Fallout: New Vegas PC specs announced

Fallout: New Vegas PC specs announced

Fallout: New Vegas is being developed by Obsidian Entertainment and is out later this month.

Bethesda has revealed the hardware requirements for the PC version of Fallout: New Vegas, which has just gone gold.

Fallout: New Vegas is set for an October 22nd release date.

The official hardware requirements for Fallout: New Vegas are...

OS: Windows XP/Vista/7
HDD: 10Gb free hard drive space
CPU: Dual Core 2.0 GHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6 series, ATi 1300XT series minimum

Bethesda's announcement also claims that the game's enhanced for multi-core, though it doesn't give specifics.

While New Vegas is being published by Fallout 3 dev, Bethesda, it's actually being developed by Obsidian Entertainment. A number of the New Vegas team previously worked at Interplay on the older Fallout games.

Check out our Fallout 3 review for more information on the Fallout series.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.


Discuss in the forums Reply
mrbens 4th October 2010, 12:18 Quote
Don't think many people will struggle with those specs. I hope it looks better than Fallout 3 because that looked pretty low res before applying the HD texture packs.
gavomatic57 4th October 2010, 12:25 Quote
No great shock there given that it uses the Oblivion engine (Gamebryo I think). Oblivion had some multicore capability too...
Yemerich 4th October 2010, 12:28 Quote
Of course not. They will be prolly using that modified crap engine for oblivion.

The best part on this article is the fact that the dev team is formed by "a number" of interplay former employees.
That must be a good new.
Jack_Pepsi 4th October 2010, 13:15 Quote
I can't even complete the add-ons due to the fact the game is so incredibly unstable.


Hope that doesn't happen with this.
The_Beast 4th October 2010, 13:27 Quote
mine didn't crash that often
GravitySmacked 4th October 2010, 13:31 Quote
Mine never crashed.

As for the spec I haven't heard that they were adding any more bells or whistles to the engine so if your PC can run the first then it'll be able to run this.
Jack_Pepsi 4th October 2010, 13:32 Quote
Mine didn't crash until I started the add-ons. It's really annoying as Fallout 3 is definitely one of the best games I've ever played.
Teelzebub 4th October 2010, 13:46 Quote
Never had any problems with Fallout 3 including all of the DLC's.

The needed spec's are not that high really.

I've pre ordered it ages ago, I believe it unlock's on the 22nd of this month.
phuzz 4th October 2010, 16:38 Quote
FO3 for me generally either works fine, or crashes immediately, several times before running fine.
I don't see anyone who played FO3 not reaching these specs
theskirrid 4th October 2010, 18:33 Quote
I solved all my fallout3 crashes by limiting the number of cores the engine used to 2. It's pants with a >2 physical core CPU. Set to 4 [for a Phenom II] it would either crash when loading, or when entering a new area or building.
In Fallout.ini :-

Hopefully multi-core enhanced means more than 2 for this version, as it's had some engine tweaks.
brave758 4th October 2010, 18:44 Quote
Fallout 3 Stability was shocking on my system (in sig) But managaed to limp through. Can't wait for New Vegas though
SMIFFYDUDE 4th October 2010, 19:33 Quote
I wasn't even expecting the specs to be any different to fallout 3. Then again I wasn't really thinking about it until I clicked on this article.
robots 5th October 2010, 01:19 Quote
Do you need an upgrade?

^ Heh. I could probably play it on my phone.
mastorofpuppetz 5th October 2010, 13:20 Quote
Man o Man, some of the worst animations and graphics for a AAA 2010 game, why couldn't they at least upgrade them a bit? Looks like arse. Hate that type of laziness.
robots 5th October 2010, 16:02 Quote
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Man o Man, some of the worst animations and graphics for a AAA 2010 game, why couldn't they at least upgrade them a bit? Looks like arse. Hate that type of laziness.

They are cashing in on the lack of competition I suppose. If there were some far better games out there, people might turn their nose up at this and not buy it. But seeing as there is barely any alternative these days, they know everyone will rush out and buy it no matter how ancient their graphics engine is. Cheap asses cashing in on the crappy gaming situation these days.

It would be a different story if Rage was closer to release, and if there were other Rages on the horizon, but that's not so.
PingCrosby 6th October 2010, 10:11 Quote
Does this mean I have to upgrade my 8086 and S3 911 ?
barney magru 7th October 2010, 01:46 Quote
Think they'll be on the money with this in terms of content. Also can't wait for fallout: online (if it DEFINITELY surfaces) , gonna be really fascinating to see what they've managed to produce during the tumultuous recent months!

Oh and first post- hey there ;)
sear 7th October 2010, 07:08 Quote
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
Man o Man, some of the worst animations and graphics for a AAA 2010 game, why couldn't they at least upgrade them a bit? Looks like arse. Hate that type of laziness.
They actually have improved the animations a good deal, but the fact is that the engine is ancient - it's impossible to have diagonal walking animations, for example. Rather, Obsidian have focused on creating content rather than updating the visuals. The game world is the same size of the world in Fallout 3, but features more sub-locations, more unique-looking locations, about twice as many enemies, weapons and items, and has approximately five or six times as many quests, with an 800,000-word script.

Frankly, in a case like this, I'd say take your updated visuals and stuff them... not that I don't like pretty graphics, but I think Obsidian used the resources and time at their disposal in the best way they could have. As an RPG fan who was generally disgusted with the butchery of the Fallout franchise Bethesda perpetrated, I'm happy to see the more-or-less original developers back in the saddle to focus on the things that matter for an RPG: building of a logical and consistent universe with believable characters and factions, a strong story that doesn't require me to ignore dozens of plot holes, well-written dialogue, and deep and balanced systems based on traditional tabletop gaming, all things Bethesda utterly failed at in Fallout 3.
mastorofpuppetz 7th October 2010, 17:16 Quote
I'd agree with you except I dont, it's a pure cash in and lazy, they have no competition. NEWSFLASH, you can improve graphics, animations while still making quality content, you know , llike 99% of sequels do. Its using rehashed assets with no attempt to improve it. Obsidian also dont have the greatest history when it comes to making sequels.
PingCrosby 14th October 2010, 20:24 Quote
I've upgraded my 8086 and S3 911 and now have a Msi P55 GD65, i5 - 760, 4gb Corsair Dominator Ram, Zotac GTX 460 and a Thermaltake Frio....yeah its not bad.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums