Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 4 Oct 2010.
Don't think many people will struggle with those specs. I hope it looks better than Fallout 3 because that looked pretty low res before applying the HD texture packs.
No great shock there given that it uses the Oblivion engine (Gamebryo I think). Oblivion had some multicore capability too...
Of course not. They will be prolly using that modified crap engine for oblivion.
The best part on this article is the fact that the dev team is formed by "a number" of interplay former employees.
That must be a good new.
I can't even complete the add-ons due to the fact the game is so incredibly unstable.
Hope that doesn't happen with this.
mine didn't crash that often
Mine never crashed.
As for the spec I haven't heard that they were adding any more bells or whistles to the engine so if your PC can run the first then it'll be able to run this.
Mine didn't crash until I started the add-ons. It's really annoying as Fallout 3 is definitely one of the best games I've ever played.
Never had any problems with Fallout 3 including all of the DLC's.
The needed spec's are not that high really.
I've pre ordered it ages ago, I believe it unlock's on the 22nd of this month.
FO3 for me generally either works fine, or crashes immediately, several times before running fine.
I don't see anyone who played FO3 not reaching these specs
I solved all my fallout3 crashes by limiting the number of cores the engine used to 2. It's pants with a >2 physical core CPU. Set to 4 [for a Phenom II] it would either crash when loading, or when entering a new area or building.
In Fallout.ini :-
Hopefully multi-core enhanced means more than 2 for this version, as it's had some engine tweaks.
Fallout 3 Stability was shocking on my system (in sig) But managaed to limp through. Can't wait for New Vegas though
I wasn't even expecting the specs to be any different to fallout 3. Then again I wasn't really thinking about it until I clicked on this article.
^ Heh. I could probably play it on my phone.
Man o Man, some of the worst animations and graphics for a AAA 2010 game, why couldn't they at least upgrade them a bit? Looks like arse. Hate that type of laziness.
They are cashing in on the lack of competition I suppose. If there were some far better games out there, people might turn their nose up at this and not buy it. But seeing as there is barely any alternative these days, they know everyone will rush out and buy it no matter how ancient their graphics engine is. Cheap asses cashing in on the crappy gaming situation these days.
It would be a different story if Rage was closer to release, and if there were other Rages on the horizon, but that's not so.
Does this mean I have to upgrade my 8086 and S3 911 ?
Think they'll be on the money with this in terms of content. Also can't wait for fallout: online (if it DEFINITELY surfaces) , gonna be really fascinating to see what they've managed to produce during the tumultuous recent months!
Oh and first post- hey there
They actually have improved the animations a good deal, but the fact is that the engine is ancient - it's impossible to have diagonal walking animations, for example. Rather, Obsidian have focused on creating content rather than updating the visuals. The game world is the same size of the world in Fallout 3, but features more sub-locations, more unique-looking locations, about twice as many enemies, weapons and items, and has approximately five or six times as many quests, with an 800,000-word script.
Frankly, in a case like this, I'd say take your updated visuals and stuff them... not that I don't like pretty graphics, but I think Obsidian used the resources and time at their disposal in the best way they could have. As an RPG fan who was generally disgusted with the butchery of the Fallout franchise Bethesda perpetrated, I'm happy to see the more-or-less original developers back in the saddle to focus on the things that matter for an RPG: building of a logical and consistent universe with believable characters and factions, a strong story that doesn't require me to ignore dozens of plot holes, well-written dialogue, and deep and balanced systems based on traditional tabletop gaming, all things Bethesda utterly failed at in Fallout 3.
I'd agree with you except I dont, it's a pure cash in and lazy, they have no competition. NEWSFLASH, you can improve graphics, animations while still making quality content, you know , llike 99% of sequels do. Its using rehashed assets with no attempt to improve it. Obsidian also dont have the greatest history when it comes to making sequels.
Separate names with a comma.