Not X-COM, but a couple strategic games, mostly real time but also turn-based. However, with those turn-based games I had decent graphics for units and most importantly, when I was finished making decisions the game actually played something interesting. Although had they been really interesting I'd recall the games' names . . . Fallout runs at the speed of sad - not to mention I can get much more into tactical decisions about attacking an opposing army than attacking an opposing rat.Guessing you've never played X-COM or any strategic or 4x game before....
Yep, just not for me.If you dislike the start of Fallout 1, you'll *really* hate the start of Fallout 2.
Seems fair to say that this kind of game just isn't for you - no biggie.
To me, Fallout 1 is one of the most brilliant things ever commited to a single CD, always giving me a much more immersive gaming experience than any 3D attempt has been capable of.
Different strokes and all that.
lol Thanks.Let me clue you in to something I learned a long time ago:
When it comes to Werepossum, dont EVER assume!
I had that same experience. Part of that is that unlike a pure shooter you are helped or hindered by your SPECIAL scores, so you can be at knife range and still miss with a full magazine, but part is that things ARE bullet sponges. I found combat fairly boring until modded. I'm currently Fallout 3 with the Fallout Wanderer's Edition and it's freakin' HARD, almost instadeath. You'd best be the first to see and the first to fire or you die, period. To me that's a lot more immersive than firing magazine after magazine into some dude's face.I would hope to like fallout 4 but playing witcher 3 has spoiled me I think. I watched some play through videos of fallout 3 and it seemed so vast and empty. Enemies seemed to take tons of damage too or maybe the guy that was playing was new I don't know. To me it looked kind of boring but we shall see.
[Update: There we go! Bethesda has officially clarified that Fallout 4 is running at 1080p/30fps on Xbox One, PS4. "Resolution and FPS are not limited in any way on PC."]
I had that same experience. Part of that is that unlike a pure shooter you are helped or hindered by your SPECIAL scores, so you can be at knife range and still miss with a full magazine, but part is that things ARE bullet sponges. I found combat fairly boring until modded. I'm currently Fallout 3 with the Fallout Wanderer's Edition and it's freakin' HARD, almost instadeath. You'd best be the first to see and the first to fire or you die, period. To me that's a lot more immersive than firing magazine after magazine into some dude's face.
To get some Fallout flavor, do a search on Shorty's Deathclaw story. It's epic.
Honestly I don't know that I made it to level 10 before modding it to play more like a shooter, albeit a shooter where you are still hindered or helped by your character's particular skills. But that bullet sponge effect, coupled with wearing out weapons and armor in one or two fights and the constant crashes, were my cross-eyed bears in both Fallout games. I remember going out with two sets of armor and two or three shotguns and assault rifles so that I wouldn't be caught essentially unprotected and unarmed. All three were easily solved with mods - all hail Bethesda, who builds engines that let you play the way YOU want to play.After level 10 or so, if any enemy(outside of the behemoths) is still taking clips, you're just doing it wrong.
If they can actually hit 1080p (native, not scaled up) and 30fps on the consoles, they've done a good job; SOOO many games cannot hit those levels and have to upscale for display. Makes one wonder though how nice could games be had this generation of consoles been designed with a lot more power.[Update]: Bethesda has clarified that, while the Xbox One and PS4 versions of Fallout 4 will run at 1080p and 30fps, the "resolution and FPS are not limited in any way on the PC."
If I had to throw a guess out there, that could be the target for their minimum (or perhaps recommended) requirements? I don't know if they've released those specs yet.Man. I wonder what context they got 30fps on PC too from. Cause that doesn't seem right at all.
If I had to throw a guess out there, that could be the target for their minimum (or perhaps recommended) requirements? I don't know if they've released those specs yet.
Is that really a problem though? This isn't a twitch shooter, and I highly doubt many people can tell the difference between 60 FPS and, say, 120 FPS. 60 FPS = 16 ms - there are damned few people who can react faster than that, and surely far fewer who actually need to do so to enjoy Fallout 4.I bet the framerate is still effectively limited to 60 though (if you don't want the engine to shit itself that is).
If they can actually hit 1080p (native, not scaled up) and 30fps on the consoles, they've done a good job; SOOO many games cannot hit those levels and have to upscale for display. Makes one wonder though how nice could games be had this generation of consoles been designed with a lot more power.
Agreed. It would be different if it were, say, Battlefield.GTA5 is 1080/30 on both consoles.
I don't think we will see 60fps open world games on console.
Even on beast PC's it can be a struggle to maintain 60fps in all scenarios on a modern open world title. The genre just lends itself to a 30fps update so you have more breathing room to simulate more stuff. Also when you run 60fps every little loading stutter becomes super noticeable.
Maybe it's just being middle-aged, but I did some extensive testing back in my CRT days and again when I got my first 24" LCD, and generally I can't perceive the difference between around 30 - 40 FPS (depending on game and scene) and anything up to 120 FPS, as long as it's artificial (i.e. the minimum frame rates are the same.) I can tell some small difference in AA, although not really between the lower versus higher levels, but honestly when playing I don't notice the difference at all, so generally I don't bother with it even when I have the horsepower. Although "layman" makes me wonder if I too can get a job as a professional AA-perceiver.Why do people always act like the only advantage to higher framerates is a competitive one. It's not just about twitch shooters and milliseconds. I don't play competitively online any more (well not seriously like I did back in the UT2003/04 days because my reactions are shot), so I couldn't care less about that aspect. But I still run every game I can at 120fps. It's a smoother, better experience, regardless of what type of game it is. Even the windows desktop is more pleasant to use at 120Hz vs 60Hz.
60fps is comfortable, but there's plenty of room for improvement.
Incidentally, I bet the vast majority of people could tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps if tested. Most of them just don't know any better, because they never play above 60fps. It's another thing your brain is trained to appreciate too - like the layman who doesn't even know what antialiasing is would look at a crawling, aliased image and see no issue.