# Come all come all, you won't believe your eyes! (56k? No!)



## ADF (Oct 10, 2008)

Ladies & gentlemen, have I got a tale for you.

It is a tale epic failure, a tale of a company called Bethesda Softworks.

First to understand why this is epic failure, you need to know Oblivion's recommended system requirements.

3ghz Intel Pentium 4
1GB Ram
Nvidia GForce 6800

Take note of these recommended system requirements, knowing the game actually required far higher. Now feast your eyes on the system requirements of Fallout 3.

Intel Core 2 Duo processor
2 GB System RAM
512mb NVIDIA 8800 series

Now let that settle in your mind for a moment; then consider the following.

Fallout 3, just like Oblivion, was developed for the Xbox 360 specification using the same engine. Both games were designed for the same specification, yet Fallout 3 has somehow dramatically higher system requirements on PC.

The recommended CPU for Fallout 3 is not only far more powerful than Oblivions, but also recommends twice as many cores.

The Xbox 360 memory amount has remained exactly the same since Oblivion, yet Fallout 3 recommends twice as much ram as Oblivion.

The recommended GPU for Fallout 3 is two generations ahead of the one recommended for Oblivion, despite the 360s GPU remaining the same.

And for all this extra hardware power, what does it get you?






















Pretty much the same quality graphics applied to a differen't setting, in other words nothing; Bethesda's shitty programming has struck again! Though I have to say they have really outdone themselves this time, it must of taken next to no care for the PC version to bloat the recommended requirements that much.

The minimum requirements are actually very close to Oblivions recommended!

Windows XP/Vista
1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)
2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)

How does someone manage to optimise a game this badly? You can run superior looking games like Mass Effect and Crysis with their recommended specification. If past TES games are any indication, god knows what system requirements it will take to run this game well at max settings.

In other news the Xbox 360 audience Bethesda have chosen to cater for over their decade+ PC audience; are currently pirating the console version to hell.

Have fun Bethesda.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 11, 2008)

Well for one, there upping the specs to what you should be using in Oblivion anyway.

Two, those are for Vista.

Three, There is actually a massive difference in the games. They have gore for one, they are using projectiles that are a lot different than arrows and many of them. There are Nukes. Nukes tend to take a lot of processing.

Four, the xbox 360 version will not look nearly as good as the PC version.


----------



## ADF (Oct 11, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well for one, there upping the specs to what you should be using in Oblivion anyway.
> 
> Two, those are for Vista.
> 
> ...



1) Oblivion doesn't require anything like this to be maxed, sure it will run better but Fallout 3s recommended specs are way above what is needed to play Oblivion well.

2) No they are not, check any website and the recommended specs make no mention of what OS they are intended for.

3) The things you listed are not hardware intensive, even if they were they wouldn't need a GPU *two generations ahead*  of what Oblivion recommended. The specification they developed this game on is the exact same specification they used for Oblivion, the Xbox 360.

4) Bethesda is a console orientated company now, the PC version will be a direct cut and paste of the Xbox version. If you are expecting any significant improvements over the console version you are in for a disappointment.


----------



## Teco (Oct 11, 2008)

It'll probably work fine without said requirements. For the console you dont have the whole -low graphics to the best graphical setting-, you just have one. While computers have that option. So those requirements are probably either the highest quality graphics. Those pictures might also be from an unpolished version of the game, so you cant really be sure the graphics will be better. And from the looks of it there alot more elements putting strain on your computer in Fallout such as faces being blown off. I wouldnt worry too much, just as long as your computer can play it. Graphics are just whip cream on the sundae. It shouldnt be the reason you hate or loathe something. Plus there might be patches that will make things more forgiving.


----------



## KrazFabbit (Oct 11, 2008)

Well, with the fact that the crapbox version is being pirated, and the fact that they apparently don't want the majority of computer gamers to be able to run this game... maybe this will be the nail in the coffin that kills Beth? One can only hope of course..


----------



## Wreth (Oct 11, 2008)

I wonder how the PS3 will fare.


----------



## Werevixen (Oct 11, 2008)

I can see the difference. Can't you?


Also, "onoez, graffix r nut SUPRHI-PWRED! I R GFXXX HOORE".

There's enough things that can up a hardware requirement other than god-damn graphics.


----------



## ADF (Oct 11, 2008)

Werevixen said:


> I can see the difference. Can't you?
> 
> 
> Also, "onoez, graffix r nut SUPRHI-PWRED! I R GFXXX HOORE".


Wait to go for completely missing the point, I'm criticising the requirements for these graphics; not the graphics themselves. 

As for the improvements... depth of field in the character shot? Either way I don't see any graphical differences that justifies such a significant leap in the hardware requirements. There is more object junk in the Fallout 3 shot, but that is most likely just reapplying all the polys saved from the lack of foliage.

Do you honestly see anything in those shots that recommends a freaking 8800? We're talking about a GPU that powers games like this. They got the exact same graphics to run on the dated 360 GPU, but they need a piece of hardware with twice as much memory and more than double the number of shaders to do the same thing on PC? This goes beyond simple utilisation differences, this is just not giving a fuck.



Werevixen said:


> There's enough things that can up a hardware requirement other than god-damn graphics.


Obviously, but I just don't see where the extra GB of ram and the dual core conroe is going. I seriously doubt the ability to blow off limbs increased the requirements that much.

Either way Bethesda's lack of care is going to severely limit their audience on PC. Also seeing how the 360 version is being downloaded by people as we speak, seems Fallout 3 won't have anywhere near the success of Oblivion.


----------



## Mr Fox (Oct 11, 2008)

Zoopedia said:


> I wonder how the PS3 will fare.


 
Badly...


----------



## Dark Transparent (Oct 12, 2008)

I see a massive difference in the quality of shading and depth. The extra power is needed to run particle effects and intense lighting that Fallout 3 will use. Not to mention much better AI, bullet trajectory and an incredibly realistic rag doll system.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 12, 2008)

the only difference I can really see is that Oblivion actually has something called "Colour" whereas Fallout 3 looks more like the modern "Realism" Trend which is to create a world where the primary colours are brown, gray, more brown, dark gray, and crimson.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 12, 2008)

Yea that's another thing, particle effects, shader quality, also the game isn't even out yet so you're comparing a screenshot that might as well be the lowest setting, witch looks much like it to me after seeing some of the gameplay on console.

Yes, for god sakes yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between the console version and the PC version. Just like Oblivion. Also the engine isn't the exact same. Explosions, heat waves, dust, bullet holes, etc do take more processing as does every round, shell, animation, etc...

I -HIGHLY- doubt you know anything about what makes a game performance become impacted with what you're saying. Oblivion doesn't even look that good, it was all the bloom mostly, this game looks much, much better, even the physics.

These games might run off the same core engine, but nothing will be the same. They've modified it heavily and to run Oblivion on "max" the recommended will not do it.

Also Oblivion was more developed for DX9 (duh) and windows XP, this game is designed for DX10 and windows vista. So those specs -are- for vista. The Oblivion ones -are- for xp.


----------



## Xenofur (Oct 13, 2008)

Comparing screenshots of *animated* and *interactive* applications. Yes, grand, brilliant idea.


----------



## ADF (Oct 13, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yea that's another thing, particle effects, shader quality, also the game isn't even out yet so you're comparing a screenshot that might as well be the lowest setting, witch looks much like it to me after seeing some of the gameplay on console.
> 
> Yes, for god sakes yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between the console version and the PC version. Just like Oblivion. Also the engine isn't the exact same. Explosions, heat waves, dust, bullet holes, etc do take more processing as does every round, shell, animation, etc...
> 
> ...



The PC version of Oblivion was *identical* to the 360 version, it was a direct cut and past port, right down to the god awful facial textures and scaled tabular interface. The only difference comparison screenshots could find was extra draw distance on grass, which is hardly anything to suggest the PC version got extra care since anyone can adjust that variable.

Fallout 3 is in the exact same boat, it is typical lazy Bethesda making the game on consoles then slapping an identical copy on PC. Every single game play video is done on a console, showing the PC version is getting just as much attention as Oblivion did.

That you even suggest that there is a massive difference between the platforms versions, even to go as far as to suggest those screenshots were on low, tells me this is hopeful thinking on your part rather than factual. You even bring up DirectX 10, how much do you actually know about the PC version of Fallout 3?



Xenofur said:


> Comparing screenshots of *animated* and *interactive* applications. Yes, grand, brilliant idea.


Not sure what you meant by this, all those screenshots are in game (assuming Bethesda isn't pulling some bullshits). Either way go watch some game play videos if you want to see it in action, again I am not suggestings there are no improvements; only that the system requirements do not reflect these improvements.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Oct 13, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yea that's another thing, particle effects, shader quality, also the game isn't even out yet so you're comparing a screenshot that might as well be the lowest setting, witch looks much like it to me after seeing some of the gameplay on console.
> 
> Yes, for god sakes yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between the console version and the PC version. Just like Oblivion. Also the engine isn't the exact same. Explosions, heat waves, dust, bullet holes, etc do take more processing as does every round, shell, animation, etc...
> 
> ...


Oh, wow.


http://www.oblivionportal.com/info/systemreq.php
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/09/fallout-3-goes-gold-pc-requirements-detailed/

Take a look at that. They were upped slightly, and it does take more processing power to to something like this compared to Oblivion. Bullet holes, bullet trajectories, gore (When the body parts explode when using the VATS system), dust, partical effects... These things weren't in Oblivion. That, and you'll be facing multiple foes in Fallout 3. Most of Oblivion was 1-on-1 battles, while Fallout 3 consists of gun fights where you're fighting a few opponents.

That, and it is a MODIFIED version of the engine. It really isn't the same because it is so heavily modified. It's like the Source Engine in Half Life 2 and the Source Engine in L4D, it is the same engine, but it has evolved over-time and very little resembles what it originally was.


The graphics of Oblivion to not compare to the graphics of Fallout 3. They are very different. For one, the textures are of a much higher res, and textures aren't reused as much as they were in Oblivion. If you remember in Oblivion, you were seeing the same low res textures over and over again. In Fallout 3, there is more variations in the texture and the textures are of a res that Oblivion couldn't have because of either engine limitations or hardware limitations.


It hasn't been revealed if or not Fallout 3 will use DirectX 10 or not. It was certainly not designed for it, since the overwhelming majority of people that will play it on the PC will only be playing it in DirectX 9.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 13, 2008)

KrazFabbit said:


> Well, with the fact that the crapbox version is being pirated, and the fact that they apparently don't want the majority of computer gamers to be able to run this game... maybe this will be the nail in the coffin that kills Beth? One can only hope of course..



My, what a -stunning- show of logic and mature thinking. It's rare I see so much failure in one post, but you dear sure have raised or lowered the bar. Let's see, we have childish Xbox bashing with memes and typical spoiled brat wishing for the death of a developer.

Carry on people. carry on.


----------



## Werevixen (Oct 13, 2008)

ADF said:


> I seriously doubt the ability to blow off limbs increased the requirements that much.




Either you're being sarcastic, which would kind of mean you agree with me, which means you wouldn't try to counter-argue so much... or you weren't, and...


Jesus Christ.


EDIT: Yes, it requires an entire engine work over for one, which is why they didn't release it several months after Oblivion. It requires significantly more processing power.


EDIT2: When I say significantly, I mean a giant fuckload.


----------



## Teco (Oct 13, 2008)

Lets not forget that you'll be able to get mods for the computer, creating a pretty good amount of content that the console will never see.


----------



## ADF (Oct 13, 2008)

Teco said:


> Lets not forget that you'll be able to get mods for the computer, creating a pretty good amount of content that the console will never see.



Betheda announced a while back there would be no modding tools for Fallout 3 at release, whether they choose to release them later is anyone's guess.



Werevixen said:


> Either you're being sarcastic, which would kind of mean you agree with me, which means you wouldn't try to counter-argue so much... or you weren't, and...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ.
> ...



Read what I have said *several times* now.

Does the additional stuff in the game justify the system requirements? The answer is clearly *no*, no amount of improvements over Oblivion can possibly justify recommending an 8800 for a console port. This game is going to be a carbon copy of the 360 version, the only way the requirements could become this bloated is if Bethesda didn't give a crap about the PC version.

Utilisation differences always result in higher system requirements on PC, but this is ridicules. No console port should recommend more than a mainstream GPU like the 9600GT, PC enhanced ports like Gears of War and Mass Effect have lower requirements/better visuals than this game.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Oct 13, 2008)

I seriously hope that you're joking.


----------



## ADF (Oct 13, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> I seriously hope that you're joking.


Rather than overdramatize your reaction; how about explaining what you mean?

Explain why it is apparently unreasonable to expect a game developed for three year old hardware to not require recent technology to run on PC, just like the vast majority of 360 to PC ports out there? Why it is unreasonable to question these system requirements when there are better looking games with lower requirements?


----------



## psion (Oct 13, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well for one, there upping the specs to what you should be using in Oblivion anyway.
> 
> Two, those are for Vista.
> 
> ...



Not to mention that there is a noticable improvement in character details AND the stone and wood textures, between the two games.  I mean look at the Fighters' Guild Porter then look at "Jericho."  Jericho's not bald man, you can see the stubble where his hair's growing back; try getting that in Oblivion even on the highest settings.  There's also a small bump in detail between the matted rag the Porter calls hair and the hairs on Jericho's beard.
Then we have the wood and stone, which I swear looks like actual concrete and pressure-treated lumber.  They could have just ported the textures over from Oblivion but they tried to capture the look of modern materials instead.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Oct 13, 2008)

ADF said:


> Rather than overdramatize your reaction; how about explaining what you mean?
> 
> Explain why it is apparently unreasonable to expect a game developed for three year old hardware to not require recent technology to run on PC, just like the vast majority of 360 to PC ports out there? Why it is unreasonable to question these system requirements when there are better looking games with lower requirements?


Read all of our responses through and you'll find why. All of the new features in Fallout 3 require more processing power. All of it. And, you falsely listed the requirements for both.



> Oh, wow.
> http://www.oblivionportal.com/info/systemreq.php
> http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/09/fallout-3-goes-gold-pc-requirements-detailed/
> 
> ...


----------



## ADF (Oct 13, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Read all of our responses through and you'll find why. *All of the new features in Fallout 3 require more processing power*. All of it. And, you falsely listed the requirements for both.


Irrelevant, an increase in system requirements is not being debated, that the increase was so significant is what draw my criticism. What I find remarkable is some people actually sound like they think these requirements as justified. None of the improvements in Fallout 3 justify those system requirements, especially considering they are running an identical version on the 360, it's lazy optimisation on Bethesda's part.

And I did not falsely list requirements for both games, Oblivions requirements came directly from the back of the copy I own. Fallout 3s were taken from a gaming discussion board and confirmed by the duplication of identical requirements from various other news sources.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Oct 13, 2008)

The game came out 3 years ago. I think a change is justified, especially since a lot of games now require systems that are much more powerful than what Fallout 3 is asking for. Just look at Bioshock, and that came out more than a year ago. That, and the engine that was Oblivion's was /very/ heavily modified.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 13, 2008)

ADF said:


> The PC version of Oblivion was *identical* to the 360 version...



I'll stop you there, you're wrong. Very, very wrong.

The difference between the two is a lot.

Want me to prove it? I can I own both a 360 copy and a PC copy. I know the difference.

How about you spend about $600 on a PC, then you'll get the specs you'll need for fallout 3, rather than complain about them with screenshots before the game is even out.

You have -no- idea how games work or what makes a game require power, shader 3.0 alone jumps it up from oblivion's 2.0.
MUCH higher resolution with more details, particles, and less repetitiveness.
You listed the specs wrong, here are the correct ones.

The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion System Requirements

Recommended:

    * 3 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
    * 1 GB System RAM
    * ATI X800 series, Nvidia GeForce 6800 series, or higher video card

Minimum System Requirements:

    * Windows XP
    * 512MB System RAM
    * 2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
    * 128MB Direct3D compatible video card
    * and DirectX 9.0 compatible driver;
    * 8x DVD-ROM drive
    * 4.6 GB free hard disk space
    * DirectX 9.0c (included)
    * DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
    * Keyboard, Mouse


Fallout 3 System Requirements

PC Requirements:

Minimum Chuga-chuga System Requirements:

    * Windows XP/Vista
    * 1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)
    * 2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
    * Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)

Recommended Real System Requirements:

    * Intel Core 2 Duo processor
    * 2 GB System RAM
    * Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA 8800 series, ATI 3800 series)
    * Supported Video Card Chipsets at the Fallout site.

You need to learn a few things before you talk about knowing 'it all'. Mostly people like you complain because you see these specs and as if they are carved in stone you get all upset that you can't play it. Those specs can differ a lot as well, why? Because if you know what you're doing you could easily make the game purr with lower settings, of course not on the highest of quality. That brings up another thing, computer monitors are much, MUCH higher than TV where the 360 would be plugged into, also the 360 doesn't support 'true' 1080 even it stretches 720 up to 1080, though it does do a good job.

Mostly any monitor will support around 720 no problem, mine is higher than that so they have textures on the game for higher resolutions than what the 360 will need, so yes. The PC will look MUCH different than a console version.


----------



## ADF (Oct 14, 2008)

*sigh* I really, really cannot be bothered to respond to all that right now. Even if I did it would just be replaced my even more arguing and I would have to respond to that as well.

People are so fiercely trying to argue the case of Fallout 3 improving over Oblivion that they have completely forgotten the subject, despite repeatedly bringing it up on my part.

Ok let me ask you all something, what does proving that Fallout 3 has made improvements over Oblivion have to do with my criticism of the system requirements being extremely bloated? Any improvements are irrelevant to the criticism, nothing that comes from the Xbox 360, without considerable improvements over the 360 version, should recommend an 8800.

And don't even start NewfDraggie, I know you think the PC versions look vastly superior but I don't care. Modding community aside the PC versions of these games are using the exact same art assets and effects as the console version. Running them at a higher resolution is a testament to PC performance, but the games themselves are practically identical.

Don't agree? Fine, but don't expect me to drop my optimisation criticism because you believe these nowhere to be seen PC graphical improvements justify it.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 14, 2008)

Fallout 3 sucks either way.

Also, I think you falsified the image quite a bit by using promotional, doctored stills, OP.



> The PC will look MUCH different than a console version.



Wrong. Bethesda's hacks won't improve it. 

Fallout 3 already looks worse than last year's CoD4.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 14, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Fallout 3 sucks either way.
> 
> Also, I think you falsified the image quite a bit by using promotional, doctored stills, OP.
> 
> ...



The texture resolutions on a PC version are vastly higher, up to 2500 (I doubt that high but, it can happen) rather than a 360's lame ass 720.

I guess you guys think that 360 is god eh? Well actually no, the game will look a lot worse on the 360, just like oblivion did, no mods included.

Also the -only- reason you are complaining about those specs is because you can't handle them. 8800 recommended? WOW! Even when the 8800 came out they had the lowest ones at $300. Now you can get one for about oh $100 if you know where to look. They said 8800 series, not GTX or higher versions. That's recommended. Go spend some cash on your PC, don't complain, don't whine. If you can't play your console version and be happy with that, seeing as they look the same in your opinion, you shouldn't mind. Moron.


----------



## Rayne (Oct 14, 2008)

This thread makes me laugh my ass off at the general ignorance being spouted off in it, and die a little inside for that same reason.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 15, 2008)

All this thread needs now is a few NMH fourm trolls and it would be perfect.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 15, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> The texture resolutions on a PC version are vastly higher, up to 2500 (I doubt that high but, it can happen) rather than a 360's lame ass 720.



The definition of your monitor will not work when the *same* graphical asset is used. It will simply look more clear, showing just how atrocious Beth's textures are. 

A 512x512 pixel texture will not magically become better when transferred from a console to a PC.



> I guess you guys think that 360 is god eh? Well actually no, the game will look a lot worse on the 360, just like oblivion did, no mods included.
> 
> Also the -only- reason you are complaining about those specs is because you can't handle them. 8800 recommended? WOW! Even when the 8800 came out they had the lowest ones at $300. Now you can get one for about oh $100 if you know where to look. They said 8800 series, not GTX or higher versions. That's recommended. Go spend some cash on your PC, don't complain, don't whine. If you can't play your console version and be happy with that, seeing as they look the same in your opinion, you shouldn't mind. Moron.



Heh, I guess children like you think expletives make you look mature. Here's a tip: they don't. 

I'm a PC-exclusive gamer and dabble in textures from time to time. Trust me - if something looks bad on a TV screen, it will look even worse on a PC monitor.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2008)

I'd rather that the Fallout series had DIED after Tictacs.  Bethesda sucks.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 15, 2008)

Fallout died the day Van Buren was cancelled.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 15, 2008)

Looks like the No Mutants Allowed Trolls are already here!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2008)

Foxstar said:


> Looks like the No Mutants Allowed Trolls are already here!



Damn skippy.  Proud of it.  We were here before the fall.

Seriously, though, I only lurk there, but I've seen what the NMA folks say and how they feel about Fallout - they care about the series.  They care about the lore being preserved from game to game, they care about the gameplay being enjoyable and yet true to the original formula... This is a game series worth caring about, and watching its decline has worn on the nerves of a lot of people.


----------



## Foxstar (Oct 15, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Damn skippy.  Proud of it.  We were here before the fall.



Yup you were. And for all the screaming and wailing, you couldn't keep the folks who created Fallout from going down in flames, or push Fallout 1 or 2's sales numbers to the 1.5 million sold mark, much less 2 and have been so rabid that now the people who hold the Fallout trademark ignore you, other hardcores make fun of you (See Tycho of PA, who is the king of all nerds, other gaming sites, etc.) and all that's left is a circle jerk in a area of the internet who due to you folk's xenophobic nature and rabid foamy mouth goodness will be..irony, a wasteland as new Fallout fans stick to the offical fourms and create new gatherings where you all are not welcome.

Watching a group of fans scream themselves irrelevant has never been more fun. I've been following it for years and saw it coming when so many of you wanted heads on platters for Fallout Tactics for PC, oh yes I did. Sometimes you can care too much about something, so much so that the people who make the product you love stop giving a damn. Hell a lot of the guys on the OG Fallout team were getting tired of the NMA crowd. Bethesda can and should give the most of them the finger and would not be worse off for it.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2008)

Foxstar said:


> now the people who hold the Fallout trademark ignore you



Bethesda's been ignoring a lot of people, including many Elder Scrolls fans who expressed displeasure at the direction Beth took as it moved from Morrowind to Oblivion.  They alienate fans without prejudice and they bastardize franchises with little to no concern for anybody but their new pets, the console gamers.



Foxstar said:


> Bethesda can and should give the most of them the finger and would not be worse off for it.



They already have and will continue to do so to the fans of ANY of their franchises.  They have shat on the loyalty of PC gamers, without whom Bethesda would be nothing.  They have shat on people who loved Fallout AND The Elder Scrolls.  I can only hope that this behavior leads to a serious decline in customer loyalty amongst the PC gamers, and that it hurts them financially.


----------



## Teco (Oct 15, 2008)

Cant believe this is still going on... the requirements arent bloated, im pretty sure a company wouldnt want that.. hence why Crysis probably fixed some graphical issues in Warhead which makes everything run smoother, if not alot of people can play their game because of their computers the game wont sell well. So im pretty sure the programming isnt perfect. But I dont think anyone else here could do a better job of it, the requirements are what they are, if you dont like pretty decent looking games might I suggest newgrounds.com, you'll find all the mindless repeditive 2d games you want! Or you can just play your next gen console or yes, go buy that 100 dollar graphics card if you need it. Complaining about the requirements isnt going to fix anything, you arent even creating sympathy from people to even get yourself a donation of a sorts! You're just creating an completely illogical arguement where you cant win. You lost when you tried. You're like if someone jumped off a skyscrape for suidical attention. You already jumped my friend, you're getting alot of attention but not the kind you wanted, no? Just redeem alittle honor my friend, its quite obvious the the engine is going to require more from your system than Oblivion, I dont think anyone doubts that. Hell I'll start a poll to prove it.
And if you dont like Fallout you shouldnt just come in and bash it. We dont like it when people do that to us *afro heads* -cough cough- Thats like trying to get Jibba to like vag. You dont do it. Dont. Respect. We fragfurs gotta get along here now.


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2008)

I've pretty much given up on arguing with NewfDraggie's improvement claims now; as he is basically pulling them out of his backside. Hell he just made a guess on how much texture resolution improvement will be in the PC version, a lubricious resolution improvement at that.

However what I will respond to is...



NewfDraggie said:


> Also the -only- reason you are complaining about those specs is because you can't handle them. 8800 recommended? WOW! Even when the 8800 came out they had the lowest ones at $300. Now you can get one for about oh $100 if you know where to look. They said 8800 series, not GTX or higher versions. That's recommended. Go spend some cash on your PC, don't complain, don't whine. If you can't play your console version and be happy with that, seeing as they look the same in your opinion, you shouldn't mind. Moron.



It is because I have a 512mb 8800GT that I know those system recommendations are ridicules, despite what you may like to believe I am a dedicated PC gamer. 

I am not arguing the PC version will have identical graphical quality because of some belief that consoles are somehow just as powerful, PC performance is of course going to result in a superior resolution and quality filtering settings. 

However that does not mean the games graphics will be differen't from the console version, it is not going to have higher resolution textures or more complex shaders; even if a modern PC is more than capable of running them. Bethesda is doing an unchanged cut and paste from 360 just like Oblivion; and from the looks of it they half arsed the optimisation of the PC version while they were at it.

I can say those recommended requirements are bloated because I know *exactly* what a system with that hardware is capable of; and it is allot more than what Fallout 3 is showing. People try to argue Fallout 3 has made graphical improvements over Oblivion, which it has, but that doesn't change the recommended hardware is ridicules for those improvements.


----------



## Teco (Oct 15, 2008)

ADF said:


> Bethesda is doing an unchanged cut and paste from 360 just like Oblivion; and from the looks of it they half arsed the optimisation of the PC version while they were at it.
> 
> I can say those recommended requirements are bloated because I know *exactly* what a system with that hardware is capable of; and it is allot more than what Fallout 3 is showing. People try to argue Fallout 3 has made graphical improvements over Oblivion, which it has, but that doesn't change the recommended hardware is ridicules for those improvements.



But you havent even played the game, you dont know what it will be, do you even like Fallout? If you have what you need to play it why do you care? What do you want? Next- next-gen Crysis? And why whine about graphics? I dont whine about your avatar, but however your structure in this whole debate is failing, unlike Fallout which looks nice and looks like it will actually be alot of fun! Graphics are for movies. Gameplay is for games. 

These arent minimum requirements, I assure that. They're just there to let you know this is what the game needs to look pretty or to be able to actually run on your computer. Even if it turned out to be a copy and paste for the 360 its understandable, its not like you can go in and upgrade your console with all new parts. They still have to make it so it can run the game.

Why cant we just wait till it comes out to bash it. Instead of pulling things out of our own asses?


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2008)

Teco said:


> snip


So you are saying every single screenshot, every video released right up to day before launch cannot be used to judge what the game will look like?

If you are going to repeatedly accuse my argument of failing; at least make sure you are clear what my argument is, ok? If you think the system requirements are unimportant then stop right there, you don't get it at all.

The 8800 series it not an entry level card, it is not even a mainstream card, it is a high end GPU. If you think it is perfectly fine for a copy paste console port to 'recommend' (as in run well, not max) a high end PC GPU to get the advertised settings, then you are completely ignoring what that says about Bethesda's attitude toward PC gaming and what this means for the potential audience.

You say my argument is failing.

My argument is this games system requirements are bloated, this game recommends an 8800, is that not evidence enough? Of course if you don't understand what can be expected to run console ports; then of course you won't get what the fuss is about.


----------



## Teco (Oct 15, 2008)

ADF said:


> .... If you think it is perfectly fine for a copy paste console port to 'recommend'....



But its not copy and paste... you have no prove of this at all. I seriously doubt it will be. I think that card is needed for a higher setting for the game. Its not only very good but used by all for its quality. I would suggest it too. Thats all the company is saying. Its probably what they're using, its probably run very smoothly without problems with it. You dont need to, but if you want the whole experience to be maxed, you might want to go for these requirements. Again. You dont need to. Suggestion by the company. I would back that.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 15, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> The definition of your monitor will not work when the *same* graphical asset is used. It will simply look more clear, showing just how atrocious Beth's textures are.
> 
> A 512x512 pixel texture will not magically become better when transferred from a console to a PC.
> 
> I'm a PC-exclusive gamer and dabble in textures from time to time. Trust me - if something looks bad on a TV screen, it will look even worse on a PC monitor.



The textures -are- probably going to be different, not the same. Most console games transferred to PC the textures are the same, you can easily tell the difference. Most games developed for both PC and console are completely different, Oblivion did this, it doesn't look anything like the xbox version other than the bloom mode because it covers everything. The same is for Fallout 3, you might be a PC gamer but you sure don't know anything about it, you just play it. 

What you said about looking bad on a TV looking worse on a monitor is simply because monitors are higher resolution than TVs, this is common knowledge so just because you've touched a image or play games doesn't mean you know how to program one for a PC or for a console and the differences. Take mercenaries 2, it was developed for a console and was ported to PC, the textures on PC are bad. Take Oblivion it was a simultaneous development of the two, they don't share textures sizes, if anything they ported the PC textures to console sized ones, not the other way around.



			
				Mikael Grizzly said:
			
		

> Heh, I guess children like you think expletives make you look mature. Here's a tip: they don't.



I am no child, I know far more about this than you do, clearly. Name a single expletive I said in my posts, here I will do as you did and insult you by adding one. Stop being a dick, dick.



ADF said:


> So you are saying every single screenshot, every video released right up to day before launch cannot be used to judge what the game will look like?
> 
> If you are going to repeatedly accuse my argument of failing; at least make sure you are clear what my argument is, ok? If you think the system requirements are unimportant then stop right there, you don't get it at all.
> 
> ...



Every screenshot and video out right now on Fallout 3, just like Far Cry 2 is of the console.
You are not the smartest PC gamer, by far. I've played both copies of Oblivion and I can tell a vast difference, if you can't that doesn't mean it isn't there, just like those who believe HD doesn't look any different from SD. 

Basically you're talking about a game and screenshots and movies you don't know anything about other than what they've showed you. Wait for the game to come out, THEN post a topic like this rather than simply guessing and getting all big and mighty about your vast knowledge about this game, especially when you don't know anything about a game that's been out for like 2 years now.


TO EVERYONE ELSE,

This guy knows nothing, neither do his supporters. This game isn't out yet, he doesn't even know how well it runs on the basic or recommended specs. He also knows nothing of what the game looks like on console compared to PC. Everything he's posting about is a hate-rant against a company that has done nothing wrong. The second he actually plays Oblivion on a xbox screen of same resolution next to a PC one, comparing the two he would see the difference. The same can be said about Fallout 3 once it comes out.


----------



## Rayne (Oct 15, 2008)

And the circle completes itself AGAIN!

...

I need more popcorn.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 15, 2008)

Rayne said:


> And the circle completes itself AGAIN!
> 
> ...
> 
> I need more popcorn.



This isn't the off Topic boards, why dontchya simply add you view with that, as not to come off as a troll? Or you could continue being one, up to you.


----------



## Rayne (Oct 15, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> This isn't the off Topic boards, why dontchya simply add you view with that, as not to come off as a troll? Or you could continue being one, up to you.



I don't care enough to, as I think that every single person in this thread needs to shut up, as the lot of you have absolutely no understanding of what you're talking about and are simply throwing your own feces at one another.


----------



## Greyscale (Oct 15, 2008)

lol, wut?


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Rayne said:


> I don't care enough to, as I think that every single person in this thread needs to shut up, as the lot of you have absolutely no understanding of what you're talking about and are simply throwing your own feces at one another.



Actually I do understand what I'm talking about, you see I haven't created any games for PC or console -yet-, but it is what my goal in a job is to be. I've gone through much code and I've modded many games in the past. I know that textures on a console game are not the same on a PC, UNLESS they port from console to PC rather than either reworking them or the consoles coming from a larger image. It will always look bad, such as the case with a lot of games. Bethesda didn't do it with oblivion so I don't see why they would with Fallout 3, on top of that seeing as the engine is the same base, the extra power -must- be used somewhere, not just scrambled in useless code such as BF2 or Age of Conan. So please, do tell me exactly why what I'm saying is wrong? Because you -think- you know more? because you do know more? I want your source to back this up by the way. Or because you simply want a argument and contribute only whats necessary to continue one?

Either way, I don't quite see how hard it is to understand. PC games ported to console dumb down the textures (looks worse on console rather than the PC ones), Console games ported to PC don't change them (it looks bad). The code for both has to be changed no matter what anyway so the largest difference is with Textures, Some lighting can be added to a PC version as well shader models can be higher, seeing as this is the case in Fallout 3, the textures will be different, shader model will be higher, and lighting will differ slightly (it's the only explanation for these added hardware) I don't see why it's hard to believe these settings are not because they made a error to are lazy, but because there is simply that large of a difference between the console and PC versions.

But what ever, you all know far more than me, this is why you all came up with those brilliant explanations about them ripping you off, being to lazy, and it being a cut and paste copy on PC from console. Yes that explains everything, that's why the hardware is so different of course! Stupid me...I should of known those things could bump the games impact on processing so high.


----------



## Rayne (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> So please, do tell me exactly why what I'm saying is wrong? Because you -think- you know more? because you do know more? I want your source to back this up by the way. Or because you simply want a argument and contribute only whats necessary to continue one?



Yes, because I totally singled you out specifically or said everyone in this thread needs to shut up. That must be it! Oh wait, it's not. I honestly don't give two about whether this dribble continues on or not, it's not like I'll actually add anything to my repository of knowledge on game development and benchmarking by participating in any in-depth way. No, I just like to randomly pop in and contribute a post as equally worthless as the average post in this thread is. So yeah, I'll just contradict what I said a few sentences ago and say that I like watching people on the internet argue during the middle of the night.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Here for everyone to see.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/p-2.html?sid=6147028&page=2

Xbox 360.






PC





Can you see the difference? At all?



> Oblivion looks better on a high-end PC than on the Xbox 360. Note the additional foliage visible in the background. We matched up resolutions for screenshot comparison purposes here, but a high-end PC with an AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU and GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card can enable all the settings and take resolutions up to 1600x1200 or more and still maintain smooth frame rates. We noticed that the Xbox 360 version had better antialiasing since our PC version couldn't enable HDR and antialiasing at the same time. Of course on the PC version, you can get rid of jaggies the old-fashioned way by jacking up the resolution.



Also the patches out for the PC version allowed you to enable the HDR and AA at the same time too, making it even better.



Rayne said:


> Yes, because I totally singled you out specifically or said everyone in this thread needs to shut up. That must be it! Oh wait, it's not. I honestly don't give two about whether this dribble continues on or not, it's not like I'll actually add anything to my repository of knowledge on game development and benchmarking by participating in any in-depth way. No, I just like to randomly pop in and contribute a post as equally worthless as the average post in this thread is. So yeah, I'll just contradict what I said a few sentences ago and say that I like watching people on the internet argue during the middle of the night.



That's right tell people to shut up, you're the boss. Also posting what you said directly after what I posted doesn't help your case, simply to me you're looking more and more arrogant with each post, so i would stop unless you have something decent to contribute. On-topic.


----------



## Erro (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes that explains everything, that's why the hardware is so different of course!



Just as a relevant point of interest
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u236/erro_shadowpaw/Picture6.jpg
(image removed for being big and annoying)
I can explain hardware and processor load specifics to you later, if you need.

(hint: the hardware is the same, in fact, I'll bet the Xbox has more power to it than the HP does. Its the function that makes the difference)


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

I must be missing what that picture is suppose to show...sorry. I also don't know if you were agreeing or not so don't take anything I say as offense or the like. I don't mean it if it does somehow.

That's a xbox, we are talking about a 360. Also what's that image suppose to show exactly? Size? Insides? I can tell you now my Quad core chip is more powerful than 2 or 3 the xbox 360's tri core. As is my video card, so the point here is the PC is running things besides the game, but shouldn't be that large of a increase from Oblivion's recommended specs, let alone double the necessary hardware to run it, if in fact they are the same thing. Oblivion has the same framerate as Fallout 3 on the console, so why would it be different hardware from the Oblivion to fallout 3 on PC if in fact they are not vastly different from each other.

The thing is fallout 3 isn't out yet, but my best guess for the specs to have jumped that far up compared to not only Oblivion but the 360, then there using a different shader model, different lighting, different textures, and possibly many, many more things differently that requires that hardware change. From the looks of things they are focusing on console gamers in the videos but I know that what they have done is made the PC version superior to it's little console brother. Why?

Well, Bethesda Game Studios have already stated the next Elder Scrolls will not be on the 360 or PS3 because the hardware doesn't support what they are looking for. They said that.
So I'm guessing they decided to make some more money and port fallout 3 over to console (like they should have done anyway to satisfy console lovers and gain profit) but keep the PC version and improve on that one to show off what they can do, what they have been famous for doing. Pushing it to the limits to impress and show their talents in game design. Such was the case for both Oblivion and Morrowind. 

So if I'm wrong, I still think the console will look different and I can play it no problem what specs they are looking for, but that's more than likely the case, they made the 360's from the PC's version but improved on the PC version where the 360 could no venture.


----------



## Erro (Oct 16, 2008)

Newf, I honestly think I've lost track of what it is that you were going on about. I'm going to lay the blame for that somewhere in the 'tl;dr' area, because I don't believe I've had enough caffeine today to actually sift through all that you said for something resembling a point.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Erro said:


> Newf, I honestly think I've lost track of what it is that you were going on about. I'm going to lay the blame for that somewhere in the 'tl;dr' area, because I don't believe I've had enough caffeine today to actually sift through all that you said for something resembling a point.



I'm just saying the PC version will look better than the console one really, as well the PC version will probably have different shader model, lighting, or larger resolutions on textures and that's why it's taking much more power (from the recommended spec list) to run it compared to the 360. Tis all.

What was that image about by the way? o..o


----------



## Erro (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'm just saying the PC version will look better than the console one really, as well the PC version will probably have different shader model, lighting, or larger resolutions on textures and that's why it's taking much more power (from the recommended spec list) to run it compared to the 360. Tis all.
> 
> What was that image about by the way? o..o


The picture was merely a hardware comparison. Both systems are substantially outdated, but it still stands to show that the hardware is more or less exactly the same.
As far as pc vs. console on graphic content, you are really just looking at how much more money you spent on your rig than on a 360. The 360 is minus all the extra gizmos and gadgets of a pc, and also without the resource hogging of all non-game processes (my OS and background processes take up almost an entire third of my system resources). Obviously, if you have a $400 graphics card, you are likely to be able to turn your graphics up higher than the capability of a non-upgradeable gaming console.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Well I'd like to see a console run crysis for one, as well PC will always, ALWAYS look better than console -any- console ever. 

The only reason a 360 is so powerful is because it makes you think that what it's doing looks amazing but it doesn't even support true 1080p, it bumps up 720 to 1080 basically blowing up the image. PC's don't have to do that and can support much, much higher resolutions. If I were to spend the exact same money on a PC as a 360 I couldn't play games very well but I could do many more things a 360 could never do and all I would have to do is spend $400 on a vid card to allow it to play games better as well. Now we're comparing hardware directly and still because a PC is upgradeable, no matter what price, it will of course be better.

What I was talking about wasn't the hardware from 360 to PC but the games look. People here are stating that Oblivion and Fallout 3 look the exact same, because they both run on the same settings on 360 and have the same framerate on that, why is there such a large jump from settings on a PC to run Oblivion as it is to run Fallout 3, almost double the recommended hardware.

The OP believes its the same engine, same game, cut from console and pasted on PC and believes they are too lazy to make it work and just lease the code in a mess or some other garbage. Now I know that can't be correct, even if the code was a mess the hardware jump is far too large so that makes me believe that it looks vastly different on PC than on the 360, not because of hardware but because of the game itself having better technology and higher resolutions on textures. 

It is -not- the same game from 360 to PC is what I'm saying, the topic starter says otherwise and posts images comparing 360 Oblivion to apparently what 360 Fallout 3 looks like, without the game actually even being out. He says that because the 360 framerate of Fallout and Oblivion are the same, why does the PC have such a large difference in hardware. Now I'm just repeating myself...

But really could they make -that- large of a mistake to basically have the same game take more hardware on the PC but not on the xbox and look the same on both? Really that much of a difference to support a OS as well?

I just can't wait for myself to get a hold of a PC copy and a 360 copy to compare, or some gaming review to show exactly why it's such a large difference.

Yay for boredom and allowing me the spare time to write something so large with basically what I've already said in it!


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, Bethesda Game Studios have already stated the next Elder Scrolls will not be on the 360 or PS3 because the hardware doesn't support what they are looking for. They said that.
> So I'm guessing they decided to make some more money and port fallout 3 over to console (like they should have done anyway to satisfy console lovers and gain profit) but keep the PC version and improve on that one to show off what they can do, what they have been famous for doing. Pushing it to the limits to impress and show their talents in game design. Such was the case for both Oblivion and Morrowind.



No. Just, no.

The Xbrick 360 was their PRIMARY development platform. They use the *same* art assets. 

Oh yeah, and please, do not insult my intelligence by mentioning Oblivion and Morrowind in the same sentence. Morrowind was the last Bethesda game where people with actual *experience* worked. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were done by people with little to no experience in the industry, and it shows.



> I am no child, I know far more about this than you do, clearly. Name a single expletive I said in my posts, here I will do as you did and insult you by adding one. Stop being a dick, dick.


Then you can surely get your point across without sprinkling it with expletives.



> Yup you were. And for all the screaming and wailing, you couldn't keep the folks who created Fallout from going down in flames, or push Fallout 1 or 2's sales numbers to the 1.5 million sold mark, much less 2 and have been so rabid that now the people who hold the Fallout trademark ignore you, other hardcores make fun of you (See Tycho of PA, who is the king of all nerds, other gaming sites, etc.) and all that's left is a circle jerk in a area of the internet who due to you folk's xenophobic nature and rabid foamy mouth goodness will be..irony, a wasteland as new Fallout fans stick to the offical fourms and create new gatherings where you all are not welcome.


FYI, what killed Fallout was Herve Caen's irresponsible decision to cancel Van Buren (which the entire fanbase supported) in favour of the failed FOT2 and FOBOS2. A very irrational decision, considering that it was about 70-80% finished and could be shipped soon.

And, I lol'd. NMA haters are of an uniformly low level, everywhere.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2008)

*sips tea* ...all I learned is I should stay away from Oblivion and FO3, both will kill my PC


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:
			
		

> No. Just, no.
> 
> The Xbrick 360 was their PRIMARY development platform. They use the *same* art assets.
> 
> Oh yeah, and please, do not insult my intelligence by mentioning Oblivion and Morrowind in the same sentence. Morrowind was the last Bethesda game where people with actual *experience* worked. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were done by people with little to no experience in the industry, and it shows.



Exactly...You know everything about everything and everyone.

I showed some images that clearly shows the game looking different in Oblivion, why not you show me how much Fallout 3 sucks and how much the PC version is the same as the console version? Wait, that's right not one single image or clip of the PC version has been released to my knowledge, at all.

You're making things up, completely. The basis of your argument is strictly attacking me and the game company itself. You have no idea what they do or who I am, stop pretending that you do by saying that they lost all their good developers are now gone. Morrowind and Oblivions storyline are linked, of course they are in the same sentence a million and one times, so this makes a -lot- of people dumber than you, even though you mentioned them in the same sentence as well...

You do know that with experience or not they can create something amazing, right? Or is it that -everything- NEEDS experienced developers to be good?

You also misspelled xbox on purpose attacking the xbox. There are only three models of the 360 that have red ring issues, two of those models are famous for it while the third has only a few. With the two versions with errors they covered it up to 3 years outside of warranty with a brand new model, not rebuild. The ps3 has no special coverage for it's brickage, they void the warranty if it does happen, and it has. Just like the Wii witch not many people know about but has bricked as well.

But I guess you know everything and the xbox is the one that bricks all the time, when it haven't bricked once with the new model out and even the previous model that I've see on any board or anyone at all.

How about you compose a argument or some sort of reply without attacking something with clearly biased statements, not one thing you've said so far here has been positive...Just by you saying that Oblivion was worse than Morrowind doesn't make it true, a lot of people would disagree while others might agree, to me they are basically on par while Oblivion looked much better and had some better elements Morrowind had more content but...the combat really sucked.

Not one post that I've read from Bethesda has stated that their primary development platform was on the 360, it might be their primary focus because console gamers are becoming the larger seller, that does -not- mean that they ported it straight from the console to PC.

Again, because you've failed to show me otherwise. I end with the same conclusion, moron.


----------



## ADF (Oct 16, 2008)

It seems NewfDraggie has decided the slight haze in most PC vs 360 comparisons proves the graphics in the entire game were overhauled for PC. I actually mentioned the extra grass draw distance on page one if you look back, tweaking a grass variable is hardly what I would call catering to that platform.

Well he is obviously very passionate about his beliefs; and I honestly cannot be bothered to play 'who can throw the most paragraphs at each other' game. The thread is basically his right now so I'm dropping out of this discussion while I still can. I've said my piece about Bethesda's POS optimisation work, if you disagree with me then I'd wonder how much you know about typical console port requirements; but it appears trying to convince people of my position just results in an argument loop.

So pass the popcorn, I'm joining the audience.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

Slight haze? HA! You don't even know the difference that "Slight haze" makes on performance do you? You have no idea what that even is. God now you think that the games on xbox equal those on PC all together? Wow you're a moron if you think there's no difference between the two on games out for both.

Now I know for sure that ADF is a complete moron and knows -nothing- of games other than what he made up in his head after looking at one game on 360 on a TV and looking at the same game on PC on a MONITOR.

This makes this entire thread pointless, it's like trying to beat sense into a fanboy.

Go ahead, be a moron I don't care I tried to tell you the difference, even show you. But you just don't care what is correct, just what you think is correct.

Any employee of any game company would laugh their ass off at you.
Many people here have completely disagreed with everything you've said so I know I'm not the wrong one here. It seems only one other moron actually agrees with you and just like you he throws biased almost fanboy like sentences out hoping they are correct, that no one that knows the difference will be in this forum.

Like I said before, don't even listen to him. Pick the game up on any platform you want, if your PC can handle it, you will thank me by getting it for that platform to truly enjoy it.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Exactly...You know everything about everything and everyone.



Given that Bethesda themselves stated that the Xbrick is their primary development platform, I don't see your point.

I also _love_ how you get butthurt. Keep it up, you might just amuse me enough to warrant a serious response.


----------



## ADF (Oct 16, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> I also _love_ how you get butthurt. Keep it up, you might just amuse me enough to warrant a serious response.



I'm amused he's treating me like a biased console fanboy, just because I don't share his views that Bethesda of all companies will make the PC version superior.

People who have seen some of my old threads should also get a chuckle at the accusation.

I know I said I wouldn't join in, but a think a quick web search would clear quite a bit up.


----------



## Teco (Oct 16, 2008)

This thread needs to die. Its obviously just generating hate instead of understanding.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

ADF said:


> I'm amused he's treating me like a biased console fanboy, just because I don't share his views that Bethesda of all companies will make the PC version superior.
> 
> People who have seen some of my old threads should also get a chuckle at the accusation.
> 
> I know I said I wouldn't join in, but a think a quick web search would clear quite a bit up.



In your own link.



> The 360 is our lead development platform, so we got it working on that one first,â€ he said. I mean, we develop them all simultaneously, but one of themâ€™s got to be the lead, so it was 360.



Seems contradictory with what you're trying to say, no? Maybe you should read first.


----------



## ADF (Oct 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> In your own link.
> 
> Seems contradictory with what you're trying to say, no? Maybe you should read first.


Contradictory? You mean the part that clearly states "*The 360 is our lead development platform*"? If you are referring to that; then the only contradiction is the argument you are trying to push.

If you are looking at the simultaneous development part; you have to remember they said the PC version of Oblivion wasn't a port either, look how that turned out. Then again you have already decided that wasn't a port didn't you? There's no winning, you simply decide something and defend it to the death, even while looking at that ridicules Oblivion interface and those pathetic facial textures.

Believe what you want, but going around and calling everyone who disagrees with you a moron isn't going to cause converts.


----------



## chronoteeth (Oct 16, 2008)

Man I can't wait for fallout 3! I'm gonna have a lot of fun and care less about another generic bashing thread by adf to which I will get a boring reply to!


----------



## Teco (Oct 16, 2008)

chronoteeth said:


> Man I can't wait for fallout 3! I'm gonna have a lot of fun and care less about another generic bashing thread by adf to which I will get a boring reply to!



There we go. I think we need a friendly Fallout thread here...


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 16, 2008)

I think the game will be amazing anyway, I hope it will at least. It does look to be amazing but the OP just mislead people as have others saying it wont be.

I myself will be grabbing it for PC or if by some amazing power it's better on console, I'll get it for that...hehe...right...


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 16, 2008)

That's what *user made content* is for, to improve or add to the games


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 17, 2008)

*Add*. The game should be finished right *out of the box*.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 17, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> *Add*. The game should be finished right *out of the box*.



IAWTC.

Oblivion could become pretty decent with mods.  But it shouldn't have had to rely on mods to elevate it to the "good game" level.

(Though at least Beth had the foresight to allow for avid modders, like in Morrowind - makes you feel a LITTLE better about dropping 40 bucks on a discful of mediocrity)


----------



## Runefox (Oct 18, 2008)

Cry. Me. A. River.

Seriously. Go buy some more RAM or something.

You yourself said in your opening post that the recommended requirements for Oblivion weren't even close to what you actually needed to run the game nicely. Perhaps, I don't know, they _overcompensated_ this time? You know, so that people wouldn't bitch at them like you're doing here? I mean, that's one thing right there...



> The minimum requirements are actually very close to Oblivions recommended!


Exactly! I'm glad you agree.

Further, just because Oblivion was designed with the 360 in mind doesn't mean that the 360's power is being maxed out by it (nor does it mean the same is happening here, either), which means more complex games might have (gasp) higher requirements. Take Half-Life 2, for example, and then look at other Source engine games that have come since. Half-Life 2 Episode 2 actually has a heavier impact on the system than the first Source game did - More on the screen, more shaders, realistic flashlight, more everything. The engine was tweaked, the mean hardware of the time was advanced, etc. Could it be that the same is happening here?

Or perhaps they really are lazy and they figure they can make a buck or two more by taking bribes from Intel/AMD and NVidia/ATI to push ahead the requirements to increase hardware sales. Frame rate limiters, applying physics to nonsense objects, using unoptimized code... Oh, that must be it. Definitely. Oh, wait.

Don't be so full of yourself. Unless you've fired up the leaked copy and can confirm that its performance is extremely limited on the same hardware versus Oblivion (and I'm talking half framerate, not ten frames off), you don't have a leg to stand on. For all you know, the requirements might actually be accurate this time, versus the fiasco with Oblivion where pretty much nothing of the day was running it properly when it first launched. For all you know (and yes, I mean it), the graphics settings aren't maxed out. For all you know, they could be console screenshots (many companies actually do use console screens for cross-platform games).

Wait for it to launch or grab it illegally (at your own risk) and give it a shot. If it's still slow, then come crying. For now, just freaking wait.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 18, 2008)

Foxes tell it like it is! o..o


----------



## ADF (Oct 19, 2008)

Backing off until someone sides with you huh?

Wasting your breath Runefox, backed out 2 days ago. Responding to what you said would just prolong the argument.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 19, 2008)

You are responding...you're not the most intelligent person I've seen online. Not that your a moron or anything... saying that would be rude. =P


----------



## ADF (Oct 19, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You are responding...you're not the most intelligent person I've seen online. Not that your a moron or anything... saying that would be rude. =P



Responding to their post would be tackling the points they made, which then they would feel the need to defend, which then I would feel the need to justify my criticisms and so on.

Simply recognising the existence of someone's post is not the same as responding to their argument.

You love looking for excuses to throw insults don't you?


----------



## Teco (Oct 19, 2008)

Or you could just go, 'yeah, I assume that is right. I is defeated.' and then we can love you, throw some hugs your way too.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 19, 2008)

x3 *Loves Teco, throwing hugs and pink things his way* More on topic about Fallout is over on the other thread, where it's all cool and hip rather than comparing two games that are years apart from each other.

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=29169


----------



## ADF (Oct 19, 2008)

[edit]

NM, probably do more harm than good.

Anyway I think you are all wrong, you think I'm wrong, let's leave it at that and let this thread rest.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 19, 2008)

> Wasting your breath Runefox, backed out 2 days ago. Responding to what you said would just prolong the argument.


In other words, "NYA NYA NYA CAN'T HEAR YOU NYA NYA NYA I'M RIGHT".

Why do I even bother with you people?

Anyway, you can't deny that the points I've made make sense, and yours, well, don't, really, by comparison. So I'll just accept the default on that one.


----------



## ADF (Oct 19, 2008)

Runefox said:


> In other words, "NYA NYA NYA CAN'T HEAR YOU NYA NYA NYA I'M RIGHT".
> 
> Why do I even bother with you people?
> 
> Anyway, you can't deny that the points I've made make sense, and yours, well, don't, really, by comparison. So I'll just accept the default on that one.



If I did tackle your points this thread would probably go on another two pages, that sound good?

Agree to disagree and be done with it.

I swear, people whined about the thread continuing to go on but refuse to let it die without the ego boost of 'winning' first. It's annoying as hell trying to end the thing when people continue to throw arguments at you, they declare ownage because you won't produce a counter argument *when you are trying to close the thread.*


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 20, 2008)

I agree with fox, I looked at his points and there dead on. You can't argue fact, it's like your are saying the sky is green and he's saying blue but your gonna tackle his argument.

Just admit you were wrong, people will either do one of two things.

A) They will love you, a lot and tell you they love you.
B) The thread dies or people clap, then it dies.


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 20, 2008)

Zoopedia said:


> I wonder how the PS3 will fare.


PS3 is always awesome.


----------



## ADF (Oct 20, 2008)

To hell with it I'll respond to their post, if anyone complains they can see everyone kept pushing for it.



Runefox said:


> Cry. Me. A. River.
> 
> Seriously. Go buy some more RAM or something.
> 
> ...



For the record my system exceeds the recommended requirements. People have this odd idea that just because I am declaring BS on how bloated they are I somehow have a low end machine. Even if I had a top of the line quad core, 4GB ram, 280GTX sli machine it won't change that these requirements are bloated for what you get.

Plus even if they were over compensating they are taking it way too far, so far that it is actually against their interests. A 7900GT was more than enough to max out Oblivion, I know this because that is what I used to run Oblivion not too long ago. So with Fallout 3 apparently making considerable leaps over Oblivion, what would the system requirements be?

What's superior to an 7900GT in every way but costs nearly half as much as an 8800? Not knowing much about ATI's offering aside; the 9600GT. This has zero problems running any of your modern games at respectable settings, assuming sane resolution/AA for the hardware of course. 

You can get a 9600GT for around Â£60 over here; while you are looking at the Â£110 range for an 8800GT. Since the 9600GT destroys console ports at mainstream resolutions, why not recommend something like that instead? Why recommend a GPU that costs around double and alienate your potential audience? People have become accustomed to the idea that recommended is just for enjoyable settings, you always need higher to max it out because developers undershoot to broaden their audience. With an 8800 as the recommended that is going to put allot of potential customers off.

So why recommend an 8800 when the much cheaper 9600GT has proven itself to do the job in every single cross platform game? Maybe it actually needs that 8800?



Runefox said:


> Further, just because Oblivion was designed with the 360 in mind doesn't mean that the 360's power is being maxed out by it (nor does it mean the same is happening here, either), which means more complex games might have (gasp) higher requirements. Take Half-Life 2, for example, and then look at other Source engine games that have come since. Half-Life 2 Episode 2 actually has a heavier impact on the system than the first Source game did - More on the screen, more shaders, realistic flashlight, more everything. The engine was tweaked, the mean hardware of the time was advanced, etc. Could it be that the same is happening here?


You are assuming I am arguing the case of console utilisation not changing since Oblivions launch in 2006, that would be wrong with the amount of evidence available. What I am arguing however is what equivalent should be expected from a PC to run a maxed out console game? Or more specifically based on the graphical changes from Oblivion to Fallout 3, what sort of hardware requirements should be expected to achieve the same on PC? With utilisation differences in mind?

If someone's answer is an 8800, then I recommend joining the console users side in the GameSpot System Wars. Because they are a biased and clueless consolite who thinks a consoles maximum capability is equivalent to a modern PC; and over there is the best place to quickly have their arse handed to them for thinking that way.



Runefox said:


> Or perhaps they really are lazy and they figure they can make a buck or two more by taking bribes from Intel/AMD and NVidia/ATI to push ahead the requirements to increase hardware sales. Frame rate limiters, applying physics to nonsense objects, using unoptimized code... Oh, that must be it. Definitely. Oh, wait.


Don't make up something as silly as a bribe to make up for their optimisation incompetence; then associate it with me in an effort to discredit my position. I've never brought up such a conspiracy theory, my argument is they are either incompetent or don't give a fuck about the PC version now consoles are their best buddies.



Runefox said:


> Don't be so full of yourself. Unless you've fired up the leaked copy and can confirm that its performance is extremely limited on the same hardware versus Oblivion (and I'm talking half framerate, not ten frames off), you don't have a leg to stand on.


Just for the record there is no leaked copy of the PC version, only the supposedly pirate proof console version is up on you know where.

With that said I think I have plenty to stand on. I have the entire history of Bethesda; were they have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to release buggy and unoptimised games. I have Oblivion that to this day runs worse than games that look many times better, just like Morrowind before it. Then comes along Fallout 3 with these ridicules recommended requirements.

All I'm saying is they are continuing to follow their trend of incompetence; with the added incentive of console orientation this time, hence "Bethesda's shitty programming has struck again!". You're the one suggesting they will abandon a trend since 1994.



Runefox said:


> For all you know, the requirements might actually be accurate this time, versus the fiasco with Oblivion where pretty much nothing of the day was running it properly when it first launched. For all you know (and yes, I mean it), the graphics settings aren't maxed out. For all you know, they could be console screenshots (many companies actually do use console screens for cross-platform games).
> 
> Wait for it to launch or grab it illegally (at your own risk) and give it a shot. If it's still slow, then come crying. For now, just freaking wait.



I'm confident we are getting a cut and paste because this is Bethesda, you might as well try to convince me Square Enix is going PC exclusive; the idea is madness. Not only do I think we are getting exactly what the console shots are showing; but I think thanks to Beth we will be using a monstrous amount of hardware power to achieve the same thing.

Truth be told the only way to see is to wait, I'm just doubtful Bethesda is going to change their ways.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 20, 2008)

ADF said:
			
		

> Garbage



Almost everything there was "I" as in only what you believe. No proof. No source. Nothing that even matters, everything that's -just- in your head.


----------



## ADF (Oct 20, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Almost everything there was "I" as in only what you believe. No proof. No source. Nothing that even matters, everything that's -just- in your head.



NewfDraggie if you are so mentally lazy you cannot be bothered to combat the points I made with a counter argument; then don't even bother responding. Summarizing someone's post as garbage, without addressing a single point, is an obvious mental short-cut and just makes 'you' look bad.

Shall I go over the points again? Organised by the points tackled.

*1. *I provided a link to a performance comparison between the 7900GT that I used to max Oblivion and the 9600GT playing every cross platform game fine. Even if Fallout 3's GPU requirements increased considerably; the 9600GT would still provide more than suitable performance. If it honestly recommends an 8800, even with the damage such a recommendation would cause to the potential customer base, then it must need it. If it didn't then Bethesda would make a recommendation that wouldn't damage their potential customer base. 

*2. *Runefox argued the case of hardware performance increasing on static hardware, as hardware utilisation increased so did the PC requirements. Utilisation on PC isn't anywhere near as good as consoles as our hardware is broad, hence why we don't get the same visuals on the same hardware. The problem with their argument is they are not considering limits, even now they don't think the 360 is being fully utilised. They are suggesting that the 8800 requirement is justified because of the utilisation differences between console and PC, they are actually suggesting that the 360 is outputting a graphics level equivalent to a 8800 on PC.

This isn't up for debate, if you honestly think the 360 GPU performance is equivalent to an 8800 on PC and Fallout 3's graphics need that hardware; then go into GameSpot system wars and make your case. I guarantee you will have your arse handed to you, by both PC users and console users who know better.

*3.* Do I really need to say? They made something up and suggested that is what I think. It was an obvious attempt to negate the other persons credibility by associating their ideas with something ridicules, it's like we are running for election or something (My opponent believes ridicules thing X, would you vote for someone who believes ridicules thing X?).

*4.* The entire history of The Elder Scrolls games demonstrating the way Bethesda operates, yep no proof there...

*5.* Are you honestly going to declare who is right about an unreleased game? Their opinion on how it will look/run isn't any more valid than mine, if anything I have Bethesda's history backing me up.


If you plan on declaring BS again NewfDraggie, try to actually point out what you are declaring BS on and why. Maybe then there would be an actual reason to take your opinion seriously, broadly claiming an entire post is trash does nothing for your argument.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> PS3 is always awesome.



The PS3 is IMO a great machine, hardware-wise.  Problem is that supposedly it's a bitch to program for, and getting the most out of that gorgeous hardware isn't easy (supposedly.  The stuff I've been seeing has looked pretty damn good, if the PS3 has MORE to give then I eagerly await it.) The PS3 version should look better than the 360 version by all rights, but it probably won't.  And the PC version will be deliberately hobbled graphics-wise to keep it roughly on par with the 360 version.

more on topic: I can't see any real difference graphically between the two versions of Oblivion, and after playing both PC and Xbox versions I can't see any other kind of difference other than a retarded interface courtesy of the XBox controller (it's funny, really - the game was pretty blatantly designed as a console game through and through, but things like the menus and fine aiming with spells and bows are comparatively wretched with a gamepad when placed alongside keyboard-and-mouse controls.  Can't escape from the PC world entirely, can you, Beth?) The Fallout screenies and vids are similarly identical from console to PC.  They COULD give PC'ers more, but they won't, because they don't want to alienate their new console-kiddie fanbase.



ADF said:


> *4.* The entire history of The Elder Scrolls games demonstrating the way Bethesda operates, yep no proof there...



*QFMFT.*


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 20, 2008)

ADF said:
			
		

> More garbage



Nothing there has links with the game on PC being run and benchmarks with video cards, or reviews on the game from people like Game Trailers or the like... hmm...wonder why...


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 20, 2008)

-_-...you guys still arguing would expect you guys would get sick of it...I seen ADF backing off and I thought it would end...just seem someone just enjoys tossing more fuel to the fire...btw what was the whole point of this topic?


----------



## ADF (Oct 20, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Nothing there has links with the game on PC being run and benchmarks with video cards, or reviews on the game from people like Game Trailers or the like... hmm...wonder why...


So the lack of benchmarks makes my views garbage? You do realise that works both ways right? If the lack of benchmarks make my claims garbage then so are yours. Of course yours are relying on a dramatic change in Bethesda's behaviour; while mine them doing what they have demonstrated time and time again.

You're just relying on your 'garbage' summarization because you cannot be bothered to respond to my points directly.



Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> btw what was the whole point of this topic?



It was basically a "look everyone, Bethesda screws up again" topic. Bethesda has a history of releasing buggy/badly optimised games and I felt their recommended requirements for Fallout 3 took it to a whole new level. Forget the LOD bug in Morrowind or Oblivion's unstable frame rate, Fallout 3 is recommending a Crysis level system for a console port. Being a bit narked off at Bethesda for their console orientation in Oblivion/Fallout 3; seeing the console version pirated long before the PC version was also quite amusing.

It became a lengthy argument when people decided an 8800 was reasonable for a console port, their various justifications for this scattered throughout the thread. Being a dedicated PC gamer; I know what a 8800 is capable of and it is vastly more than what Fallout 3 is demonstrating. If Fallout 3 really is recommending an 8800 for console visuals, it is significant failure on Bethesda's part.

At this time we are in a bit of a loop, everyone disagrees with each other but are unable to produce the solid evidence (Fallout 3 benchmarks/confirmed PC screens) to prove their argument. I took note of the endless paragraph throwing competition the thread had turned into and tried to pull out, you saw how that went.

I'd like to stop this now, but if I do they all get together and declare I'm an idiot/moron for not countering their most recent arguments. I might as well try and get this locked, though I'm sure they will claim I'm doing it solely to avoid my existing argument from being responded to :roll: 

We all have better things we could be doing guys.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 20, 2008)

Locked by request of OP.


----------

