Fallout: New Vegas; PC vs Xbox360

AnAngelsDeath

AnAngelsDeath

Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
813
Been reading some reviews about new vegas and am planning to picj it up for my xbox360 (would prefer to get it for PC but my PC got stolen when my apartment got broken into so until i can afford to build a new PC i only have my PS3 and Xbox360) and according to most reviews the PC version is better, which I assumed it would be but for example, gamespot gives the 360 version a 7.5 and the PC version an 8.5 , so i was curious why the PC version got a whole 1.0 better. When it came to Fallout 3, i had it for both PC and 360, and they were exactly the same except the PC had better graphics and of course using the mouse and keyboard and the ability to create and use, custom mods is what made the PC version better but other then that it was the same and it got the same scores on most review sites. So whats so different with new vegas that it gets 1.0 more then the console version? I only ask cause i'm wondering if I should just wait a few more months til i build my new PC, to get new vegas or if it would still be good on the console. I liked fallout 3 for the console which is saying a lot cause i love rpg's on my pc, over my consoles. And I've been playing fallout since the first one came out when i was 11 or 12 ( damn im getting old lol) so i was just curious on the difference
 
Yeah, it's just the mods. Plus (obviously) it can look better if you have the hardware. The 360 version definitely has some choppiness and framerate problems here and there, too.
Lastly - this is a Bethesda game. While I love 'em to death, they're known for being buggy as hell. On the PC version you have mods and command lines to fix problems. On a console you just have to pray that they patch the game.
 
What Domingo said. Explained really well.

I'm not sure why the reviewers didn't feel the same about Fallout 3. Maybe they are now older and wiser as they know how Bethseda games work (the good, the bad, and the workarounds).

I doubt there is any other explanation.
 
AnAngelsDeath said:
gamespot gives the 360 version a 7.5 and the PC version an 8.5 , so i was curious why the PC version got a whole 1.0 better.
Click to expand...

From their PC review:
Nevertheless, striking lighting, smoother edges, better overall performance, and shorter loading times than on consoles make Fallout: New Vegas on the PC stand tall.
Click to expand...

From their Xbox review:
Not to mention frequent crashes on both consoles and corrupted game saves, which might cause you to lose progress. In addition, the longer you play, the slower the frame rate gets (on the Xbox 360), or the more noticeable the screen tearing and frequent pauses become (on the PlayStation 3).
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, what they're saying is pretty spot on. I'm actually on the 360 version just because I like to chat with my friends while playing, but it's definitely not the better version. I've gotten 3 hard-locks, a few quest bugs, and it definitely has hitching issues and long load times.
However one fun tip to make the game look/run better is to use your TV's 120hz/240hz option (if you have it). That's the option to add extra frames to smooth out motion. It looks weird with movies, but in FPS games on a console it makes the game look like it's running at double the framerate and it also cuts down on hitching, too.
 
I had both. On a good PC, the graphics are like night and day. New Vegas was very unimpressive on 360. Toss in mods, patches, tweaks, ect... its a no brainer.
 
I've heard of constant crashing on the 360 version and I've had 1 crash on the PC version through 23 hours of game play.
 
PC: Better graphics, shorter load times (this is a big deal! Running quests for the Kings on xbox results in several 1-minute load times followed by running 50yards and another 1-minute load!), console to fix bugs/broken quests, mods. If your pc can play this game it's a no brainer.
 
This topic is laughable.



PC = Mods = better gaming experience.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It's an Obsidian game :confused:

Bethesda only published.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that. But as far as base resources go, it's a Bethseda game. If you go into the New Vegas GECK, you'll even see references to legacy Elder Scroll stuff all over, down to outright names. The NPC slowdown issue? That's old stuff before Obsidian came along.
 
phide said:
It is a Bethesda product. Obsidian was a contracted developer.
Click to expand...

Correct, but the reason it is better than Fallout 3 is because Bethesda didn't develop it.
I agree that what makes it much better on PC is the insane mod-ability and massive list of Bethesda assets, though.

My buddy has a copy for the 360... the load times are retardedly bad
 
When it comes to the amount of customization options, support from Bethesda & the modding community (NewVegasNexus.com and others) the PC version stand head and shoulders above the console version.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Correct, but the reason it is better than Fallout 3 is because Bethesda didn't develop it.
I agree that what makes it much better on PC is the insane mod-ability and massive list of Bethesda assets, though.

My buddy has a copy for the 360... the load times are retardedly bad
Click to expand...

Totally agree that Obsidian is the reason NV is better. They are the biggest underdogs with buggy chips on their shoulders. If they can figure out the fine art of polish, I'd put them in a pedestal above Bioware. (and I really like bioware a lot). NWN2 and NWN2:MOTB and the pre-ending of KOTOR2 shows that they are masters of writing.
 
people sound like a broken record. thread should have been closed after the first reply lol. pc no contest.

consoles are ageing, they are shit now.
 
Mods
Faster patching
Better graphics
Better frame rate
Better control system

PC, obviously.
 
Why is this even a question? Mods plus community bug fixes/patches before Bethesda/Obsidian get to it FTW!
 
Yea, i'm used to the bugginess of Bethesda games. Morrowind wasn't too bad PC, but Oblivion was pretty bad, especially on console, I only play that game on PC, cause of the work-around and patches/tweaks they have to fix the bugs and choppiness. Fallout 3 wasn't too bad i thought tho, i mean like I said, I had it for both PC and 360 (haven't tried it on my PS3, although i do have a copy of it) and I doesn't seem to bad. One game I noticed that has a lot of Quest Bugs on consoles is Far Cry 2, I can never finish that game, cause I always get to this one quest, that tweaks out and wont let me complete it so I get stuck. Pisses me off. I really liked that game too. I'm gonna try it out for PC tho and see if its better. Can't wait to build a new PC, I love my consoles, but i'm an Original PC gamer, thats what I started out on (actually i started out on a commodore64, that was my first gaming platform, then I got a PC and NES, and the rest is history lol), and I love building PC's, I was sad when my PC got jacked. But I was happy that they didn't jack any of my Guitars and Amps tho, i would really been crying then !
 
Obsidian do have a bit of history of releasing not-quite-finished games; KOtOR II, for example
 
Even after dozens of patches there were still a ton of issues with Fallout 3 and Oblivion. When a game is that wide open and big, there's just no avoiding it.
 
All of the animals I encouter that have more than 2 legs to walk dont walk on their legs. They either walk in the ground or in some diagonal or vertical position. Keeps taking away my headshots on the 360 version.
 
I got NV for ps3, but since i played F3 on pc, it just seem bleh, I mean its really addicting, but there's really not much to say about the console versions, if you enjoyed F3 than you will probably enjoy NV.

Like everyone says, mods are a great thing, not to mention the graphics wont look like complete crap on a PC.

Its not a bad thing to own it on a console, but you get soo much more with the pc version.
 
Domingo said:
Even after dozens of patches there were still a ton of issues with Fallout 3 and Oblivion. When a game is that wide open and big, there's just no avoiding it.
Click to expand...


Actually there is, if they cared enough to spend the money. It's funny how fans can find and fix all the problems, but the PROFESSIONALS, who should be even better, cannot be bothered. While i understand that fixing every bug prior to release is never gonna happen, at least follow up and support the game produced.

Bethesda could do better, but why should they when they can release crap, get paid, and have unpaid fans fix all the problems for them?
 
spugnor said:
Actually there is, if they cared enough to spend the money. It's funny how fans can find and fix all the problems, but the PROFESSIONALS, who should be even better, cannot be bothered. While i understand that fixing every bug prior to release is never gonna happen, at least follow up and support the game produced.

Bethesda could do better, but why should they when they can release crap, get paid, and have unpaid fans fix all the problems for them?
Click to expand...

I kinda of agree with spugnor, we shouldn't accept buggy games as a matter of course. I heard that Twilight Princess was a huge open world Zelda, biggest one of all, and it shipped pretty much bug free. It takes time and effort to polish a game and this cuts into the bottom line, so they ship 'em buggy. It's not that bug free games can't reasonably be done, they don't want to take the time to bother. Why should they if gamers don't seem to mind?

For me personally I rarely pick up a title on launch. One reason is the expense of new games, and the other is that so few are really ready for prime time until 6 or 9 months later when all the bugs have been addressed via patching.

The only real down side to this is not playing games when they are hot and popular, but later on when everyone is done with them. So I tend to be an old hat, backwater gamer, playing old news :p
 
RDR was very buggy for me, yet still Rockstar is praised and it sold like hotcakes. I think, based on popularity, some devs are excused for their bugs, right or wrong.
 
The fact that the PC release of a multiplatform game has significantly less problems than the console versions must be some sort of first for this console-generation.

LeninGHOLA said:
RDR was very buggy for me, yet still Rockstar is praised and it sold like hotcakes. I think, based on popularity, some devs are excused for their bugs, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Rockstar was revealed shortly before RDR's release to be telling the "pro" review sites to review the game highly, because of all the "care and hard work they were putting into it".

It made most people take the 10/10s and 9/10s with a grain of salt, after that.
 
"Rockstar was revealed shortly before RDR's release to be telling the "pro" review sites to review the game highly, because of all the "care and hard work they were putting into it

It made most people take the 10/10s and 9/10s with a grain of salt, after that."

This has got to be common practice, I wouldn't expect anything else. I know I would appeal to the reviewers if I were submitting a game to the media to be reviewed. Please give our game a high score, we really worked hard on it. Pretty please with a cherry on top. I am sure IGN and the rest of them get this all the time in one form or another; question is how much are they really swayed by it?

In general I agree the larger and more popular the devs are the more pull they have in influencing scores. Epic, Bethesda, Rockstar, Valve, Blizzard; devs in this league can expect less harsh treatment than some upstart outfit. In a sense they kind of earned it, and I can understand it, but not to excuse horribly buggy games.
 
I would say they are extremely swayed by it if the relevant developers are paying the sites for advertising space. Jeff Gerstmann (now at Giant Bomb) lost his job at Gamespot because he gave Kane & Lynch an unfavourable review, which then led to pressure from Eidos which had been paying the site for advertising to have Gerstmann sacked. Gamespot denied this was the reason for the move, of course.

This is why the review sites have lost a great deal of credibility over the last few years. Since they receive the bulk of their income from game advertising now, they have lost a degree of independence. This is why you usually see the big games net good reviews, because the publishers behind them are advertising the game on their site. It's also why games like AVP got canned (which isn't unreasonable but IMO there have been far worse games this year that got high ratings - Alan Wake, for example) because Sega doesn't advertise as heavily on gaming sites as the likes of MS and Activision.
 
Poordevil said:
I kinda of agree with spugnor, we shouldn't accept buggy games as a matter of course. I heard that Twilight Princess was a huge open world Zelda, biggest one of all, and it shipped pretty much bug free. It takes time and effort to polish a game and this cuts into the bottom line, so they ship 'em buggy. It's not that bug free games can't reasonably be done, they don't want to take the time to bother. Why should they if gamers don't seem to mind?
Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat here with your point here. I think how people look at games from a design perspective is overly simplified, for instance open world games can be very different.

For instance compare GTA (last Zelda game I played was on the N64, so can't comment on the new ones) with FONV. They are both open world, but why does FONV tend to be much more buggy, especially from a scripting point of view in relation to game mechanics? GTA for one is open in terms of the environment, but the game itself is not all that branching, what you do in the first mission of the game from the developers stand point they do not need to worry how it affects the next mission or 5th mission or the last mission really. You cannot kill critical NPCs. There is no real NPC interaction. The entire world essentially is its own "closed system," relatively static and resets itself. This simply from a testing perspective means that there are much less cases to test for.

I've used this comparison before, but if you look at the Stalker series, it is a somewhat more comparable type of open world game (although a smaller scope), and it likewise also has tended to have scripting issues in terms of game mechanics (that fans later addressed as well). Most "open world" types games really only have an "open environment."

There is also likely issues related to how they designed the back end of the game to make it more developer and modder friendly. For instance if you try to make a mod for Bethesda's series based off that engine, you will find it is extremely easy, you don't even need any prior experience modding or codding. Albeit this aspect does not directly effect the end user either positively or negatively, it does indirectly. For instance id tech 4, one reason I heard it was not widely licensed and used by 3rd party developers is that it is not as friendly to design for compared to other engines at the time. And games these days are as much "art" (maybe more so) then coding/programming.
 
I'll agree that properly designed "dialog trees" are incredibly hard to get right, because they take a ridiculous amount of time to test. My biggest problem with bethesda, is that thier game engine itself has issues that should never have made it out the door. Multiple memory leaks, CTD, sound issues. Granted, some of these have been fixed, but how old is this game engine?!?

If the game engine was rock solid, i could easily forgive the occasional odd behavior from an NPC due to the fact that somebody screwed the pooch on a dialog tree. Given the amount of dialog and NPC's in a game like fallout, i can understand that they are going to miss some odd combinations of dialog/actions that simply didn't get tested.

My biggest issues with bethesda, is that they can't seem to make a game engine that isn't buggy as hell. They should probably license something from someone else, and tack on the RPG stuff once they have an engine that can generate the visuals/audio without dying constantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top