Fallout 3: Triple Format Face-Off

By Richard Leadbetter Published 7 November, 2008

PS3 vs. 360 vs. PC with video and comparison shots.

Page 1 of 3

One of the most important, and impressive games of the year, Fallout 3's 10/10 Eurogamer score means it deserves intensive Bonus Round cross-platform coverage. There's the usual array of screenshots and videos, combined with an extra dimension of analysis reserved for only the most significant of releases.

At its heart, like Oblivion before it, Bethesda's latest is primarily a PC game, so we thought it only fair to bring this version to the party. Think of it as the ultimate iteration; the game that the console versions aspire to be, and are clearly derived from. Powering the game for the purposes of this feature was a Q6600 quad-core CPU, an NVIDIA 8800GT, 2GB of 800MHz RAM, a fresh install of Windows XP and a bog-standard 80GB hard disk. In short, a relatively inexpensive computer: knock the CPU down to a dual-core and we'd be talking PS3 money. We played at the game's suggested defaults for this level (i.e. 'high' quality) and ramped up the LOD effects on all scenery.

Not surprisingly, Fallout 3 works best on PC. Graphically speaking the game runs - for the most part - at 60fps at 720p on our system, with only the occasional drop in frame-rate. Its fully anti-aliased image, high-quality textures and much shorter load-times are of course welcome, but the game's use of the standard mouse-and-keyboard controls really makes it a pleasure to interface with compared to the console versions.

Navigating through the Pip-Boy is smoother and more intuitive, but it's the combat that benefits most. On the console versions, you're essentially reliant on the VATS auto-targeting system for precision aiming. Not so on PC, where multiple headshots are a doddle using the mouse. This is particularly useful when it comes to finishing off opponents with critical hits to already weakened body parts. On PC, it's a joy to polish off a troublesome foe with just a flourish of the mouse; on console, enemies on their last legs can still pose a deadly threat, especially if you've tapped out the AP points required to power the VATS system.

'Fallout 3: Triple Format Face-Off' Screenshot 1

The most surprising thing about Fallout 3 on console is just how little has been compromised in terms of the actual game content and design. Graphically, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions retain just about everything from the original PC code. Bearing in mind the staggering complexity and overall scale of the maps, combined with the astonishing amounts of detail in the blasted wastelands of Washington DC, this is no mean feat.

So considering the level of achievement that has been attained for both console versions, just how has the PS3 version (and in some places, the 360 game) managed to attract so much negative press? It's an intriguing question, and so we come to the centrepiece of this feature - a three-way video comparison.

A bit like Three Men And A Baby. Sort of.

Fallout 3 on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the action running at 25 per cent speed to retain image clarity. We also have a 360/PC face-off video and one for the equivalent PS3/PC comparison. Please ensure you have the 'High' quality setting selected.

The videos illustrate very well just how close Bethesda have come to achieving cross-platform parity on all three releases in terms of realising this stunning game world. However, running the Xbox 360 version at full-range RGB (as we've done here) lowers the contrast and brightness compared to the other two games. It didn't bother me much particularly, but it did mean activating the Pip-Boy's light in darker environments, whereas you can get by without it most of the time on the other systems. PS3 exhibits the biggest perceptible technical handicap with the omission of any form of anti-aliasing whatsoever.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (190) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Trane #1 3 years ago

    Cue fanboys raping the comments =(

  • andromeda #2 3 years ago

    second!!

    gotta be in here for the big one
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 13:38

  • Apologie #3 3 years ago

    PC owns... the only console that can somehow get close to a high spec PC is the Ps3 (yes Uncharted, GT Prologue and Killzone 2, i'm looking at you), by the way, this comparison bullshit is gettin old... flame on

  • Golgo #4 3 years ago

    Fucking hell...what with these and endless articles about new songs appearing on Guitar Hero/Rockband/Singstar, this site is getting tired.

  • TurboBailey #5 3 years ago

    I can only comment on the PC version - its pretty awesome - great atmosphere and a lot of fun.

  • absolutezero #6 3 years ago

    Can we include PC versions from now, you know just to make these even more redundant.

  • UncleLou #7 3 years ago

    I said it on the forum already, the loading times on the PC are really phenomenal. Not only does the game boot in a few seconds (witout any trailers you need to skip), it loads any savegame, no matter where you are and where the save location is, in literally 3 seconds. I have no idea how they do this, especially as the draw distance is rather impressive, too, so it can't just load a tiny area.

  • merkdot #8 3 years ago

    If PC was stuck at the shitty resolutions that those PS3 titles that Apologie listed are running at, the use of the word 'close' would be even more laughable than it already is.

  • Triggerhappytel #9 3 years ago

    I don't even care enough to read this - PC's gonna be the best, followed by 360 then PS3.

    Since I only have a PS3 this is pretty much irrelevant unless the problems are game-breaking, and going by what I've read elsewhere, they're not.

  • Apologie #10 3 years ago

    merkdot

    GT prologue is running at a native 1080p mate... dont talk rubbish.

    I have Gears 1 for Pc an the Xbox, i can play it on the Pc at 1900x1200, everything max, with 16x antialising, and 16x anisotropic at 60 fps locked... it's such a joke for PC. (still a great looking game).
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/08 @ 13:46

  • DFawkes #11 3 years ago

    I actually thought this one was quite interesting - it's nice to see how seperate developers approach the same problems. Plus the PC being considered is nice.

  • NotSoSlim #12 3 years ago

    PS3 version does not require a mandatory install...for christ sake Eurogamer get you facts right.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 13:51

  • UncleLou #13 3 years ago

    the pc version is fucking broken, huge amounts of users are affected, and bethesdas patch "crashing upon exit"

    I can obviously only speak for myself, but I haven't had a single crash (except when exiting) in 30+ hours, and that although I am on a "dreaded" Nvidia 8xxx card. One needs to be careful to draw any conclusions from official forums to the number of users affected - everybody who can't play the game will obviously post their complaint there. Which is fair enough, I'd do the same.

    Agreed that it's a bit strange that they haven't fixed this issue - any explanation what might cause it?

  • Apologie #14 3 years ago

    oh and by the way the PC they used to play test this game is not that good.... i have a 4870 x2 in crossfire with one 4870 (3GPU) that would literally destroy's this title... q9450 (3.8GHZ) 8GB DDR2 1066 and a good 24 HP monitor. they normally dont include PC's in the multiplatform games review's because it's a no brainer, Pc win all the time, just depends on the machine.

    Till now i didnt had any problems with this game, PC version working fine.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 13:54

  • dazrichards #15 3 years ago

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • merkdot #16 3 years ago

    Oh dear, I hate to correct you here but Prologue is running at 960x1080.

    Never mind.

  • WiseNail #17 3 years ago

    As an owner of both the 360 and PS3 I can see the benefit of this type of article, but only if it's published before the vast majority of gamers have purchased the bloody game and not a week later.

    I opted for the 360 version, primarily in case I wanted the exclusive DLC at some point.

  • rhubarbandcustard #18 3 years ago

    PS3 version runs well with only an occasional amout of pop-in on far distance objects - although considering the scale of the draw distance it is forgiveable.

    Character faces are just as appalling as in Oblivion. Otherwise wonderful game though.

  • rudedudejude #19 3 years ago

    PC always rules. With the amount of video customisation option you can put on in the Nvidia control panel for example, you can make it look miles better than the designers even intended.

  • Andee #20 3 years ago

    I welcome the inclusion of PC versions in these articles. But my eyes must be getting old, I can barely tell the difference in the comparison videos.

  • patchbox360 #21 3 years ago

    360 Wins pound for value - the hardware cost just over 100 pounds and produces excellent quality

  • UncleLou #22 3 years ago

    @retrend

    Hm, yeah, that's obviously annoying. I bet it's something entirely stupid in the end - which game was it recently that made problems if you had any kind of multimedia keyboard?

  • DodgyPast #23 3 years ago

    Just to say thank you for including the PC version. It's also nice to have some positive commentary on the subject. I sometimes think that what with the lack of high profile battling that makes good news the PC platform has become somewhat ignored by mainstream sites, therefore many have perceived the platform to be ailing when in fact it is still going from strength to strength.

    Of course we are now at the point where a relatively cheap PC is powerful enough to out do the consoles by enough to make even relatively lazy ports look superior to the console versions.

  • Blackthorned #24 3 years ago

    I find it absurd being precious about the console you own - it's akin to being loyal to a supermarket imo so I'll readily admit the lack of contrast on my Xbox version makes the Pipboy light essential at times. Maybe it's my monitor, I don't know, but it's noticeable.

  • Xerx3s #25 3 years ago

    /post of outrage and pure hate

  • merkdot #26 3 years ago

    PC - the only system with Live, Blu-ray, web browsing, 360 controllers (including wireless) and/or Dual Shock 3 controllers in one box.

    They're also quite handy for other stuff too, and they plug into your telly as well now. Why settle? Throw your consoles in the bin, go PC.

  • JediMasterMalik #27 3 years ago

    They all look pretty similar actually. Except the 360 version has some strange lighting compared to the PS3 and PC versions, it seems to increase the light/dark contrast, which seems to happen a lot for 360 games. And the PS3 version has a lot more aliasing.

  • mcbi4kh2 #28 3 years ago

    @merkdot can you really use a ds3 on a pc?

  • menage #29 3 years ago

    All I know is I traded in my F3 for PS3 for a 360 version, cause it looked like crap with jaggys.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 14:10

  • chris_ace #30 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • aldo_14 #31 3 years ago

    PC owns... the only console that can somehow get close to a high spec PC is the Ps3 (yes Uncharted, GT Prologue and Killzone 2, i'm looking at you), by the way, this comparison bullshit is gettin old... flame on

    That's certainly not what the comparison said, so not sure exactly why you wrote that.

  • Wendelius #32 3 years ago

    "They all look pretty similar actually."

    Keep in mind the PC version was kept low res to match. You will most likely play it in a higher resolution as the engine is not that demanding.

    This was an interesting Face Off with the different port priorities illustrated. Something we wouldn't gather just looking at a few screenshots.

    Wendelius

  • muscleblade #33 3 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel

    Finally a PS3 only owner aknowledging the facts.

  • Gnort #34 3 years ago

    @Apologie
    "i have a 4870 x2 in crossfire with one 4870 (3GPU) that would literally destroy's this title... q9450 (3.8GHZ) 8GB DDR2 1066 and a good 24 HP monitor"

    Out of interest, what is the approximate value of this machine?

  • Darren #35 3 years ago

    Very nice feature, sums up the plus and minus points of each version without any bias. Well done.

    Personally, I find the screen tearing in the 360 version annoying at times because it, more than jaggies and a chuggy framerate, take me out of the game more but that's just me, clearly Richard Leadbetter thinks otherwise as I'm sure many others do.

    In the hope that Bethesda are reading this, how about patching the 360 game please to include an optional V-Sync option like Saints Row 2 and the last two LEGO games have, that way people who prefer to suffer a lower framerate in preference to ugly tearing can have the choice. You can leave the Force V-Sync off by default. I mean the PS3 version runs at a much slower framerate according to EG but it was still considered fit to go on sale. Conversely, how about giving PS3 owners the option to turn off V-Sync to improve their framerates in the same way the current 360 version runs?

    Odd that the two games have different priorites as EG pointed out in the article. I like the sound of the PS3 version to be honest bar the lack of anti-aliasing but I'd sooner endure those than tearing. Plus it has more effects than the 360 version in terms of making rocks look like rocks and metal like metal... that must be a first!

    Really great game too. :)

  • PearOfAnguish #36 3 years ago

    "i have a 4870 x2 in crossfire with one 4870 (3GPU) that would literally destroy's this title... q9450 (3.8GHZ) 8GB DDR2 1066 and a good 24 HP monitor"

    That 8GB is rather pointless unless you're running demanding video, image or audio editing apps on a 64-bit OS.

  • berelain #37 3 years ago

    Interesting feature. I personally actually prefer the higher contrast lighting on the 360- the other shots look wahsed out to me- but thats because I've been playing it on the 360 so its what I'm used to. Do have to alter the brightness or turn the pipboy light on every now and again, though.

    Haven't played the other versions yet (though was tempted to rent it for Ps3 just out of interest, till I realised just how sad that would be) but my friend who has it on PC says it runs incredibly well on it, too. I had been avoiding the PC version for fears of it eating my machine alive, even with its new graphics card, but now I wonder whether I should have opted for the PC version.

    Actually, what am I saying? Of course I wanted the console version. I get to sit in the front room on the sofa to play it and not in my computer chair :p

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #38 3 years ago

    The PC screenshots look considerably more similar (AA notwithstanding) to the PS3 ones than to the Xbox ones. Presumably if the test rig had an ATI card, the opposite would be tue.

  • berelain #39 3 years ago

    @ Apogie- good for you. Those specs would likely devour anythingm you threw at them, not least of all the bank balance.

    @ Darren- really? I can't say as I've noticed that much screen tearing in Fallout 3 at all- weird. I like the idea of giving players the option to toggle it on or off, though. Didn't Bioshock have a similar option?

  • mcmonkeyplc #40 3 years ago

    PC WINS! Fuck you consoles!

    PC>360>PS3

  • Apologie #41 3 years ago

    OK, 4870 x2 (2GB) + 4870 (1GB), Q9450 quadcore (3.8GHZ), 2 discs of 500Gb each in RAID, 8 GB DDR2 1066mhz, 750 W power supply, Hp 24 monitor... Termaltake case, all this costs aprox: 1800 Euros.

  • koji_m #42 3 years ago

    but the game's use of the standard mouse-and-keyboard controls really makes it a pleasure to interface with compared to the console versions

    *sigh*

    Yes, that's why it's all over the interwebs that the control scheme doesn't work on PC... just like it didn't work for Oblivion...

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #43 3 years ago

    Still it's worth it to compensate for the penis, eh Apologie?

  • Darren #44 3 years ago

    @berelain - I personally actually prefer the higher contrast lighting on the 360- the other shots look wahsed out to me- but thats because I've been playing it on the 360 so its what I'm used to. Do have to alter the brightness or turn the pipboy light on every now and again, though.

    I found the default brightness in 360 Fallout 3 waaaaaaay too dark... even during the day people look almost liked black silhouettes when I was talking to them yet all other 360 games look absolutely fine on the same TV settings. I had to up the ingame brightness 3 or 4 notches before it was acceptable and even then I sometimes switch my Pipboy light on every now again... during the day!!! It is definitely a much more "contrasty" game than Oblivion for example but I presume that's intentional as it is a dark, depressing setting even in sunlight.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 14:36

  • Vanmunt #45 3 years ago

    any chance of comparing farcry... umm, thought not as the 360 version is completely gimped.

  • Cadence #46 3 years ago

    Any chance of this coming out for my Wii?...........just joking :)

  • Darren #47 3 years ago

    @Berelain - Yeah, 360 BioShock did have a V-Sync toggle in the options but it was forced on by default (i.e. no tearing). Turning it off ups the framerate but the resulting screen tearing is really horrid. I can't imagine many 360 owners turned it off to be honest and probably fewer even knew about the option in the first place.

  • Vanmunt #48 3 years ago

    and turn off that bloody shaun white add banner.... it is driving me mental.

  • PearOfAnguish #49 3 years ago

    "Yes, that's why it's all over the interwebs that the control scheme doesn't work on PC... just like it didn't work for Oblivion..."

    The controls are fine for the most part, the complaints are about not being able to hit 'I' to bring up the inventory and so on. Just another example of multi-format games that fail to take into account the additional usability options of a PC. It's an oversight, but I wouldn't say the control scheme 'doesn't work'. Like any FPS it's a lot easier to aim with a mouse and keyboard.

  • Apologie #50 3 years ago

    Mentalist(air)

    no problems in that department m8 lol...

  • kangarootoo #51 3 years ago

    Yawn.

    If you sit down and look for differences you might spot some of the various things this article is waffling on about.

    If you sit down and just play and enjoy the game... you won't. FACT.

    Here is my summary.

    If you have a PC...
    Buy the PC version because one day there will be mods.

    If you have both a 360 and PS3...
    If you care about achivements buy the 360 version.
    If you care about trophies buy the PS3 version.
    If you care about neither, flip a coin.

    If you only have one platform...
    Buy the game and enjoy.

    Jesus wept.

  • ps3owner #52 3 years ago

    I've only got a PS3 (the name gives it away I think ;)) but bought the PC version. it's a PC game. simple as that. No point in getting it for the Xbox or the PS3. I agree with what's been written so far. Not sure about most of the comments here but that's nothing new I guess.

    oh and it doesn't crash when I am running it? I can even switch between apps and it carries on just fine. (I do save though before I go on the multitasking rampage, just in case)

    I haven't switched my PS3 on since last saturday. been playing Oblivion with guns.... aeh, Fallout 3 since ;) Great game, great fun but not enough ammo!!! NEED MORE AMMO!!!

  • menage #53 3 years ago

    @chris ace

    Sigh.

    Don't believe me then. Your loss. hard to prove for me that I did just that, so imagine that I didn't and I'm a 360 fanboy. I don't give a fuck.

    I actually bought it for my PS3 because it's a more stable system, just like I did with SC4 for it's better D-Pad and GTA. Those games actually looked good enough for me to keep them.

    This looks like a lifeless, bland jaggy mess. But go play that than if you're happy with that.






  • Zomoniac #54 3 years ago

    Oh dear, I hate to correct you here but Prologue is running at 960x1080.

    What the fuck are you talking about?? That's not even a widescreen resolution, it's almost 1:1! My copy of Prologue is most definitely 1920x1080.

  • Apologie #55 3 years ago

    the next generation of consoles will be very weak... i dont even know if they will launch new models at all but if they do, given the WII policy and success, i dont think we will be impressed (hardware wise)... after playing and finishing Crysis 1 and Warhead with everything max, 1900x1200, 4x antialising, i'm sure the next generation will not surprise me at all in terms of graphical power...the only console that is atractive is the PS3 due to the exclusives (yes, Ps3 exclusives are not playable in a Pc)... PC is and will continue to be the best platform not just for games but for everything. peace

  • Darren #56 3 years ago

    The horizontal resolution is "stretched to 1920 from 960, Zomoniac. A lot of games are rendered at a lower resolution than the actual screen display's native resolution. They 'cheat' by upscaling in hardware or software before being output to the TV. In most cases it isn't noticeable, especially if anti-aliasing is used, e.g. Oblivion 360 at 1024x600 with 2X AA output at 720p looks less jaggy than the PS3 version at the same resolution even though that is 1280x720 with no AA.

  • UncleLou #57 3 years ago

    "Yes, that's why it's all over the interwebs that the control scheme doesn't work on PC... just like it didn't work for Oblivion..."

    The controls are fine for the most part, the complaints are about not being able to hit 'I' to bring up the inventory and so on. Just another example of multi-format games that fail to take into account the additional usability options of a PC. It's an oversight, but I wouldn't say the control scheme 'doesn't work'. Like any FPS it's a lot easier to aim with a mouse and keyboard.

    Yeah, not much wrong with the controls.

    Bear in mind that you can hit F1/F2/F3 to directly open the three different PipBoy "blades".

  • freddymercurystwin #58 3 years ago

    There's a light on the Pip-Boy???

  • doragor #59 3 years ago

    just want to mention the irritating eye-fuck that is that Shaun White banner. seriously - who's responsible? awful.

  • MrChuckles #60 3 years ago

    I own a 360 and a PC, all these look fine to me, i'm not gonna sit there and line them all up at home. I'd want to get this mainly on the PC due to mouse control, but the achievements and my job (making games on consoles, so i should play with the console control system) makes me want to get it on the 360.

    I'll get a PS3 when the price drops significantly and there are more than 2 exclusive games i want for it...

  • ligurmatic #61 3 years ago

    I've been enjoying the PS3 version, and despite all this I'll still enjoy it. It's not exactly a shocking revelation that a cross-platform game is best on a PC, and the 360 version is more polished than the PS3, and I certainly don't plan to lose any sleep over it.

  • ps3owner #62 3 years ago

    install AdBlock Plus plugin. if you are using Firefox. that will fix the eye sore

  • konstantinos #63 3 years ago

    yeah, whatever...!

    hmmm, but then again...:

    [link url=http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_ms gs.php?topic_id=26664089
    ]http://ww w.gamespot.com/pages/forums/sho...[/link]

    cheers...

  • Altrezia #64 3 years ago

    PC player here. Quad core (6600) and 8800 GTX's in SLI - the game is stunning! No crashes or errors to speak of, yet. 20 hours in.

  • freddymercurystwin #65 3 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound Thanks

  • freddymercurystwin #66 3 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound Thanks

  • UncleLou #67 3 years ago

    @MrChuckles

    The PC version has achievements if you're signed into GfW Live.

  • SAH1977 #68 3 years ago

    The games industry is apparently trying to attract a wider audience, those already involved are doing a great job of turning the hobby into a fanboy flamefest with little credibility.

  • TheNinkyNonk #69 3 years ago

    PC>360

    Couch-slouching with legs up on armrest, head buried in corner of cushions and arms comfortably placed in crotch zone >
    mouse and keyboard

    360>PC

    PS3>...

  • darc #70 3 years ago

    Interesting that you went with XP for the PC testing. Isn't this a DX10 game? Curious about stability etc under Vista and esp. Vista x64. Probably too late for me to change horses anyway, I'm already many hours into the XBox version. Nice to be able to carry the Xbox around the house and play whenever/whereever - chair, bed, bicycle even... but I do miss the mouse.

  • Wendelius #71 3 years ago

    "yawn lazy journalism, that only fanboys care about. "

    Says more about the reader and how he/she perceives the article than the article itself, I would say.

    It's just a comparison to help people decide what version runs best (or with the least compromise). All the rest seems to be people who feel threatened if their system of choice doesn't get a glowing recommendation.

    Wendelius

  • michaelius #72 3 years ago

    It's good to have PC and PS3 :)

    Still I was very suprised to see so much praises for pc version on console site like this :)

  • ronuds #73 3 years ago

    I'd just like to comment on the Shaun White ad banner that won't let me close it until the page has fully loaded: It's an abomination and almost seems like a punishment for visiting this site.

    Before I forget: Apolol

    k thanx bye

  • Apologie #74 3 years ago

    ronuds

    ronuts... how are ya buddy? :)
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/08 @ 15:45

  • merkdot #75 3 years ago

    the best part about the couch argument is that 360 wireless controllers work on PCs, and you can convert DVI-D to HDMI if your TV doesn't have a VGA socket.

  • Law07 #76 3 years ago

    Why are most people saying 360>PS3 when the arcticle says that the PS3 is slightly better?

  • kangarootoo #77 3 years ago

    I am not suffering any such Shaun White banner nonsense, as I use adblocker under Firefox. I heartily recommend it to everybody.

    Now I know EG hate adblockers, and I realise this site is supported by ad revenue and that is why it is free. But whoever is in charge of deciding which ads are ok and which are not needs to take a step back and actually examine the user experience. The user experience is suffering badly (from what I hear, fortunately my own experience is sounds as a pound).

    The ad behaviour on this site is unforgiveable sometimes, and if EG found a way to stop my adblocker working I would probably never come back (I never even considered using an adblocker until I came here; what does that tell you).

    Currently I see SOME of the adverts on this site. The proper ads. The ones that don't act like I owe them something. If those ridiculous intrusive obnoxious flash ads were forced upon me I would end up seeing NONE of them as I wouldn't be here. Something to think about.

  • avoozl #78 3 years ago

    There are a whole bunch of mods out already, including one to let you past level 20 and interface mods to fit more text on your high-res screen. I'm so glad Bethesda did this game instead of the next Elder Scrolls.

  • kangarootoo #79 3 years ago

    @Law07

    Questions like that will just cause your stress. Put it down to childish madness and everything becomes much clearer :)

  • Darren #80 3 years ago

    @Law07 - Yeah, the PS3 version is better than the 360 version because it has jaggies, runs at a lower framerate particularly indoors and has nice shiny surfaces that the 360 version lacks. ;)

    Seriously the article only confirms that the game is best on the PC and says of the PS3 version:

    "There's much to commend to the PS3's approach, but the bottom line is that the decisions taken on the 360 version were the right ones for downsizing the game with the minimum of impact on gameplay and visual consistency. While the PS3 version is still playable enough, you can't help but think that a better job could have been done with the port, especially bearing in mind how progressed the PS3 rendition of Oblivion was over its 360 sibling. But let's get this into perspective here. There's not the game-breaking impact that others have suggested - though non-VATS combat really can become a chore - just an overall sense that a truly important game is not the best it could've been, and that perhaps predictably, once again the PS3 deserves better."

  • jimmyjimbob #81 3 years ago

    "Thanks to members of the Beyond 3D forum for some valuable insights on this game, and for scrutinising an early selection of our screenshot comparisons."

    Err, why not ask on your own forum?

  • chris_ace #82 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • Apologie #83 3 years ago

    chris_ace

    Pc gaming is dead??? WTF have you been smoking son???

  • Weezer #84 3 years ago

    Including the PC - while it seems to appease the PC crowd - is fucking daft. Where can I buy a Fallout 3-running PC for £180?

  • Apologie #85 3 years ago

    Weezer

    you are forgetting that a PC is much more then just a console... and for the price, quality, features, performance etc... if you know what your doing, Pc's are the best value for your buck, gaming included.

    the price of a game for the PC is lower too... and you dont have to pay for multiplayer, oh and if your really smart, you buy a PC with HDD :p

    Pc library is full of AAA titles that look and run better on a meduim spec PC then in any of the current consoles... PS3, Xbox 360 and WII libraries together dont even get close to 1/2 of the PC library... RTS, MMO, FPS etc... all better in the PC "gameplay and general performance wise" and for platform games etc.. you choose between the xbox or PS3 (type) controller, they are both in stores for the PC.

    Not saying that consoles are not good, but please dont compare the potential and quality of a PC to a console.
    Edited by 4 at 07/11/08 @ 16:27

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #86 3 years ago

    the achievements and my job (making games on consoles, so i should play with the console control system) makes me want to get it on the 360

    You can play it with a 360 Pad on PC, if you really must, and it's GFW Live-enabled, so you get Achievements as well. Plus you'll save at least a fiver.

  • prettyboytim #87 3 years ago

    Don't think it'll run too well on my Athlon XP 2500+, Radeon 9600, and 768Mb machine... :-(

  • kangarootoo #88 3 years ago

    "Including the PC - while it seems to appease the PC crowd - is fucking daft. Where can I buy a Fallout 3-running PC for £180?"

    That is completely irrelevant. People play games on PC, Fallout 3 is one the games that people can play, so the comparison makes sense (in as much as it makes any sense in general).

    Nobody is suggest you buy a PC just to play FO3, just as nobody woiuld suggest you buy a console in the same circumstances. I mean, is this article comparing FO3 or the platforms on which the game can be played?

    Would you happier if EG started reviewing sofas and office chairs too? No probably not, in fact you might say that would be non-sensical, which is exactly my point.

  • FrankCannon #89 3 years ago

    Can't play a pc lying on your back pouring lager over your face though can you?

  • avoozl #90 3 years ago

    The game loads quickly because the textures aren't very big and it only loads what you can see immediately before putting you in. I agree it's nice. I did see a bridge materialize in the air once gta style though :p.

  • kangarootoo #91 3 years ago

    "PC is better than 360 and PS3. Probably combined."

    What does that actually mean? How can a PC be better than a 360 and a PS3 combined? How do you combine two consoles?

  • ps3owner #92 3 years ago

    has anyone compared the flamerate between the 3 factions yet? I think Eurogamer should review that as well and post an article on it. including a final rating at then end, but a score for each platform.
    I reckon that would break all hit and comment records to date.

  • Darren #93 3 years ago

    Aspic - "So it's official. PC is better than 360 and PS3. Probably combined. EG has spoken."

    Not quite... I can't play Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, Gears of War 2, Resistance 2, Virtua Fighter 5, Soulcalibur IV, WipEout HD, Super Stardust HD, Project Gotham Racing 4, MLB 08: The Show, LittleBigPlanet, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, Metal Gear Solid 4 and dozens and dozens of other great games on the PC. ;)

  • Apologie #94 3 years ago

    just think about this, for how long do PC gamers are actually able to play they'r games at native resolution of 1080p??? not even in this generation of consoles we can see that so... were does that shit lead us console fanboy's?? PC is the best, not only for games, but for pretty much everything else, no way you guy's can deny that... exclusives?? ?i can play all major titles in the PC, GTA4, Mass effect, GEars of War, Assassins Creed, Call of Duty4, Brothers in Arms, Rainbow Six VEgas 2, FIFA09, NFS etc... can you guy's play Crysis, WOW, Warhammer, Crysis Warhead, GTR Evolution etc too??? dont think so, PC have very strong exclusives too, and everything else (multiplatform) is better in it.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 16:45

  • Darren #95 3 years ago

    Forget to mention Fable II as well!

    Sure some of those games may eventually come out on the PC but who likes waiting?

  • Darren #96 3 years ago

    @Aspic - Well the PC only "wins" if you have a machine capable of doing the games justice. My own PC for example doesn't run BioShock or Far Cry 2 anyway near as well as the 360 and given its age it would cost me more than twice the cost of the 360 to do so (it's an AGP machine).

    I used to be an avid PC gamer but I got fed up of upgrading and find the consoles far more convenient for games plus the games run the same for everyone, I don't have to spend more time tweaking the games to get them looking and running better than actually playing them anymore! ;)

    I will buy a new PC at some point for sure and that will likely renew my enthusiasm for those game but I'm not in any hurry. I mean the longer you wait, the better the PC you can buy for the same money, right? :)

  • EzyRyder #97 3 years ago

    Exclusive games is the only reason why I would buy a console. The only one!

    One of the problems of consoles IMO is that there are no decent strategy games, and if you are going to play a port (Supreme Commander or Command and Conquer 3) you better get the PC original instead.

    Consoles are OK though. Not everyone needs a PC, and sometimes is a good idea to have the missus surfing the net on a lowly laptop or pc and you wearing your eyes off playing the console.

  • Sar #98 3 years ago

    My machine is virtually identical to the test machine used here, bar the fact I've over a TB of hdd space.

    I have to say, running it at 1680*1050 (720p is not a PC resolution EG ffs) it's buttery smooth, even with AA/AF on.

    Great engine, much improved from Oblivion. And the game is fantastic too. Loving it so far.

  • EzyRyder #99 3 years ago

    Darren,

    You can buy a very decent PC tower that will run those 2 games better than the 360 for £300. Agreed, thats nearly double, but you can also do some other useful stuff with the PC.

  • Darren #100 3 years ago

    @warzin - Actually I thought the same when I started playing Fallout 3.

    I love Oblivion and this game felt like a step backward... the setting was drab and depressing, the story isn't as epic and the world felt very samey, more so than Oblivion because 80% appeared to be wasteland. However, 32 hours in I'm glad I stuck with it because it is a really good game. The VATS is probably the best thing about the game but the setting is atmospheric at least in coveying how horrid the world is and I'm finding it hard to stop playing it. I'm not sure at this point that it is better than Oblivion, I confess to enjoying the fantasy setting and gorgeous setting more, but it is definitely a grower. I think you just need to give it a chance. I think it was over 15 hours into the game before I realised how good it really was.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 18:16

  • ABXY #101 3 years ago

    Can believe you lot squabble about who's console is best, this soo reminds me of the old commodore 64 v spectrum +2 days, and SNES v Megadrive and Atari ST v Amiga (the best)... basically the best console is the one with the best selection of games.....

    If your more inclinded to use bluray get a ps3,

    If you like a wide range of games inc retro and want a quality on line experience get a 360

    If you not a serious gamer and want some after pub or family fun get a Wii

    rather than arguing why dont you just play the consoles!!!! jeeeeesus man!

  • Widge #102 3 years ago

    strange, I would prefer if they dumped the detail level to the 360 version and did active v sync and keep the framerate higher

  • merkdot #103 3 years ago

    he wanted big eyes and blue skies

  • JonFE #104 3 years ago

    Allow me to cut in and say that I kind of prefer the new PC Apologie, to the old PS3 one - I think he makes a bit more sense now :)

    As you were soldier!

  • ronuds #105 3 years ago

    Hi Apologie! Good to see you again...it's been a while.

    Can we just conclude that PC > consoles and get on with it? If you have the money, PC is obviously your best option if you want to play games. The issue is having to find initial and continual funds to keep your PC up to date. There's no denying that consoles have their strong points as well.

    I don't see what the argument is about? It's like comparing a Wii to a PS3/360. Different leagues we're talking about - and different levels of functionality.

  • Bremenacht #106 3 years ago

    Great way to plug Alienware.

  • Azazel #107 3 years ago

    PC is best because you can play Quakeworld on it. Obviously.

  • IneptPercy #108 3 years ago

    Pc gaming is very affordable now, my brother just ditched the consoles in favour of a PC (built by me)

    If you want a good gaming PC you can build one for around £350 unless you want a bigger e-penis and want to spend £1000+

    Basically all you need is:
    Cheap core2 (e2xxx or e4xxx) £30
    I decent board with overclocking capabilities £40
    2GB RAM £25
    Hard disc (250gb for £25)
    Case and power supply £25
    ATI 4850 £115
    DVD-RW £15
    Keyboard and mouse £10
    Windows Vista £60

    By all means you can go higher spec but that is more than enough to kick the consoles into touch, I added a bluray/HD-DVD, 1GB 4870 + 650GB storage to mine a example, but if on a budget the above will work well, you can even swap the graphics for an 8800GT or a 3870 and save a bit more again.

  • butler` #109 3 years ago

    I've got it on PS3, it looks shit. Mistake.

  • sneetch #110 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    ""PC is better than 360 and PS3. Probably combined."

    What does that actually mean? How can a PC be better than a 360 and a PS3 combined? How do you combine two consoles?"

    I'm not sure, but I imagine it would be in black & white, involve an old castle, a hunch-backed assistant and a lightning storm. Oh, probably an angry mob would show up at some stage. With torches and pitchforks.

    I personally bought this on 360, thinking my somewhat elderly PC couldn't possibly hack it and that I'd rather take the downgraded-by-design Xbox version. I know, I know: I could have downgraded the graphics to play it on my PC but my monitor requires 1650X1080 (or 1680X1050, whichever) and I didn't want to have to turn-off all the shinies to play it at that resolution (or suffer chunky-vision as my monitor rescaled it at a lower resolution).

    After reading this I think my PC probably could handle it quite well. Oh well, no big deal, it's a great game no matter what.

  • sneetch #111 3 years ago

    @FalloutZombie
    "Last time I ever come here, which is quite sad as I've been a reader since around the time Halo launched on Xbox all those years ago."

    Yes! He's gone, it's ok now Eurogamer, you can improve the quality again. ;)

  • dudefella #112 3 years ago

    Makes me glad I got the PC version, which is indeed awesome. And coincidentally I run the exact same system as Leadbetter played F3 on, and it even copes quite well with Very High settings.

  • Apologie #113 3 years ago

    as i said

    Q9450 (OC 3.8 GHz)
    4870 x2 in crossfire with one 4870 1GB
    2 discs of 500 GB each
    Rampage Extreme
    8 GB DDR2 1066
    750 W power supply
    24 HP monitor

    ------ yes, my PC assrape the Xbox360 and the Ps3 togheter (medival style)
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 17:53

  • speedsix #114 3 years ago

    @ Apologie

    "GT prologue is running at a native 1080p mate... dont talk rubbish. "
    No it isn't, don't talk rubbish.

  • Darren #115 3 years ago

    @Ulfhedjinn - Darren: "the setting was drab and depressing, the story isn't as epic and the world felt very samey, more so than Oblivion because 80% appeared to be wasteland"

    It's a post-apocalyptic hell. What were you expecting, pretty flowers and rainbows? X_x

    Well, no, I wasn't expecting that but this is my first Fallout game and I didn't expect it to be so downright depressing. And given that this game is set 200 years after the nuclear war, you'd think that there'd be a few trees growing here and there and some greenery, if only because the human survivors are attempting to rebuild humanity. I mean not everywhere in the game is radioactive for example. The setting in the game feels like one 25-50 years after the war not 200.

    Whatever, it doesn't change the fact that I still prefer Oblivion's more vibrant fantasy setting. It's just a personal thing though. And in spite of Fallout 3's setting, I'm still really enjoying the game but it was a grower for me not a game I instantly liked as with Oblivion.

  • michaelius #116 3 years ago

    Not quite... I can't play Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, Gears of War 2, Resistance 2, Virtua Fighter 5, Soulcalibur IV, WipEout HD, Super Stardust HD, Project Gotham Racing 4, MLB 08: The Show, LittleBigPlanet, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, Metal Gear Solid 4 and dozens and dozens of other great games on the PC. ;)

    Yeah but you can't play Day of Defeat, Counter Strike, Wow, War, Eve Online, Crysis, Stalker, Witcher, Total war series, Homm series, King's Bounty, Spore on console last i checked :)

  • Darren #117 3 years ago

    My post was in response to that best platform for games, michaelius... anyone with money and sense will realise that it's better to own all the current consoles *and* a powerful PC to play all the great games.

    That's usually what I do although I've gotten a little bored of PC gaming since the arrival of the 360 and PS3. In time though those platforms will look dated alongside the latest PC titles (already they are starting to IMO) as the Xbox and PS2 did so that will be the time when I decide to return to PC gaming in a big way with a new uber-machine. :)

  • menage #118 3 years ago

    @Apologie/ Micaelus

    Seriously, none of those games interest me in the slightest. FPS/race/RTS games, been there done that. Give me Fable 2/Valkyria Chronicles/Lost Odyssey/LBP, etc. Anyday.

    I would just as well turn it around, can i play my favorite jrpg on pc? No, case closed for me.
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/08 @ 19:00

  • metalangel #119 3 years ago

    Shame on you EG for perpetuating the tedious fanboy flame wars under the guise of a valid comparison.

  • smelly #120 3 years ago

    FIFTEEN FPS!?!?!?!?!?!

    FIFTEEEN?!!!?


    My how times have changed.. I remember not so long ago, people used to complain about games running at 50fps instead of 60.

  • BartonFink #121 3 years ago

    Was thinking about picking this up on either PS3 or 360 and now my mind is made up. PC it is.

  • Killerbee #122 3 years ago

    Just to say thanks for including the PC version in this article. I'm yet to buy this and although the PC was pretty much a sure bet from day one, it's nice to have that reassurance that this isn't a shoddy console port. (*ahem* Dead Space *ahem*)

    I presume two 8800GT cards in SLI will let me put all the settings to the highest level and run it the way it was intended. :)

  • Calgon #123 3 years ago

    Nice comparison but I would have said the lighting is slightly better on the 360 version too, Id also have pointed out the year gap for the "progressed" PS3 version Oblivion.

    As for the texture effects... could this be a disk space issue? Im not sure how big the game is on disk but it could be reason for it(It may be time soon to start spreading it to two disks soon for larger titles anyway). To be honest I couldnt notice the difference much from the comparison vid and Id say 4xAA is deffinately trying harder than some minor texture detail than no AA at all, if we are talking bandwidth and system taxing.

    Also I think most people already know its a PC game so if you have a recent gaming PC thats the version to get... unless you prefer the console experience as I do.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 21:08

  • creepylizard #124 3 years ago

    try playing fallout 3 on the 360 without a HD telly. its pot luck whether you'll hit a ghoul underground as its so bloody dark

  • Calgon #125 3 years ago

    I wonder if the darkness issue can be patched, Id say both even the PC version looks a bit washed out, maybe its the gamma/in game brightness/contrast settings, other than that dont set it to full RGB.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/08 @ 21:51

  • creepylizard #126 3 years ago

    I juist assumed it was my rubbish telly actually...I have tried fiddling with the settings alot and theres an improvement. But not much.
    oh, and you can forget about travelling at night outside too, mostly......

  • Calgon #127 3 years ago

    Well perhaps there will be a patch, from the screens it doesnt look like a drop in detail, infact some parts look more detailed because they are less washed out(which is what I was getting at), Im guessin here I admit but Id say they just chose different gamma settings.

  • Obiwanshinobi #128 3 years ago

    Can believe you lot squabble about who's console is best, this soo reminds me of the old commodore 64 v spectrum +2 days, and SNES v Megadrive and Atari ST v Amiga (the best)...

    War... War never changes.
    Speaking of PC gaming, its all fun and games until an armaments race kicks you in the gut. I don't find this moment funny at all. Buying a gaming system (console or PC) for already existing games is OK. Buying it for games yet to come is, oh well, an optimism.

  • creepylizard #129 3 years ago

    @Calgon
    cheers for the info btw
    don't know if its clear but I love this game like my very own child....if I had one.

  • Tehren #130 3 years ago

    PCs are always going to come into their own as the current gen consoles mature into the middle age of their product cycles, and they become a superior power / cost proposition.

    I'm a bilateral fanboi - xbox & PC. I love a good sofa-bound gaming session, but for ultimate fidelity, control and power the PC is untouchable.

  • vpin #131 3 years ago

    Sick and tired of retards posting first!!! second!!!! so on and so forth comments.

    They should be banned. Tarred and feathered.

    BTW, 160th!!!

  • Tehren #132 3 years ago

    360s & PS3's ain't so cheap once you've factored in the HD TV.

  • Subquest #133 3 years ago

    I have two PCs one at a desk and one beside the TV in the living room, both E6750s with 4GB - the desk pc with a 9800GT and the living room machine running a 8800GTS and played using wireless 360 pads. Absolulely the best of both worlds. The living room PC only has to output at 1280 x 768 so absolutely every game is played at the highest detail, aliasing, filtering etc... and throw in all the media stuff like Vista Media Center, dual channel TV recording, unbalked web access, watching footy streams on a saturday afternoon and, well... it's taking the piss really how much redundant it makes a console - APART from the fact some games don't come to PC, and there's no decent unified GUI like the consoles have for linking the gaming community - Steam isn't very living room friendly.
    Edited by 2 at 07/11/08 @ 23:32

  • frombrosis #134 3 years ago

    WTF? Mandatory installation on the PS3? Wha-? I didn't see that happen when I popped the disc into my PS3. Are you sure Eurogamer. That issues aside, I could have bought this game for my PC, it would have run it fine, but I chose the PS3. In the end, looking at the screenshots I think the differences are minute and I think do not in any way detract from the gaming experience. Well done to Beth and their external PS3 development team for their fine effort.

  • IneptPercy #135 3 years ago

    As mentioned its a constant cycle, whent he 360 came out to get a PC pushing those results was a small fortune, as time goes on the tables turn and then PC's surpass the consoles, when the 720/PS4 come out a PC to run like that will be out of the question and so the process continues.

    PCs always do have the added bonus of it can do anything:
    TV- TV card
    Surround Sound - new speakers
    HD-DVD/Blu-ray - New drive
    Internet browsing - take you pick of browsers
    Video/Picture editing - more ram

    Basically a PC's strength's can be whatever you want them to be.

    I still don't understand how people spend so much on PC's, My PC comes in at about £500 and plays everything at 60hz+ I could spend £1500 and get 100hz+, but instead got a 40" 1080p TV to play the games on. Biggest thing which gets me with a lot of PC gamers id they go on about 1920x1200 etc and then it ends up they are on a 26" screen, doesn't make sense to me.

  • Obiwanshinobi #136 3 years ago

    My PC comes in at about £500 and plays everything at 60hz+ I could spend £1500 and get 100hz+

    Hz? I suppose you meant fps. Framerate and refresh rate are completely different beasts.

  • Kill_Crazy #137 3 years ago

    PS3 does install 4.3GB Look in your Game Data folder.

  • Darren #138 3 years ago

    ... thus the PS3 does have a *mandatory* install after all. If you delete it then the next time you play the game the 4.3 GB file will be installed stealthily. An install is not mandatory if it is optional, i.e. the game will run without any data transferred onto the HDD. This is not the case with Fallout 3 and it wasn't with Oblivion either.

  • bonker #139 3 years ago

    "just want to mention the irritating eye-fuck that is that Shaun White banner. seriously - who's responsible? awful. "

    I know - the useability of this site has nose-dived this year with the unuseable screenshots section being a prime example.

    This latest fuck-up is annoying to the absolute extreme.

  • bonker #140 3 years ago

    "I still don't understand how people spend so much on PC's, My PC comes in at about £500 and plays everything at 60hz+ I could spend £1500 and get 100hz+, but instead got a 40" 1080p TV to play the games on. Biggest thing which gets me with a lot of PC gamers id they go on about 1920x1200 etc and then it ends up they are on a 26" screen, doesn't make sense to me. "

    I know, I think it's laughable - I have a 1080p 46" TV and can barely discern the extra detail from 720p to 1080p, how the fuck people can actually *see* 1920 x 1200 on a 20-something inch screen (most are on 22" I imagine) is beyond me ...

  • avoozl #141 3 years ago

    "My PC comes in at about £500 and plays everything at 60hz+ I could spend £1500 and get 100hz+"

    Yeah yeah what a load of rubbish, you don't even know the difference between fps and hz. Just another person running their mouth off about their PC.

  • avoozl #142 3 years ago

    Oh dear. You must have pretty poor eye sight. And bucketloads of cash to be buying 40+ inch TVs. What doesn't make sense is spending triple that of an high-end gaming PC on a bloated screen just so you can sit a little further away from it.
    Edited by 2 at 08/11/08 @ 02:32

  • Calgon #143 3 years ago

    Hz? I suppose you meant fps. Framerate and refresh rate are completely different beasts.

    Actually he could be implying alot of people talk about 100fps when their display isnt capable of displaying them, perhaps he does have a 100hz display and a more expensive PC could make use of that?

    100fps > 100hz = 100fps displayed.

    100fps > 60hz = 60fps displayed.

  • Eraserhead #144 3 years ago

    "I know, I think it's laughable - I have a 1080p 46" TV and can barely discern the extra detail from 720p to 1080p, how the fuck people can actually *see* 1920 x 1200 on a 20-something inch screen (most are on 22" I imagine) is beyond me ..."

    Fair enough, but what is the actual resolution of your TV display in pixels? Is it genuinely 1920 x 1080 or (like mine) much less? If it's less, then you won't see any difference, because it's just interpolating from the real resolution down to its display capabilities. Meanwhile, modern monitors have a native res of 1920 x 1200 and anything less than that looks really blurry. Try it. Even a 20-inch monitor looks far, far sharper than most HD TVs.

    Also, let's not forget that as far as I know, neither the Xbox nor the PS3 version of Fallout actually outputs at anything near true 1080p. It's upscaled by the console hardware and/or your telly. The PC version outputs the true res of 1920 x 1200, and it makes sooo much difference on a capable machine/monitor.

  • Michael1406 #145 3 years ago

    I was hoping that the PC used in the comparison would be higher spec, just to further point out that PCs piss all over the parade of consoles most of the time, and that graphics whores shouldn't be on consoles anyway. Alas, no. Still predictable results - might as well say "you know the rest" after pointing out unique differences in future comparisons.

  • tnt_2008smum #146 3 years ago

    ha! i love it, the poster boy for the SDF apolo has now become the worlds biggest PC fanboy! so apolo i take it whatever you own at the time is teh best ever for games. you really are a sad little man!

    oops spelling!!
    Edited by 1 at 08/11/08 @ 08:15

  • Trikk #147 3 years ago

    Eurogamer raking in the hits with another retarded "format wars" article.

    A simple screenshot gallery, video and a few lines of summary is more than enough for anyone on the fence on what version to pick up.

    To be honest though, unless there's some major game-breaking issues with one of the formats, people will just get it for their preferred platform.

  • Trikk #148 3 years ago

    PC is best because you can play Quakeworld on it. Obviously.

    I always lol when people go on about "backwards compatibility" and "huge game library" for their console.

  • Obiwanshinobi #149 3 years ago

    I always lol when people go on about "backwards compatibility" and "huge game library" for their console.

    Well, putting e-penis measurement aside, one must admit that PS2 backward compatibility is excellent, and the library (PSX & PS2 together) is damn huge to embrace. On the other hand PSX emulation (not to mention PS2 emulation) on PC is nowhere near Nintendo systems emulation, thus PS2 is nothing to laugh at if it comes to play PS2 and PSX games.

  • Miths #150 3 years ago

    @justanotherdave

    I've been playing the PS3 version as well (picked it over the 360 version because of the usual fan and disc noise differences, and I'm planning on getting a gaming PC again soon anyway, so I'll get the PC version for mods/DLC), and in the 35+ hours I've clocked in so far I really haven't noticed those supposed 15 fps drops either. I won't rule out they are there, but in that case we're talking split seconds that haven't had any impact on my experience at all.
    I do occasionally notice brief drops in framerate, but brief is the keyword here and to my eyes it looks like we're talking no lower than mid twenties - although assuming the v-sync lock thing is in effect I guess it must be an even 20 then?

    Overall though - despite the aliasing problems (which I haven't paid attention to since the first hour) and two freezes in those 35 hours - I haven't regretted for a second that I went with the PS3 rather than the 360 version, even if the latter might technically be slightly better (although based on screenshots I personally think the PS3 version has the edge in textures plus those lighting shaders on creatures etc.).

  • UncleLou #151 3 years ago

    I know, I think it's laughable - I have a 1080p 46" TV and can barely discern the extra detail from 720p to 1080p, how the fuck people can actually *see* 1920 x 1200 on a 20-something inch screen (most are on 22" I imagine) is beyond me ...

    Er, you sit much closer to a PC monitor than a TV. If you really can't see the difference between something like 1920*1200 and 1280*720 on a 24'' monitor, I'd be worried...

  • Zaltan #152 3 years ago

    As a reference; I have an E6600 CPU, 2GB RAM and a HD4670 Video Card, and I can play Fallout @ 1680x1050 with everything on high perfectly smooth. You could build a computer like mine for ~£250 + £100-£150 for a monitor and peripherals

  • Lemming81 #153 3 years ago

    I have to say, I'm pleased to see the PC version in the mix (bought mine from Steam and no regrets here!), and I hope Eurogamer do this in future as nothing sates a xbox/sony fanboy war like having something far, far better between them.

    Kudos for not encouraging it.

    Also, to those who think the PS3 and PC versions aren't that different: Look at the comparison part outside the vault and look at the skyline. - massive pixelation on the PS3 front, smooth as silk on the PC.

  • WJF #154 3 years ago

    My 2-year old Macbook pro runs this really well. Considering Bioshock had to be on the lowest detail (at 800x600) and /still/ barely ran, hats off to Bethesda for managing to create a very good engine that looks amazing on lower spec machines.

    Oh, and the load times (as Uncle Lou mentioned) are also extremely quick...slightly...too quick almost. I'm still getting my head around the fact it doesn't pause when I enter or leave buildings!

    (The game's pretty good, too.)

  • Ryze #155 3 years ago

    Apololol

  • Gaol #156 3 years ago

    PC Version:

    Jaw dropping visuals
    Brilliantly engineered engine
    No technical issues if you are smart enough to by branded components and run the latest drivers
    Terrific sound effects

    PS3 Version:

    Great visuals
    Well engineered engine
    No technical issues at all
    Terrific sound effects

    360 Version:

    Excellent visuals until your gpu overheats and causes artifacts
    Engine pushes hardware beyond its safe capabilities
    More than fair chance of terminal hardware failure if played extensively
    Sound effects inaudible over drive noise

    I think that's fair.

  • Calgon #157 3 years ago

    lol @Gaol

  • Skinme #158 3 years ago

    Normally I'm not a big poster and neither do I take digs at people but....

    For those bitching about what IneptPercy said about refresh rates need to get their facts straight about video game rendering on TVs and monitors.

    I'm not gonna go into huge detail cos, to be honest, I can't be arsed, so I'll just point peeps to here and here

    60Hz(NTSC)=29.97fps x 3 interlaced fields
    50Hz(PAL)=25fps x 2 interlaced fields
    24Hz(Film)=23.976fps non-interlaced.
    Go here if you'd like to know more about the conversion of films to PAL/NTSC and the 4% speed-up effect on PAL TVs.

    Hope this clears things up for peeps who don't know the connection between frame and refresh rates.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #159 3 years ago

    Last!!

  • Harmonica #160 3 years ago

    Frankly I much prefer the excitment of combat on the 360, to the precision of mouse look. You really think that someone running backwards away from someone swinging a sledgehammer at them would be able to go 'hmm, yup..' and dink a rifle shot right on their skull. I don't think so.

    Console control is way more naturalistic, and for a game that isn't about competing with other people in a cold scientific manner, this is favourable.

    Oh, and the lighting is exactly how it should be on the 360. Your PS3 settings look washed out, overbrightened and horrible. On a correctly calibrated HDTV, playing Fallout 3 and walking around at night is tough. As it's meant to be. It's a spartan wasteland with the only natural lighting being the moon and occasional firelight... not sure what you expect.

    edit: also, the PS3 version looks f'ugly. I'm sure this is a case of bad development rather than hardware limitations.
    Edited by 2 at 08/11/08 @ 19:16

  • IneptPercy #161 3 years ago

    Caused a stir with my 60hz comment, I do mean 60hz as my Tv's refresh rate, to be honest I couldn't care less if my PC can push 250fps you can only go as quick as your screens refresh rate, after some benches most games are running around 80fps for the minute (crysis excluded). Either way the point I was getting at is a super PC running at 300fps is more to extend an e-penis than any use. As it is my screen is 60hz meaning that my PC is capable of a 60fps minimum on most games (as its progressive and not interlaced) and anything above that has no effect really. I am aware my PC will keep pushing 60hz even if my FPS drops below 60fps.

    Same goes for why I have to remember to switch my PC to 24hz for blu-ray/hd-dvd, I hate that judder.

    I do actually know quite a bit about PC's as I build them/overclock them for many people, you actually learn more when you start overclocking as FSB's and ram ratios really come into play.

    I can understand high resolution on a smaller screen can add clarity but surely the pixel size on a 22" 1920x1200 is smaller than can be noticeable, I have to be very close to my 40" 1080p screen to see the pixels.

    I am not offended as I can see how my comment could make me seem a bit clueless as I wasn't very clear in what I meant, but don't worry I do have a good idea what I am talking about... Seriously :-)

  • Harmonica #162 3 years ago

    You'd be better off switching to 72hz. It doesn't matter what is, as long as its a multiple of 24(fps). If it's designed for fixed 60hz, it's not advisable to force the refresh rate to anything else, though.

    You also might want to look into using the excellent ReClock, which is all about removing judder and syncing video to monitors/TVs. (recently re-released by the good folks at SlySoft).
    Edited by 2 at 09/11/08 @ 02:21

  • wa_uk #163 3 years ago

    fuck this. GET RID OF THE CUNTING BANNER ALREADY.

  • Grayvern #164 3 years ago

    It was 360 for me but only for the sake of my arse, with a 40" tv its better to sit on the sofa than in a seat.

    Also its worth noting that there was a major flaw in the ps3 version of oblivion the stick control was nerfed i found it almost impossible to use the bow.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/08 @ 03:12

  • avoozl #165 3 years ago

    @Obiwanshinobi

    You're right, deleted my comment. I'm gone.

  • Jigglybean #166 3 years ago

    Great article! The PC has always ruled and shows that the consoles will never be able to match the power of the PC. But did you really pick that PC used in the test for under £400?

  • IneptPercy #167 3 years ago

    I will say I have the advantage of a 40" TV and wireless x360 controller for PC gaming to play form a distance while I still have my good old 21" CRT plugged in for general internet browsing and games like command and conquer where I smaller screen with keyboard and mouse works.

  • TRUTH #168 3 years ago

    The problem is the V-sync and framerate, also the missing anti analyzing on PS3 cannot be fixed. I've just been 8hrs into the game and find the game colors a little washed out & does stutter on areas, and the frame rate sloppy at times. Though the 360 contrast is a little darker, this can simply be corrected by putting the contrast up. Good game, though I was hopping it be on par at least with the 360.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/08 @ 19:24

  • m0thr4 #169 3 years ago

    Pc gaming is very affordable now, my brother just ditched the consoles in favour of a PC (built by me)

    If you want a good gaming PC you can build one for around £350 unless you want a bigger e-penis and want to spend £1000+

    Basically all you need is:
    Cheap core2 (e2xxx or e4xxx) £30
    I decent board with overclocking capabilities £40
    2GB RAM £25
    Hard disc (250gb for £25)
    Case and power supply £25
    ATI 4850 £115
    DVD-RW £15
    Keyboard and mouse £10
    Windows Vista £60

    By all means you can go higher spec but that is more than enough to kick the consoles into touch, I added a bluray/HD-DVD, 1GB 4870 + 650GB storage to mine a example...

    That sounds like a horribly noisy gaming machine to me. I like my games machines to be silent. For under £300, the PS3 fits that bill, although I'll bet an Xbox 360 is quieter than the el cheapo monster you've just described.

  • m0thr4 #170 3 years ago

    Also its worth noting that there was a major flaw in the ps3 version of oblivion the stick control was nerfed i found it almost impossible to use the bow.

    I found that too... the most striking thing about Fallout 3 on the PS3 is that the control sticks actually perform quite well, which is quite rare for that machine.

  • bdc #171 3 years ago

    m0th4 how can you tell how much noise that PC would give off? It depends on the cooling system, of which none were specified. Don't be so ignorant as to assume powerful = noisier.

  • Vandrius #172 3 years ago

    PC ftw.

  • butler` #173 3 years ago

    "As it is my screen is 60hz meaning that my PC is capable of a 60fps minimum on most games (as its progressive and not interlaced) and anything above that has no effect really. I am aware my PC will keep pushing 60hz even if my FPS drops below 60fps."

    Most of what you've said (and corrected) is right, except that this comment isn't entirely true. Yes, a display running at 60hz will only display 60fps, even if a game is running at 100fps+. But that doesn't mean there isn't a perceivable difference in your game experience. Regardless of what your display is showing, the power to kick out higher FPS is still desirable.

    There is a very noticable difference in 60fps and 100fps, and equally between 100fps and 200fps in terms of the 'feel' -- which is usually referred to as smoothness.

    That's why pro FPS players stuck with ~100hz CRT monitors whilst LCD technology caught up in the early Noughties. Best of both worlds.

  • Obiwanshinobi #174 3 years ago

    There is a very noticable difference in 60fps and 100fps, and equally between 100fps and 200fps in terms of the 'feel' -- which is usually referred to as smoothness.

    That, sir, is not exactly true. First of all, so called 'smoothness' is not only conditioned by an average framerate (which is a pleonasm, as every framerate - being measured in some time segment - is average by nature). 60 fps can still be jerky, therefore steadiness of framerate is important as well. To put it simply: there's no way in hell you can distinguish, say, 50 fps from 60 fps by smoothness, if only framerate is steady. Different feel may be caused by:
    a) different pace (if lower framerate = slowdown, which is not always the case)
    b) frameskipping (quality of animation designed for 100 fps verily is affected if an engine skips frames instead of slowing animation down)
    c) aforementioned iconstancy (you know the drill; sometimes game or benchmark runs at significantly more fps than 30, thus animation should be relatively smooth, yet it obviously isn't)
    d) altered precision of controls (especially aiming in badly optimised first person shooters)
    e) und so weiter, und so weiter

    In other words: PC games are often designed for benchmark wankers by people who don't give a f?ck whether you get a decent gaming experience if you don't h have a high-end machine. Even if game is relatively well optimised, the very existence of 100 Hz monitors is a sufficient reason for optimising it especially for 100 fps. At least in PC games developers' opinion, because that's the way they are. They just don't make games for old hardware. They make games for hardware yet to come (especially the likes of Crytek).

    That's why pro FPS players stuck with ~100hz CRT monitors whilst LCD technology caught up in the early Noughties.

    There are and were much better reasons for that, first of all is that low resolutions look plain awful on LCDs. Yes, game runnig at 200 fps can feel different than running at 100 fps (particulary if it means running at double speed, although for online competition one player having in-game clock faster than all the rest would be, well, bizarre), but increasing framerate to such altitude is e-dong enlarging. Good optimisation - that's the key to smoothness and precision.
    P.S. I don't mind PC gaming. I play on PC and I know the pleasure of having 5 fps more in test after an upgrade.
    Edited by 3 at 10/11/08 @ 07:51

  • butler` #175 3 years ago

    I'll stand by my point. You're better off with 100fps than 60fps - even on a 60hz monitor - and better off still on a 100hz monitor with vsync.

    All your post really says is that an entirely smooth 60fps is better than a not-so-smooth 100fps, which is fine.

  • IneptPercy #176 3 years ago

    PC gaming is down to budget more than anything, right now I would say the best value card is the ATI 4850.

    I agree it is better to be over 60fps on a 60hz display but the prices just keep going up and it depends how much you want to spend to have that.

    To most people I don't think they care less about FPS and how many hz, frame rates don't always equal smoothness, I few consoles games which are locked at 30hz to keep performance are like that for a reason, a rock solid 30 FPS is better than something bouncing better 30-60fps.

    To me I don't go for this counting FPS etc, I start a game up set all graphics to maximium then see what happens, if needed I reduce settings until I get something I like the look of.

    As for the specs I listed being a load PC? not sure where that comes from, as mentioned I built a similar system for my brother and there wasn't excessive noise, yes in a silent room you could hear it but one the speakers where switched on it was nothing to worry about.

    My own personal PC has a fan controller with many settings, so for watching films all fans are off expect the needed ones which are slowed down.

  • Cronan #177 3 years ago

    Fallout == good game, on any platform.
    Latest set of Eurogamer adverts (the Shaun White crap at the top) == Epic Fail

    Annoying.

  • BonzoBanana #178 3 years ago

    I don't think they bothered too much with the PS3 version. The fact it will be denied extra content shows a lack of interest/concern for ps3 owners. Thats ok with me as I own both a ps3 and 360 and I've gone with the 360 version on this occasion. Generally I prefer to go with a ps3 version as my 360 isn't 100% stable as its a 2006 model. Also I've haven't got a dualshock controller for my ps3 yet and prefer vibration feedback in games anyway.

  • Obiwanshinobi #179 3 years ago

    100 fps is 'better' than 60 fps in the same way 1600x1200 resolution is 'better' with antialiasing than without it, even on 17'', but aiming at this sort of betterness no matter the costs means walking narrow and thorny path. I suppose every PC gamer gets tired by all this race of arms sooner or later.

  • IneptPercy #180 3 years ago

    "100 fps is 'better' than 60 fps in the same way 1600x1200 resolution is 'better' with antialiasing than without it, even on 17'', but aiming at this sort of betterness no matter the costs means walking narrow and thorny path. I suppose every PC gamer gets tired by all this race of arms sooner or later."

    Hits the nail on the head really, I am happy if I can run past console standards really, to me that makes the extra worth it, but on a budget getting a 8800GT or 3870 will push most games at 720p easily and give pretty much the same as a 360/PS3.

    I looked at the 4870 512mb, 4870 1GB and 4870x2 2GB, as it is I went for the 4870 1GB as it does help with games at 1080p and only cost a slight bit more than 512mb version. The 4870x2 on the other hand cost a lot more but seemed a waste really and people who are running 2 4870x2's in crossfire, why?

    Basically to me graphics cards come in a few flavours: (going with the current ATI range for an example)
    Budget 4550
    Value 4670
    Best Value 4850
    Top End 4870
    More money than sense 4870x2

    4870x2 owners please don't get offended, this is my opinion.

    Of couse older cards can come into play like the 3870 is around the 4670 level and the 3870x2 is around the 4850 level. Of course you can do a similar thing with Nvidia cards.

  • Weezer #181 3 years ago

    Should have justified my earlier comment: I think it's daft to include a PC as it will - and should - be better than the consoles. But then I started thinking about price and if you DO include PCs, you should maybe include cheaper systems alongside a shit-hot gaming rig.

    I fully expect a £1,000 PC to kick my consoles all over the place. But what about a £500 one from PC World. Or a £250 one from Tesco? Like I say, you can, if you wish, spend £180 (plus price of game) and play Fallout 3...

    To me it just feels an unfair (unnecessary?) comparison. The 360's graphics card is at least two years out of date, etc etc.

  • IneptPercy #182 3 years ago

    Prices do come so much into it, the problem is consoles are set standards, PC's are variable so you can never say I game is better on PC unless you say to be better is needs x,y,z etc.

    I do think its fair to compare if they state the value of the system its running on, but price wise PC is a realistic option, I think if challenged I could make a gaming PC which plays games better than a PS3 for the same price as a PS3 (don't think I can beat the £130 for the 360)

  • SuperNashwan #183 3 years ago

    Interesting article, good to see a PC comparison for a change to see how the 'next gen' stack up. As a 360 owner i was quite pleased as i though the PC would be streets ahead.

    Great game, think it will be stealing much of my free time in the coming months.

  • TRUTH #184 3 years ago

    PC - Best but expensive and not recommended to people are unaware of running games on PC's.
    360 - Second best
    PS3 - Third best

  • Harmonica #185 3 years ago

    @ Diamond Ice

    "Oh and spending over a £1000 on a glorified calculator isn't my idea of value."

    Is that the same idea as cars being glorified oxcarts?

  • danodynamo #186 3 years ago

    i just think its sad how people moan & bitch on about how much one console is better than the other. In all honestly, there really isn't that much in the difference between the two consoles in terms on capabilities - i.e in the here and now not some new fangled promise from the future.

    I have had my 360 since launch and it's never let me down (must be the only one) and am more than happy with it but it doesn't mean I don't want a PS3. (toss up at them moment between the PS3 and an iphone 560 euro with o2 in ireland the b*****ds!.)

    Both Microsoft and Sony are after one thing, and that's your money!-They don't give a toss about anyone. Sony are always lying out of their arses. Remember when they first introduced that pre-render as in game footage of motor storm. That has to be the most blatant false advertisement andhas to be against the law, no matter what country your from. Also "emotion engine" "cell", all these fancy name promising the world,give me a break they just processors for f**K sake. Anyone who falls for that is a complete nob !



    ...Oh and good post. love reading these in work, makes the 8 hours go by a hell of a lot quicker ! GOD BLESS SITTING ON YOUR ARSE DOING NOTHING AND GETTING PAID FOR IT !

  • IneptPercy #187 3 years ago

    "Pissing around because a DLL has vanished or an OS update has buggered with everything is not what I want to do."

    You need to upgrade from windows 98 from the sound of it.

    "Oh and spending over a £1000 on a glorified calculator isn't my idea of value."

    how about spending £300-£350 on a calculator that plays games better than the 360/PS3?

  • dryden555 #188 3 years ago

    fallout 3 both looks and plays MUCH better on a PC with nothing special graphics card. Dont let anyone tell you differently.

  • Katsumoto #189 3 years ago

    lol @ diamondice.

    Whilst we're saying complete untrue things, I refuse to buy this for the 360 because I don't want to spend £500 and have to fork out extra for a pad, seeing as they don't come in the box for the stupid thing.

  • uk_john #190 2 years ago

    What tells me gamers are dumbing down is that so many call this an 'RPG-Shooter' - just like they do for Bioshock, Mass Effect and Borderlands!

    Firstly, just because a game has 10% RPG'ing in it, doesn't make it the same as a game with 90% RPG'ing in it! Secondly, Fallout 3 is not an 'RPG Shooter' any more than Oblivion was an 'RPG-Sworder'. Just because its Sci-Fi and has laser guns does not stop it being a real RPG. How can Fallout 3's SPECIAL system and character attributes and skillsets make it anything other than an RPG? In the same way, when you look at Borderlands, how can it be anything but a shooter to all intents and purposes?

    With this confusion, I despair of getting many hardcore RPG's. I can see Alpha Protocol is not going to be, and I just hope Dragon Age does really well on console and PC so we get follow-up's! Mind you, that doesn't ease my mind totally, after all, Bioware followed up Baldur's Gate 2 with Jade Empire!!