Fallout 3 patch boosts 360 graphics

Whats really odd on those raoch pics is that before the patch, the PS3 version actually looked better.

I’d been wondering what that patch did.

That’s not odd, Geki – the PS3 had already been confirmed as looking better. In still shots, at least. When moving it’s a total mess.

Is it really that bad? I’ve noticed a few framerate hiccups in the 360 version over the last 45 hours (zoinks!) but nothing too troubling.

Real gamers stick to Fallout 1&2.

Yeah, it’s pretty shonky Blerk. It’s perfectly playable but the number of framerate drops and floating items one encounters does put a damper on things

Why the obsession with minor graphical differences between systems? I’m playing Fallout 3 on PS3, I’m not running a 360 along side and you know what? The game is awesome. At no point have i felt that PS3 owners got some sort of raw deal. Same goes for the Orange Box which I’ve completed and again found no real issue with. If anything all these posts serve to do is make anyone who bought one sysem dout their purchase. Well frankly if you’re enjoying the games no matter what system you bought you should just be thankful you can. Some countries don’t even get these systems.

@gaz – I played for 12 hours before calling it a day with Fallout 3 and the graphics were fine overall. There is, however, a clear lack of polish for some aspects of the game – outdoor scenes running at under 20FPS and NPCs/enemies not animating or displaying correctly, as well as encountering floating items… I agree that they’re not game-breaking but they do, as I said earlier, put a bit of a damper on things.

I had one awesome moment about 20 hours where I was walking along minding my own business and I hear this noise behind me. I turn around thinking it’s a bad guy and a flaming car wreck falls out of mid-air and smashes into the middle of the desert.

Ah, the Catacultists side quest. Based on this

@Gaz
Did you not know you were having 0.3% less fun than you should have been?

0.3%? Shit.

Seriously though, games development is a nightmare. Xref’d objects can be floating for any one of a million reasons and chances are they’d have been fine right up until the disc went gold. I’ve literally had to reboot my machine when i’ve become stuck in collision or the game has fallen over, but a testiment to how enjoyable this game really is, is that I alsways load up and crack on with it. The scope of this game leaves an enormous space for error in design and technical achievement which few developers have the money or time to cover the quality assurance.

The game is shit.

But, I am shocked Ps3 version LOOKED better.

I can only just see the texture difference now.

it’s not that shit if you play this on PC.

I’m starting to get the impression that you wouldn’t know a good game if it bit you on the arse, Pud.

After loving Oblivion to bits I was surprised that I disliked this one quite as much as I did, but I can tell there’s a good game behind the ugly brown mask

I’m starting to get the same impression from you.

Not saying it’s not any fun, but the ethics when designing it were all wrong and the outcome, the thigns on shelves is taking the piss out of the consumer.

So yeah, depends how you define ‘great game’.

Or for that matter ‘good game’.

Wait, what? Ethics? Things on shelves? I’ve lost you.

what ‘re the ethics defining a good game?

As I said, I don’t think you’d know a good game either.

“Not saying it’s not any fun, but the ethics when designing it were all wrong and the outcome, the things on shelves is taking the piss out of the consumer.”

How exactly?

No_PUDding vs The World.

It’s a game sold on bullet points. You buy it becuase there’s a lot of stuff to do, and it’s the ONLY RPG on any format that is this extensive and free.

You don’t buy it becuase it’s a game, that’s mechanics are superbly well refined, or that it well optimised, or anything any action game is judged on.

It’s judges on the amount of shit you can do.

And as I said, I am not the person to say that’s not fun, and that is basically what a game should be judged on. But I also don’t want to let other stuff slip through the cracks becuase the majority of people do.

The game is awful on so many levels. It’s improved on so many levels from Oblivion, but it’s still awful.

I can’t think of a single thing about it that I was class as ‘awful’. In fact, I can barely thing of anything that I’d class as ‘average’. It’s a superb piece of work on the whole. Yes, there are some niggly bits and pieces (the level cap for one, grr!) but they absolutely don’t detract from the experience as a whole.

What exactly were you expecting it to be, Pud?

That’s not the right question. “What is it competent at?” Is the correct question, I didn’t really expect very much after Oblivion, and it was bought for me, so I didn’t even feel cross about spending money.

Name one thing it is competent at.

To answers your question, I was not expecting, but HOPING, that a large amount of time and effort went into the development that it felt cohesive in one area. It does not.

“It’s a game sold on bullet points.”

Just like every single other game on the planet.

“You buy it because there’s a lot of stuff to do, and it’s the ONLY RPG on any format that is this extensive and free.”

And that’s not part an important part of the experience?

“You don’t buy it because it’s a game, that’s mechanics are superbly well refined, or that it well optimised, or anything any action game is judged on.”

First all, please explain to me why I would judge an RPG by action game standards?

Secondly, what’s not refined about its mechanics?

Thirdly, it seems perfectly well optimised to me. If you know any game with this level of scope that is perfectly glitch free (and in my numerous play-throughs, I’ve only ever encountered one major glitch – guess I’m just lucky), then please show it to me.

Well, it offers a superbly realised open world, for one thing. A massive, streaming play-area without breaks or loading screens. Full of interesting stuff to look at. And a frankly remarkable draw distance with no fogging or apparent cheating, given the scope of the world.

And then there’s all that other really awesome stuff too. That you appear to have missed because you were determined not to like it because you didn’t like Oblivion. Perhaps.

““What is it competent at?” Is the correct question, I didn’t really expect very much after Oblivion”

what was Morrorwind competent at?

Actually I think the game fails on quite a few levels too. I loved it at first but can’t face yet another trudge through too many ammo sapping Super Mutants. There is a lot good about it, but I do find it lacks fun-ness.

No other game is judged or should be sold on bullet points. It’s quality of bullet points or cohesive experience that makes it great.

The game beign extensive and free is an important part to selling it, and is where all the effort went. But GTA4 is far more complex in that regard, and far better optimised.

I only reason I suggested you should judge an RPG by action game standards, is not becuase their mehcanics shoudl be simialr, but because effort needs to be put into every single facet of it’s experience.

You know, Morrowind is one of those games. Larger scope in every single way too. Ofcourse I was playing on PC, and by the sounds of it the Xbox version was pretty nasty.

After about ten hours I was taking out Super Mutants with my eyes shut, DrDamn. You need to concentrate more on guns and aim in your upgrade path.

I entirely disagree that GTA is more complex, Pud. It has a more populated and realistic city, but the mission structure is still the same old basic ‘drive here, get that, drive there, shoot him’. The effort that’s gone into making Fallout 3 a cohesive and believable world is astonishing.

Blerk, exactly what I just said, the only thing you seem to be able to say it’s good at, is stuff that it only does.

It’s good at being full of stuff, it’s good at being a landscape. And as I said, I am not denying that’s fun, but it’s not anything special. It’s not had any real effort put into it.

And what was Morrowind compete net at, ACTUALLY have a fully realised world, with incredible depth in it’s lore, literally no other game I have ever found has had deeper more cohesive lore.

Now, take away the fact I was a TES fanboy. Because I don’t expect anyone who bought that game to understand the depth.

The game (Morrowind) was released a long time ago. Don’t you think Bethesda would have refined their games a little more in this nearing a decade of development?

“No other game is judged or should be sold on bullet points. It’s quality of bullet points or cohesive experience that makes it great.”
I think if they would try putting that much quality into this amount of “bullet points”, Fallout3 wouldn’t come out until 2012.

that’s like saying Fallout 3 needs a story with a quality of MGS.

“No other game is judged or should be sold on bullet points.”

I’m not judging it on bullet points. I said every game is promoted on them. It’s called marketing. *rolls eyes*

“The game being extensive and free is an important part to selling it, and is where all the effort went. But GTA4 is far more complex in that regard, and far better optimised.”

Again, judging an RPG by action game standards. GTA IV and Fallout 3 have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SETTINGS for christ sake. How are they even relatable?

Fallout 3 is meant to be a representation of a barren wasteland, twisted with an early 20th century outlook on the world. And it’s one of the most distinctive settings I’ve ever seen in a game, which is saying a lot considering how overdone the “war-ravaged future” thing has been overdone in video games.

Again, how that relates to GTA IV I don’t know.

“I only reason I suggested you should judge an RPG by action game standards, is not because their mechanics should be similar, but because effort needs to be put into every single facet of it’s experience.”

If I’m playing an action game, I’m usually not particularly interested in how many points of damage my weapon is doing to my opponent. I’m interested in killing him as quickly as possible.

There’s nothing *wrong* with Fallout 3′s gunplay. You seem to fail to realise that if shooting was as fast, brutal and instant as standard action game, there wouldn’t actually be any point to the RPG elements.

“You know, Morrowind is one of those games. Larger scope in every single way too. Of course I was playing on PC, and by the sounds of it the Xbox version was pretty nasty.”

The Xbox version was just as competent as the PC version. The only people who argue otherwise are PC fanboys.

Blerk, the effort gone into GTA4 is literally a full populated city, with individual buildings and a complicated eco-system of persistent AI.

How can you say Fallout 3 has more effort in it? You’re lucky if the AI react to you in that game.

Let me tell you, THAT is why there is the gap between the reviewers and the audience on GTA4. The reviewers realise quite what an achievement GTA4 is on a technical level. It’s art direction is absolutely superb too.

But I shan’t belittle the achievemnt Fallout 3 is on that level. It’s good at being a big open world, full of stuff. People you can talk to.

“The game (Morrowind) was released a long time ago. Don’t you think Bethesda would have refined their games a little more in this nearing a decade of development?”
exactly, it was released a long time ago. don’t you think the amount of effort and time needed to create this game’s world can be compared?

“And what was Morrowind compete net at, ACTUALLY have a fully realised world, with incredible depth in it’s lore, literally no other game I have ever found has had deeper more cohesive lore.”

Fallout 3 doesn’t have those? Oh wait, yes it does.

Michael O’Connor, sometimes you do yourself a disservice.

Ofcourse the Xbox version was worse than the PC version. It applies to every single game on the PC versus console.

Fallout 3 and GTA4 are more than just thematic settings. There is technical work in both of them, and that is the level on which they are comparable.

And if you want to get into the syntax of game design, RPG’s to action games, just tell me. But bringing up a point like seeing amount of damage you are doing is such a ridiculous thing to do.

You fail to realise there is not a lot right with Fallout 3′s shooting. And that was my point, it is not really competent, it’s not fun. And that is the onyl reason we have shooting in games. It’s a mechanic that is fun, due to it’s audiovisual (and kinetic) feedback.

I still don’t quite understand what you think Fallout is missing, Pud.

It’s got a huge world, loads of stuff to do in it, decent mechanics, an interesting story, a non-linear path, a very wide player-determined upgrade path, and it’s hugely entertaining to play.

What exactly do you think is ‘lacking effort’. You keep talking about the ‘lore’, but as far as I can tell there’s bloody tons of it. It’s practically pouring out of every individual character and location.

“You fail to realise there is not a lot right with Fallout 3’s shooting. And that was my point, it is not really competent, it’s not fun.”

did you try using Vatts?

DaMan, no not at all.

One was released almost a decade ago. And one had far more effort put into it, even if it still wasn’t the most enjoyable game.

I don’t think any of you are going to get anywhere because you all seem to be arguing against it being not-fun. I have played the game, and I enjoyed it.

Doesn’t mean I think it deserves it’s high reception on Metacritic. Doesn’t mean I think someone/I should have bought it at full price.

Even though I understand why they did, and why people enjoyed it.

To digress, for none of your sakes, but Blerk, who seems to have let me be, in my craziness. Awful was totally the wrong word. Incompetent would have been a better choice, less hyperbolic.

“Michael O’Connor, sometimes you do yourself a disservice.”

Care to elaborate?

“Of course the Xbox version was worse than the PC version. It applies to every single game on the PC versus console.”

Now see, there’s your problem right there. PC-ism. I didn’t care for Morrorwind’s modding. Other than that, it’s exactly the same game.”

“Fallout 3 and GTA4 are more than just thematic settings. There is technical work in both of them, and that is the level on which they are comparable.”

You can’t compare an RPG by action game mechanics. It’s as simple as that. You can’t complain that Fallout 3 is bad because it doesn’t do things GTA IV does, because some of the things GTA IV would serve no purpose in Fallout’s setting. That goes for every single game, and its individual identity.

“You fail to realise there is not a lot right with Fallout 3’s shooting. And that was my point, it is not really competent, it’s not fun. And that is the only reason we have shooting in games. It’s a mechanic that is fun, due to it’s audiovisual (and kinetic) feedback.”

Care to tell us what’s so *wrong* with its shooting, then?

I don’t know about you, but I certainly found nuking a field of Super Mutants with a Fat Man “fun”. Maybe I’m just easily pleased, eh?

…you didn’t use Vatts?

You ignored the game’s CORE MECHANIC, then complain about it being shit?

Wow…

What’s next? Not pressing X in a shooting gaming and then complaining that you keep dying?

I think he meant “not at all” about Morrowind not taking as much time to develop.

and he’s wrong actually.

Sorry, Pud but you’re wrong. I know opinions are like arseholes and such, but Fallout 3 is clearly about as far from ‘incompetent’ as it is from ‘awful’. You dismiss it as if it’s some ‘knocked-together-in-ten-minutes’ Flash game. You quite clearly dislike it for some reason and I’m cool with that, but the issue is obviously your own and not the game’s.

No it’s not. I am trying to to get wound up here, and that’s not your fault, I know why you think that, but if the development process is anything like Oblivion’s I can tell you for a fact that although it wasn’t knocked up in five minutes flash game, it IS incompetent.

It is a very clever financial investment by Bethesda. And I commend them for that, but in comparison to previous endeavours by them, it’s incomptent in everything but quantity.

And I know it’s a cliche, and it doesn’t really apply here, but, quality over quantity is my ‘arsehole’. It doesn’t apply here becuase it doesn’t get in the way of the game too much for it to be detrimental, but it doesn’t do anything noteworthy either.

For me, Morrowind wouldn’t have worked, unless it had the depth it did. It worked becuase it was alien, and it challenged my concept of a fantasy game. And then when I went to find out more, it was there, and it was cohesive.

Fallout 3, is not like that. It based loosely on previous Fallout lore, even with massive potential for awesome sociological possiblities, it seems to be ripped straight out of Mad Max.

So, by no means am I saying Morrowind is something we should all like more. My opinion, is that it had quality, as well as quantity.

I’m still not understanding what you think is lacking quality. Can you give a concrete example of something that you think is sub-standard in the game?

As for it being ripped straight of of Mad Max, well… quite. Everything’s derivative of something. There’s not much you can do to distinguish one post-apocalyptic America from another. Although I don’t recall many underground vaults or robots in Mad Max, tbh.

“It is a very clever financial investment by Bethesda. And I commend them for that, but in comparison to previous endeavours by them, it’s incomptent in everything but quantity.”

Thank god millions agree otherwise.

Roll on Fallout 4!

“For me, Morrowind wouldn’t have worked, unless it had the depth it did. It worked becuase it was alien, and it challenged my concept of a fantasy game. And then when I went to find out more, it was there, and it was cohesive.”

Morrowind was fun until you had to trek miles and miles to find one person to talk to, then track miles back to talk to another person… and then trek even more miles to do the same.

Not to mention the god-awful quest log.

Two lessons Fallout 3 learned quite well. Ironic since its so so “incompetent” eh?