks more like a return to this form and, yes, shiny shiny. I do suspect, though, that I shall be waiting for the sales…

  11. Monkeh says:

    And to think there are actually people who claim the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is barely noticeable..

    I for one can’t wait to finally really get into this game on April 14th, since I could only stick with the PS3 version for a couple of hours (mostly due to me being utterly terrible at aiming with a controller and not wanting to use auto-aim).

  12. 2late2die says:

    It’s a shame it took them so long to release it – I’d love to play it, but I just don’t have time for it right now. Between Pillars of Eternity, Cities Skylines, Star Citizen and the upcoming Witcher 3 I’m already spread too thin, no way can I add another sprawling open-world game to the mix. On the plus side, maybe I’ll pick it up on Steam xmas sale for $40 or something.

    • 7vincent7black7 says:

      Ironically, I’m putting Cities Skylines on the backburner for school work, cashiering at walmart, Two Worlds 2 replay, GTA 5, and I’m gonna get to play Red Dead Redemption on my 360 for the first time in my life soon. I never got around to buying it all those years before, and when I went pc gamer, I never felt much incentive to go back to consoles for much. But, I’m playing Dragon’s Dogma nad soon RDR soon too.

      • Epsilon82 says:

        Oh man, I would pay good money to be able to experience Red Dead Redemption again for the first time. You’re a lucky guy.

        For that matter, I would pay a pretty astronomical amount of money even to just be able to play Red Dead Redemption on the PC with proper resolution, anti-aliasing, and a 60 fps framerate. I’m starting to give up hope that it will ever happen, though. My last thread of hope rests on the notion that maybe they’ve been working on it and are hoping to spring it once they’re ready to announce the sequel to build interest and userbase for the latter.

  13. pixl_man says:

    Video is private :/

  14. Flangie says:

    I really enjoyed this on PS3 and tempted to get again as there were quite a few things I didn’t get round to the first time (in particular i ended up with not that much money as I totally misunderstood the stockmarket mechanic of the assassination missions….). FP view looks great for driving too :-)

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      Once you’ve failed a mission a couple of times it give you the option to skip. Checkpoints are well spaced as well. (Assuming that this carries over to the PC version, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t)

  15. aircool says:

    Ahhh, my PC is just short of three years old (bought in June 2012), and still passes the rec specs. Hope there’s decent mouse and keyboard support and a way to bypass the inevitably shit missions (if it’s anything like the previous games).

    Quite chuffed with myself that my PC is still going so strong after almost three years, and it wasn’t even top spec when I bought it, and nothing has been upgraded.

  16. James says:

    Hmmm… I’m only slightly below the GPU recommended requirement. To upgrade to a GTX 970 now or when I have a bit more spare cash sitting around, I mean its in budget but still quite expensive. A hard choice.

  17. xcession says:

    Given all the novelty has worn off now, thanks to the preposterous gap between console and PC release, I’m not going to be buying this straight away.

    I could wait months to play it while every console owner I knew splaffed on about it incessantly, I can certainly wait a few more and buy it when it’s on offer.

    • rcguitarist says:

      Exactly my thoughts. If Rockstar wants to treat pc gamers like bottom feeders who get the console gamers’ scraps when they are done with them, then I’ll treat Rockstar like a cut-rate publisher and buy GTA5 for $10 or less in a steam sale in a year or so. I’ve waited this long, why not a little longer.

  18. socrate says:

    it does look more fluid compared to console i just don’t get why people get console the only thing they got at this point over pc is exclusivity which in itself is an industry problem and not really a perk of the console themself.

    I do admit that the constant release push back and the constant announcement turned me off not to mention the fear of really bad optimisation that is still common in console port and the huge gap between console and pc release which is still ridiculous these days…il probably end up waiting and checking the forum for massive problem,try it or just plain wait for a sales since ive been burned too much these days by triple A and each time i give in i end up feeling like i get ripped off unless i buy the game of the years edition which is kind of sad…

  19. muira says:

    If anyone’s interested in the 15fps version I’ll be running it on my laptop.

  20. Donjo says:

    Anyone know what the song is?

  21. Janichsan says:

    60 fps?! That’s not the slightest bit cinematic!

  22. Det. Bullock says:

    “We’ve detected that your device or browser does not support this HTML5 format video. Please watch on the most recent generation device and browser.”

    What the…?

  23. apa says:

    60 fps – for that special plastic non-cinematic home video feel!