Face-Off: Fallout: New Vegas

By Richard Leadbetter Published 30 October, 2010

The epic adventure analysed on PS3, 360 and PC.

Page 1 of 3
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 4.8GB 9.75GB
Install 4.8GB (optional) 4570MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM,7.1LPCM

As the HD console generation has matured, gamers have been spoiled by developers looking to push the hardware in new and exciting directions, using the experience they have gained to make games that look better and play better.

Bethesda will know exactly what we're talking about. The engine that powered The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was substantially upgraded before it resurfaced in Fallout 3, Oblivion 360's paltry 1024x600 resolution upped to native 720p, anti-aliasing doubled from 2x to 4x MSAA, with overall performance improving too.

It's somewhat remarkable therefore that Fallout: New Vegas has seen no technological improvements over its predecessor whatsoever. It's the exact same engine seen in Fallout 3 and over and above the many reported bugs, it's a real shame that the game looks and feels so old. Performance could and should have been better for a sequel of this quality, graphical disparities and limitations should have been sorted out - but weren't, and performance issues that PC gamers have had since the Oblivion days still remain unresolved.

Thankfully, in a title like this, content is undoubtedly king, and Bethesda/Obsidian have handed in a truly remarkable game. From a technical perspective, the question is whether there's really anything we can add to original Fallout 3 Face-Off. Let's begin with the base assets: a triple-format comparison gallery, along with a series of head-to-head movies, kicking off with the HD console comparison.

Console comparison of Fallout: New Vegas. Use the full-screen button for full resolution or click on the EGTV link for a larger window.

In terms of the make-up of the basic framebuffer, nothing has changed from the launch of Fallout 3 two years ago. Both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions operate at native 720p, the difference being in the implementation of anti-aliasing. The Microsoft platform enjoys the very best hardware AA solution the Xenos GPU has to offer, with full on 4x MSAA being implemented. The PlayStation 3 game suffers in comparison, with absolutely no AA being implemented at all.

Performance-wise, the game is something of a mixed bag. There's little doubt that generally speaking the Xbox 360 version is the smoother experience, but it has a number of blackspots where frame-rate dives and it can be prone to screen-tear. There's also an argument that the experience is smoother compared to the PS3 game not so much because of the rendering, but because of the background streaming.

All three versions of Fallout: New Vegas are prone to slowdown and stuttering as background data is spooled in (even the PC game, running from an extremely swift Samsung F1 hard drive, is affected) but unfortunately it's the PS3 game that is most obviously impacted, sometimes with two or three second pauses where the action completely locks up as the engine seeks to spool in more data.

This is somewhat bizarre bearing in mind that Fallout: New Vegas dumps a whopping great 4.5GB of game assets onto the hard drive via its mandatory install - presumably to cut down on access times - yet it is the 360 version that is clearly well ahead in this regard, even when running from DVD.

So let's take a look at the game running in order to get a handle on what's gonig on here. There are two movies to take a look at, each illustrating a different element of performance. In the first we're trying to get to the bottom of the streaming issues in the game. The first major landscape traversal sees you leaving the opening area of Goodsprings and travelling cross-country to the near convict-occupied town of Primm. It's a simple enough route - you just follow the highway. Here we cover the first leg of the journey before your character is ambushed by bandits.

This performance test concentrates on the impact background streaming has on the fluidity of gameplay as you journey between Goodsprings and Primm.

To begin with, all looks fairly level, but by around 15 seconds into the video you can already start to see momentary pauses in the PlayStation 3 version as more data is loaded in. In comparison, the 360 copes that much better, with just the odd torn frame to signify that something is going on in the background.

However, at around the two-minute mark (where the video thumbnail is taken), we see a pause of a couple of seconds on PS3 and the arrival of a mammoth amount of torn frames on the Xbox 360. It seems to be the case that the introduction of a couple of opponents to square off against impacts gameplay performance substantially. It strongly suggests a pretty woeful internal asset management system.

A selection of gameplay analyses, including more landscapes and combat in Boulder City.

Taken as a whole, the Xbox 360 version of Fallout 3 is the better performer, but neither game acquits itself with much aplomb. On landscape traversal in particular - a big part of the Fallout experience - the 360 version maintains 30FPS on a much more consistent basis, though it's clear there are still elements here that can cause glitching and stuttering.

The fact that the 360 game drops v-sync when frame-rate dips below this target is an issue, but the impact of the screen-tear varies. As the game is pretty slow-paced and the difference between one frame and the next is rarely that different, the tearing is often unnoticeable. There are areas where it is an issue (Freeside in particular springs to mind), but across the run of play the combination of smoother frame-rate and faster streaming leaves the PS3 version looking rather jerky in comparison.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (78) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • menage #1 1 year ago

    It's and old engine, and made by a team which can't do polished stuff. Comparing an already shitty quality (technically speaking) release seems a little pointless.

  • StooMonster #2 1 year ago

    Is there a hi-res graphic pack for PC like there was for Fallout 3?

  • DavidBoring #3 1 year ago

    really disappointing - i would have been totally content if the graphics (polygon-models, textures, etc) had not been improved but if they had worked on the overall smoothness of the game.
    Edited by 1 at 30/10/10 @ 10:47

  • onyxbox #4 1 year ago

    I don't think anyone went into this game for the graphics... Fallout 3 was never about the graphics but it's both interesting and slightly disappointing to see virtually nothing has been improved in the engine after all this time.

  • Irien #5 1 year ago

    Can the PC version be played with the 360 controller (for windows)? This gives the best of both worlds (high quality PC graphics, with the convenience of sitting back on the sofa) in games that support it.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #6 1 year ago

    It really seems that most of the problems are caused by an aging engine. It's quite irritating to read about having to play around with ini files on the PC version to get a smooth experience. I do this at work every day and I really don't want to do this at home when I want to play a game as well.

  • GitSomE_UK #7 1 year ago

    @der_tolle_emil

    I agree with this it's one of the main reasons I switched to the consoles and didn't bother to upgrade my PC gaming rig. I just couldn't be arsed troubleshooting for entertainment as well as work.

  • flanker22 #8 1 year ago

    great analysis especially weighing stuttering vs tearing. lots of other aspects which other comparisons have failed to mention. you guys really are so far ahead of the rest of the gaming media outlets.

  • flanker22 #9 1 year ago

    @Irien

    yes you can, if you plug in an offical xbox controller it will actually populate all the xbox controls as well.

  • StooMonster #10 1 year ago

    @Irien: that was how I played FO3 too. After my failed attempt to love FO3 with keyboard+mouse and leaving it alone for months, it was playing with Xbox 360 controller and my second attempt that turned into a massive love in with the title.

    (I've got FO:NV on Steam but haven't downloaded it yet, too much work to finish first)

  • Zastai #11 1 year ago

    exclusive dlc made me postpone buying this for my ps3. at this rate i'll only get the GOTY edition

  • bf #12 1 year ago

    This is exactly why I'm waiting for a GOTY release of FO:NV. A game made by one bug maestro studio on the tech of the masters in the field is not a full price day one purchase, regardless of the actual quality of the game-play.

  • Lord_Gremlin #13 1 year ago

    Who cares, it's broken anyway - it crashes on all 3 platforms. Face-off... Shove your face-off where the sun don't shine.

  • obscured021 #14 1 year ago

    I always sit on my sofa when playing pc games and i almost always use my mouse and key board, bar driving and fighting games, its very easy to connect your pc to your tv and sound system, and 99% of pc games dont take any messing around with to get them working, ive been pc gaming for 20 years and never had many issues with it. i cant say the same for the hardware trouble i had with my ps3 and 360

  • des #15 1 year ago

    "Compared to Castlevania it's a hilarious trip down memory lane with blocky and ropey textures/polygons."

    Too bad that Castlevania turd runs at 20 fps.

    Fallout:New Vegas is far better game that overhyped turds than DF is praising,even graphically.
    Edited by 2 at 30/10/10 @ 16:31

  • layleeloo #16 1 year ago

    I like the way they determine which console to get it on related to DLC. Well what if like me you dont give a toss about DLC? What then? I am a simple man and I can't make my mind up. I need to be told what format to get it on by a website. I just dont know? Is it determined by which machine I like the look of? The pad I like best? The console with the most fanboys? Oh who knows?!?!

  • Monkey_Puncher #17 1 year ago

    This engine was fine for Oblivion and to a lesser extent Fallout 3. But Bethesda really need to have an engine overhaul for whatever their next game is (please let it be Elder Scrolls!).

  • makeamazing #18 1 year ago

    They really need to dump this engine now, its really creaky. Graphically it looks ok, and to be honest i think most people who play these games dont mind the oldie school graphics, but performance and bugs are just extreme, and it seems they havent fixed any of the major issues that were present in FO3.

    I suspect this was a quick cash in while the next game on a new engine is worked on. Not saying this game is bad, i am enjoying it, but some of the bugs are really quite extreme, and that is down to the engine (and so being difficult to fix) rather than quality control.

  • Vanmunt #19 1 year ago

    you can't polish a turd.

  • funkateer #20 1 year ago

    From the article:
    "There are examples of smarter compression on the 360 version: the developers use XMA audio (effectively interchangeable with the PC WMA codec) while the PS3 version uses the older MP3 standard"

    There are some problems with this statement.

    For one, it makes it look like WMA is better than MP3, which is not the case. Actually WMA has a longer history than MP3, and MP3 has not been a static non-evolving format either.
    Only at extremely low bitrates, it can be argued that WMA offers less horrible-sounding compression. FO:NV certainly doesn't employ such low bitrates though.

    From 128kbps and up MP3 using LAME sounds better than WMA. Microsoft's claims that WMA sounds better than MP3 at half the bitrate has been debunked a few times using impartial studies.

    More compression is not the same as smarter compression.

  • youhavenomail #21 1 year ago

    Well, from that video it looks like the 360 got the carpet from PS3's Ghostbusters.

  • Gaol #22 1 year ago

    I played FO3 on PC, but had to get FNV on PS3 (long story). The PS3 version is acceptable but the main difference for me is one I didn't see mentioned - load times. After playing for many hours, the PS3 can be 10 seconds or more between zones, while on PC FO3 was never more than a few seconds. This gives the PC game a huge advantage in retaining immersion.

  • Andeus #23 1 year ago

    For those above that didn't get it or misread: You don't need to mess with .ini on PC to get it working, it says you will mess with .ini files if you want to workaround the technical problems that plague all 3 platforms. Its just that on PC you can just edit files and thus get a performance workaround yourself instead of waiting for a patch-fix. So if you prefer to play on a console than a PC solely for that reason then you are silly (for lack of better term :p ) since you are gonna get those performance issues and you won't be able to do anything about it plus worse graphics.

    I play it on PC (full AA,AF, Ultra High settings), works fine out of the box and haven't found any game-breaking bugs up to now. Only the occasional frame drop when it streams data and a bug where a wandering-random-NPC in the Mojave Outpost was "typing" without having a computer on his desk.

    So, it works great for me, maybe I'm just lucky.
    Edited by 2 at 30/10/10 @ 12:48

  • Stop-gap #24 1 year ago

    In my attempts to get the PC version of NV running properly I've fallen back to a few F3 fixes. Really, really lazy to include bugs which were identified years ago and take 30 seconds of .ini editing to curb, Obsidian.
    For the record F3 gave me no trouble.
    Edited by 1 at 30/10/10 @ 12:59

  • UncleLou #25 1 year ago

    Yeah. I have a lot of respect for Obsidian, and I hesitate to call devs "lazy", but why do I have to install exactly the same UI mods and tweaks to make it usable? The same HUGE console fonts, mouse lag/acceleration issues and whatnot. I understand how bugs can happen, particular in such a comparatively complex game, but I don't know why I need to take care of even the most basic polish myself to make it bearable.

  • bladdard #26 1 year ago

    Why again is DF quizzing the devs for the poor 360 textures but couldn't care a less that the streaming issue in the PS3 could be easily solved by streaming from the HDD and the spe's could have been utilised to implement MLAA?
    A lazy port is a lazy port regardless of platform and what could have been better on the 360 could also have improved on the PS3 if the devs had the desire or funding.

  • karooo #27 1 year ago

    It looks shit on all platforms

  • brod #28 1 year ago

    Good to see proper 1080p comparisons for PC vs console this time.

  • waynenot #29 1 year ago

    I can't imagine the nightmares DLC will bring, if F3's DLC wobbles were anything to go by.

  • Lunastra78 #30 1 year ago

    I have a suspicion that FNV is akin to Bioshock 2 in that it is a more of an appetizer to keep up interest in the series while the main design team is busy developing a new engine and eventually Fallout 4/Oblivion 2.

    However, I've just started playing FNV myself and I must say it's a great side dish so far.

  • orangpelupa #31 1 year ago

    <strong> 360 version: the developers use XMA audio (effectively interchangeable with the PC WMA codec)</strong>

    if i remember correctly, Xbox 360 not use XMA, but use XMA2. And its not the normal PC WMA. I have tried extracting the XMA2 to pc, its not playable by WMP.
    but maybe it really just an WMA codec put in different header lol.

    btw the low res texture on xbox 360 really looks ugly :(
    oh and glad to see finally DF release video comparison PC in 1080p :D

  • Michformer #32 1 year ago

    Because of the gigantic screen tearing and worse textures on 360, I'll pick the PS3 version. IMO, the streaming problem might be related to the more detailed textures. And the pauses are fine to me, as long as they aren't crashes.

  • orangpelupa #33 1 year ago

    btw can DF or someone tried Fallout NV with PS3 FULL INSTALL?
    using the "open backup manager" on jailbroken PS3.

    maybe it will fix the loading issue? O_o

  • Widge #34 1 year ago

    SO, who hopes iD are going to be doing the Bethesda game engines from now on?

  • technicianTed #35 1 year ago

    If the pc version supported games for windows live so i could add the achievements to my 360 score i would have selected that version 100%.
    But as it doesn't, i'll get the 360 version over the ps3 version.

    I can't stand stutter and pauses and zero AA.

  • uzivatel #36 1 year ago

    Seems like the PS3 version is more ambitious to maintain the PC quality, but it pays the price here and there.
    Anyway, great game + it plays really well even on my HD4250 IGP. Mouse and keyboard however not so good ... I am probably going to replay it on the 360 once the GotY edition is out.

  • Negotiator #37 1 year ago

    The points I made a while back about the PS3 having trouble coping with an open world are once again apparent, its becoming a problem. As game worlds get bigger and bigger the PS3 will fall further and further back, its a crying shame.

  • mkreku #38 1 year ago

    I am playing Fallout: New Vegas on a Core i7 960, Radeon 5870 and a superfast SSD (285 MB/s), but it's still jerky from time to time when the game streams new data.

    I do love the game though.

  • man.the.king #39 1 year ago

    This face-off was unexpectedly fair and lacking in spin.

    Thank you for that, RL.

    As for the game, as with Fallout 3, I'll wait about a year and then buy the GOTY version with ALL DLC included

  • carlosdfn #40 1 year ago

    The coding in this game is a joke. What's a mess like this doing on store shelves?

  • OlMaster #41 1 year ago

    It seems like Obsidian were running to a tight schedule, although they are known for buggy games anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if Bethesda pressured them to focus on content in their brief timescale rather than upgrading their engine. Given that Bethesda are using this awful Gamebryo engine for Elder Scrolls 5 I assume they've been making improvements, but they don't seem to have passed any on to Obsidian.

    It's still an absolutely fantastic game though, don't let this article put you off what is a brilliant accomplishment content-wise.

  • bluetoothion #42 1 year ago

    @ man the king

    I doubt this games leaves any room for spins... i doubt any fan would brag or claim for such thing to be better in their console
    PC get the least mess of versions but still seemed kinda dated.

  • Sunyavadin #43 1 year ago

    I'll keep playing on 360 until I can grab a PC bundle with all the patches and any and all DLC cheaply.

  • DoKtoR #44 1 year ago

    PC!

  • Darren #45 1 year ago

    I bought the PC version and have had no problems with it; it's been 100% stable for the 16 odd hours I've played it and I've only seen a couple of minor graphical glitches such as a dog with its eyes handing out. Runs well considering the limitations of the dated Gamebryo engine. The odd poor texture and terrible animation aside, the graphics look fine if dated. It's a good game but so similar to Fallout 3 that I have to constantly remind myself I'm playing the sequel.

  • TRUTH #46 1 year ago

    This game is waaaaaaaaaaay to similar to Fallout 3, hardly worth the full price as it feels like your playing an extension to the original game...I borrowed this and am 9hrs inn. If people are buying this hoping a new game and experience - be very disappointed!

  • Astro-Creature #47 1 year ago

    "PS3 having trouble coping with an open world are once again apparent"

    Care to explain Just Cause 2 then? Or how about the PS3 version of Oblivion which is superior to the 360 version?

    Yes, you are talking out of your arse.

  • Miths #48 1 year ago

    I had to use the custom d3d9.dll "fix" much talked about on the official forum to get acceptable performance out of the PC version. Without it I would get severe framerate drops into the low to mid 20s as soon as an NPC was talking - in conversation or elsewhere - and my overall framerate was rather low in general even with no NPCs around.
    I'm playing the game at 1920x1200 with most settings maxed on a Core 2 Quad system with a Geforce GTX 260.

    Using the dll file (which, if I've understood it correctly, tricks the game into thinking you have a Geforce 7900 card which then results in some magic that gets rid of the NPC related slowdowns, without any visual trade-offs) improved my framerate substantially and I've now been able to enjoy the game for 25 hours with very few issues aside from a few minor bugs and three or four game crashes.

    And regarding this:
    "... Microsoft has scored a major victory by tying up the exclusive rights to New Vegas DLC. The chances are it's a timed exclusive similar to what happened with Fallout 3. This undoubtedly gives the 360 version an advantage that the other platforms cannot match"

    That's really only relevant if you're comparing the two console versions. The PC version already has hundreds of mods available - I'm currently using around ten and at least a handful of them I wouldn't want to be without, and I'm sure there will be a lot more of those coming - and that really beats even a good DLC pack by a landslide.

  • SG79 #49 1 year ago

    @ Funkateer

    I'm not even sure if the MP3 bit is even accurate. I think it's been mentioned somewhere that Sony uses AAC.

  • RKOwned #50 1 year ago

    Its obsidian, what did you expect? Bethesda really should use ID tech 5 from now on. Its much more a multiplatform engine then the Oblivion engine is. Just a bad port, move along. I think this is just a odd little thing because in recent face offs they have been the same.

  • JahB #51 1 year ago

    While I love the game, I found it appalling that they didn't even try to improve the engine, given that id is part of this publisher.

    Surely a new engine or at least a phone call to carmack would have been possible here

  • chrisola #52 1 year ago

    I was really getting into this game -- then about half an hour ago corrupt saves meant i lost my entire afternoon's play, this really pissed me off as i had found some good weapons and armour whilst exploring in random unmarked areas (even saving regularly in different slots to be safe).

    138hrs in Fallout 3, numerous play throughs of Fallout 1 & 2 --- cannot be bothered with this game anymore -- i can put up with shite gfx and glitches \ bugs but as i;ve said before, corrupt save files i will not put up with.

  • aidey6 #53 1 year ago

    "360's paltry 1024x600 resolution" I wonder if Richard will be using that description when they do a Face-Off of COD:Black Ops.

    I know it's most likely to be running at 60fps, but you'd think they'd at least make it 720p by now, with it being quite a linear game compared to Fallout...
    Edited by 1 at 30/10/10 @ 20:22

  • Soton4084 #54 1 year ago

    I really do want this game, but as a PS3 owner I am incredibly wary. Fallout 3 ran fine for me without any crashes, but the DLC was a different matter entirely... several of the expansion packs wouldn't work at all and the ones that did were terrible for bugs and slowdown. I've heard FO: NV is a similar story, so am regretfully avoiding it until it's cheap. It's a case of once bitten, twice shy.

  • funkateer #55 1 year ago

    @SG79
    "I'm not even sure if the MP3 bit is even accurate. I think it's been mentioned somewhere that Sony uses AAC. "

    Well, I just assume Richard Leadbetter checked the disc and saw MP3 files there. I just wanted to point out the common misconception that WMA is better than MP3, because it's really not.
    XMA does have some specific features (compared to WMA), but that doesn't concern audio quality (nor compression ratios) as far as I know.
    Edited by 2 at 30/10/10 @ 23:14

  • coolbritannia #56 1 year ago

    The comments and content of this article are better than the review in that it's helped me decide to skip New Vegas. Shame really, but I still have Mass Effect 2 to pick up.

  • hellboy1975 #57 1 year ago

    My PC is now 3 years old, it ran Fallout 3 just fine, and now, 2 years and 4GB of RAM later it runs New Vegas pretty much the same without any tweaking. No complaints regarding PC performance from me...

  • beep #58 1 year ago

    Superior rugs on the PS3 version... SOLD!

  • MegaCadet #59 1 year ago

    It is quite baffling how the texture quality is degraded on the X360 yet they aren't limited on RAM budget.

  • technicianTed #60 1 year ago

    "Seems like the PS3 version is more ambitious to maintain the PC quality, but it pays the price here and there.
    "

    They've tried that on a few ps3 games in the past, moving away slightly from the 360 version and trying to match the pc version.
    I remember them trying it on the last tomb raider 3d game(underworld?). The ps3 engine looked much nicer than the 360 version which used the old TR legend engine, but unfortunately the ps3 framerate stuttered terribly at times on TR underworld.
    It did graphically look much closer to the superb pc version though, but the 360 version was a lot smoother.

    Depends what you prefer really, scaled back graphics but better performance, or better textures but far more issues regarding framerates and pauses.
    Horses for courses really, but i'll be getting the 360 falloutNV over the ps3 version(for my own personal reasons).

  • RKOwned #61 1 year ago

    I think this engine is just a bad multiplatform engine.

  • Caimbeul #62 1 year ago

    Really not that much of an improvement for the PC version...dissapointing. At least the frame rate is well over the paltry rates on console versions though

  • kongzi #63 1 year ago

    Fallout is the most fun I ever had with a game this bad.

  • Widge #64 1 year ago

    It sounds the same as Fallout 3 performance wise for the PS3. I pumped hours into that with no issues so will be happy to grab this when it goes GOTY.

  • PJL101 #65 1 year ago

    For PC players: This file helped improve performance for me

    http://ww w.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/f...

    Running an I5 3.8ghz / ATI 5850.
    Edited by 2 at 31/10/10 @ 17:19

  • jackdoe #66 1 year ago

    It's kind of funny that Richard blatantly says that the 360 version should have the same resolution textures as the PS3 version. When it very well could be that those crappier textures lead to the marginal perfomance gains that the 360 version experiences. Seriously, that is a stupid aspect of the article. Hell, he doesn't even try to explore why the PS3 version might perform worse!
    Edited by 1 at 31/10/10 @ 17:58

  • womble #67 1 year ago

    This is a game that I REALLY want to like. But let's be honest: it looks like arse.

    When there's sandbox games as good looking as Red Dead Redemption (or Halo Reach for that matter) or as interesting as Borderlands, it's pretty hard to take a title like this one seriously.

    Oh, and the load times and loading frequency on this sucker? Awful. As in Dead Rising awful.

    I know it's politic to say that graphics are unimportant. But for a game like this, they really are. Games of exploration should reward your senses. This game offends the senses in too many ways.

  • womble #68 1 year ago

    @ jackdoe: maybe you should write your own face-offs, publish the URL here for all to see. Then we can see where you get it consistently right, and where Richard (supposedly) gets it wrong.

    Richard is one of the fairest technical reviewers around. He's no fanboy, and genuinely loves the tech behind games.

  • jackdoe #69 1 year ago

    @womble: The part that I am referring to has very little to do with the tech in Fallout New Vegas and is a lot of supposition in that he believes that there can be a texture improvement while maintaining the performance bonus over the PS3 version. That is what I take issue with and that is an aspect that has plagued many of these face offs.

    Whenever the PS3 version of a game has a leg up in a specific aspect of the game, he automatically goes into a little tangent about how the 360 version should have been equal to the PS3 version in that regard. The facts regarding the differences actually present are extremely sound. It's just his opinions on these specific things that I don't agree with.
    Edited by 2 at 31/10/10 @ 23:06

  • FuzzyDuck #70 1 year ago

    Dated looking but stable engine + good game = sale.

    Dated, unstable, bug-ridden mess = money goes (well it has gone already) elsewhere.

  • KasperFauerby #71 1 year ago

    As it's often the case there are many good reasons for the limitations seen in the Xbox version. To address two specific points, from a technical point of view:

    "360's paltry 1024x600 resolution"

    Many games does this, and it's (IMO) due to a stupid design decision from Microsoft. The X360 has 512MB of unified memory, but also a 10MB block of GPU memory (EDRAM). This block is meant to hold the frame buffers used for rendering the game. However, lets look at the memory consumption of buffers that are 720p, in 32bit.

    One buffer takes up 1280x720x4 bytes, which equals 3.51MB.
    *Three* buffers then takes up: 10.54MB!

    From the calculations above you can see that the Xbox can only handle render paths that uses just two buffers at a time - a back buffer and a Z-Buffer. This is a very old-school approach to rendering, and almost every single modern engine needs at least 3 buffers.

    The solution to this is, for many developers, to simply scale down the resolution a bit. The mentioned 1024x600 buffer size means that each buffer now takes up: 1024x600x4 = 2.34MB while (roughly) maintaining the same aspect. Using down-scaled buffers it is now possible to implement a modern render pipeline on the X360.
    Obviously MS should have done a little math before settiling on 10MB GPU ram for a 720p device :)


    "It is quite baffling how the texture quality is degraded on the X360 yet they aren't limited on RAM budget."

    Again, this is not quite true. It's correct that the X360 has unified memory - but the flip-side is that it has very strict requirements for how textures are placed in memory - which leads to a lot of "wasted" memory. A few more details:
    A texture actually consists of a number of images - the top-level, full resolution, texture - and then a number of mip maps (to avoid flickering when the texture is downscaled in the distance). On the X360 each of these mip levels must be placed on a 4kb memory boundry! And all mip-levels from 16x16 texels and down is packed into a so-called "mip tail", which is stored in a 32x32 memory block.

    This all sums up to a very large amount of memory being "wasted" due to these alignment requirements. It's as good as impossible for the developer to use these tiny blocks of wasted memory for anything usefull, but as I said it really sums up.. especially in games that has a lot of unique content.


  • KasperFauerby #72 1 year ago

    I think another point, that was not apparent from my previous post, is that one should keep in mind that even though time has passed since Oblivion/FO3 - the hardware in the target platforms remains the same!

    Therefore it's maybe a bit unfair to make demands about how certain problems should now have been fixed, just because time has passed. There is no amount of cleverness and code trickery that'll make 10.54MB of data fit into a 10MB block of memory :)

  • technotica #73 1 year ago

    I have it for PC too, but I get micro stuttering when moving (no idea why, I use a GTX295 but it happens with multi gpu turned off too) and sometimes the game just stops for a second or two and then resumes (and thats even though I have 12GB (I know far more than useable) RAM and a fast HDD).

    Still I haven't played another game, besides FO3 as much as I played this, the world is just so immersive (big part of that is the first person perspective thats properly implemented here) that you can play on and on... :)

    p.s.
    I do wonder why first person is dying so badly, why is every game nowadays in 3rd person? Even first person shooters come in 3rd person nowadays! *cranky old grandpa voice*
    Edited by 2 at 01/11/10 @ 11:02

  • apoc_reg #74 1 year ago

    Content is king but its not the whole kingdom. A 9/10 in this state is madness

  • SpaceViking #75 1 year ago

    RKOwned
    #69
    "I think this engine is just a bad multiplatform engine."

    I think it's just a bad engine.

  • Stop-gap #76 1 year ago

    @technotica

    have you dropped in the "fixed" D3d9.dll?
    have you gone into your nvidia control panel and made sure power management is set to max performance?
    the game seems to very much prefer to have vsync and AA turned off too for stability

    these fixed game speed issues for me

  • technotica #77 1 year ago

    Stop-gap

    The d3d9.dll files helps get the frames to 60 but it doesn't help with microstuttering or pausing :( I'll have to look at the nvidia performance setting and turn off AA and see if that helps, thanks for the help :)
    Edited by 1 at 02/11/10 @ 13:39

  • KasperFauerby #78 1 year ago

    @Dan

    Yes, that's what they could try (or 16bit for that matter) - for some of their buffers at least. Not all types of buffers supports being in 24/16bit. It obviously depends on what they want to store in them :)
    While it's *technically* possible to use a 16bit ZBuffer, for instance, the resolution would be so poor that you would see clipping/sorting errors in the background.

    Effectively they could try to come up with some sort of compression scheme for the data in their buffers, and then pay a price in their pixel shaders to unpack the packed data when they need it. Or they could try to reduce the amount of data they need. Or they could use more "passes" in their render pipeline (the 10mb limit is simply how much data can be available at the same time)

    Since the article mentions that FO3 actually runs 720p natively they probably found a way to do something like that.

    My point was that in many cases the *best* solution is to use a sub-720p resolution! You sacrifice a little resolution, but the overall picture quality and performance of the game can be higher, since a more advanced render pipeline can be run.

    Another point is that people should not be so quick to assume that the devs are simply morons if a certain game doesn't run 720p. First of all there are good technical reasons for why it's done, and secondly chances are that the devs have considered pros and cons of that solution more than the average gamer :)