Well after pressing pre load 107487208598039203020 times I realised I was suppose to exit steam then it would work. I'm not taking any points of bethesda because its clearly not their fault.

So I'm all up in the game and I'm like Wow why does this game perform at 20-30 fps around npc when in crysis warhead on enthusiast I get at least 40 fps most of the time.

My specs
Tri SLI gtx 470's (and four nuclear reactors to power them)
256GB PCI-E ssd boot drive, Steam and games are on seperat 4x 2tb raid 10 drive
intel 975 because the 980x wasn't out yet,
And fallout new vegas.

Thats right my specs on this pc isn't enough to run new vegas on low without huge performance dips around npcs; just like oblivion (with obmm and stutter remover its not bad at all) and fo3 (a little better performance but not much). But it can run crysis much better.
So I am urging all of you not to buy new vegas as it has horrible performance. Bethesda I will not buy another game from you until TESV.

I was like okay so they are using the old engine. But wait.. don't they own tech 5 engine? No excuse.


So whats up bethesda. You mad, I'm mad.
-10/100 F- horrible game.
I bet I could emulate an xbox 360 + nv for less of a performance hit. Its that bad.

AND WHY DOES THE CORNERS OF MY SCREEN SEEM STRETCHED AND THE MIDDLE SEEM SQUISHED. ITS BEEN 5 YEARS PLEASE FIX THIS BUG IN YOUR ENGINE.
I'm not playing anymore until mods come out that fix this game (make it playable for what I paid for)

part of being a pc gamer is having to fiddle to get games to work, which is why i'm a console guy

Have you tried disabling SLI? Have you done any troubleshooting? Did you really expect them to build a brand new game engine on IDtech and game content in under 2 years? How does your computer run Fallout 3?


I don't think that's true for most people. I haven't had to "fiddle" with a game to get it to work in at least 5 or 6 years, and I play a lot of PC games.

I'm a PC guy. My computer does its job, if it doesnt work I fix it. End of story. I just hope this phantom patch for New Vegas fixed some of the stuff you guys are complaining about.

This is not a review. :brokencomputer:

thats ashame you can't get it to work..but really you think they would have play tested the thing and said hey..we better fix these bugs in our game abit at least to get rid of the main issues..instead of releasing a half assed game in the first place..sure it may be a great game..but still no excuse

So far this is exactly how the Fallout 3 release went. :shrug:

PC here, I can't hear you from how awesome x86 and x64 architecture is.
No lol consoles get all teh luv




2010 and I have to disable sli.
Oh lol bethesda,
But yes. No gain. No loss (game either doesnt use sli or is bottlenecked by programmers who don't know how to make games. Probably the ladder considering bethesda's bug history and that they completly drop official support for games 6 months after release or not providing support if you use windows 7 fo3.)

Have you done any troubleshooting?
Yeah the engine doesn't like decent computers.
OBSE + EVERY SINGLE MOD + 2GB PATCH + STUTTER REMOVER = HEAVINE

Did you really expect them to build a brand new game engine on IDtech and game content in under 2 years?
They bought id's engine. They had #4 so IDK why they would not use that. ANYTHING BUT GAMEBRYO. ANYTHING I'M BEGGING YOU PLEASE. BUT NO. Every game engine > rocks > abacus > sticks > game engines for atari 2600 > pong > everything in the world > gamebryo

How does your computer run Fallout 3?
Like crap. Just like every bethesda game.
If they didn't make the best games I wouldn't be a customer. Good gameplay bad graphics and lots of bugs they drop support after 6 months regardless of it the last patch breaks something. (quad core support amirite?)

1 out of 10 is .1 or one tenth of 1.

Your negative numerator and positive denominator doesn't make sense for a rating.

Nice pretend computer, I get 25fps with a single HD4890 on Warhead maxed out with 8x AA and 16x AF, plus nearly every review I've seen says 40fps for a single card, there is no way anyone could have the bad performance you're getting and still be able to play the game if you really are running tri SLI.
I can't speak for NV, I don't have it yet but I've never encountered any of the issues you're stating with FO3 and Oblivion and I'm running HD4890 Crossfire with two screens. (I.e. One of the most buggiest combinations you can get)

Yeah, they seem to have a hard time getting SLI 100% right on Gamebryo. I'm not suggesting you settle for leaving it off, but trying it off give you information about what might be the problem.


Ok, but what else have you tried with New Vegas?


iDtech isn't a game, though. It takes a long time to build on Gamebryo before you end up with Fallout 3. From Fallout 3 it wasn't as much work to do New Vegas...a lot of the work was done. Gamebryo and iDtech are a great start, but in some ways they're a blank slate. It would have taken at least 2 additional years to build New Vegas if they'd started from scratch with iDtech. :shrug:


It's gotta be an issue with your configuration. I've been playing Fallout 3 on my main desktop for the past week. The only mods I'm using right now are FOOK2 1.1 and Mart's Mutant Mod RC5 (granted, they're both huge mods), but I'm running with settings maxed at 1920x1200 and my framerates stick at 60fps (v-sync is on) and very rarely go below 50fps worst-case. Your specs are better than mine:

Q9550 @ 3.4GHz
Radeon 5870 1GB
8GB RAM
Creative X-Fi
Win7 Pro x64

It's gotta be something about your configuration that the game doesn't like.

The game is that bad.
If you need more explination then
"Its so bad that I'd rather have not spent $5 let alone $50 for it"



My uncle is one of the main shareholders of thq and I complained I couldn't play metro on dx11 (was running a gtx 8800 then)
That is what he gave me. My ssd is actually inferior to the new intel ones you guys have because it was a test model. I have no trim support, so every 4 months or so I have to do a slow format to make it back to factory goodness (restore it to original speed). So I dual booted on a mechanical hdd. IDK why it runs so bad man, if I knew I'd fix it and play it. I like this game so far, I just can't handle 30+ fps dips every time I get near a npc.
The engine can't handle sli or good components.

So because you can't get your game to work properly the game is bad and worthy of a F- ... right.

Is there even a New Vegas profile in NVIDIA drivers yet?
Only ever seen a 3D profile mentioned in the very latest ones.

mmhmmm - I understand. I think this is a thread that is making NV look bad for the sake of making NV look bad; ie: pointless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_tech_5
Bethesda owns the company that owns the engine.
So bethesda owns a better engine than the one they used that they had to pay for.
I hope they releace a patch that adds ladders and a new engine that supports them. Crytec had a good optimised engine (compared to gamebryo)

My setup is fine.
No game ever under any circumstances drops below 120 fps. (120hz monitor)
Exept ones ran with gamebryo.
It doesn't like high end components.
I bet a $800 laptop would run it better because its slower.
Also because I have 12 cores so maybe disable ht so I only have 6 then block off 3 so I only have 3 cores.

Irrelevant. The amount of work that would have to be done to move the foundations (or recreate everything to the existing foundations (ie, doom)) is what he's speaking of.

So release a game on an old engine to make a quick buck?

Yea, let's reinvent the wheel daily while we're at it (just following your logic path).

No, I know that Bethesda bought iD. What you're not getting is how much time it takes to build a game from a raw game engine. New Vegas was built on Fallout 3's engine, which was built on Oblivion's engine (well, part of it), which was built on Gamebryo. If they'd started from scratch building on iDtech they would have to do a lot of that work again and New Vegas wouldn't be released until 2012 at earliest.


It has nothing to do with high-end or low-end components. It has to do with configurations, and the fact that other games run fine doesn't mean you don't have a configuration that Gamebryo doesn't play nice with. I'm not saying your setup is bad. There's no reason to take it personally. If you're not interested in trying to fix it then go ahead and curse Bethesda's name and go about your (un)merry way. Obviously other people are running the game fine with high-end hardware (heck, even my hardware is nothing to sneeze at). Tri-SLI is a very unusual configuration...a lot of game engines have enough trouble with two GPUs, much less three. There's something about your config that Gamebryo doesn't like, and either you're interested in trying to troubleshoot it or not. Trust me, I've been building gaming computers for over 16 years.

(Wait, you can run Crysis at max settings at 120fps minimum? No way.)


Yep. Disable everything that is unusual about your setup and see if that helps, then start re-enabling things one-by-one until the problem comes back. Then you'll know what's causing it, or at least have a better idea.

You can't review the game if your computer can't run it. get it on ps3 or xbox, or just get a better pc and you'll be golden.

Dude, read the thread.

Okay. I'll admit I am pissed right now and not thinking clearly.
The only game to switch engines mid series and keep a rolling 1.5-2 year scedual was halo.
But bungie isn't like the other devs. They have one platform and thats it. They did reach so well its scary. It looked like the pinacle of human engineering. Think about this. To render an enviroment 1/2 as complex in cad I'd get less than 1 frame per seccond. Reach runs at 60.

The 360 verision has horrible loads but it works.

Now after reading your post I think I know what it is.
Sound card/unreasonable prossesing power to ram ratio.

I am going to roll back to onboard. (Sound card didn't do anything I noticed)
Disable sli and eat my humble pie like the rest of you mortals.
Set drivers on normal mode no bull enhancements that do next to nothing.
And block in bios 4 of my cores and disable HT so I have a dual core.

I have no ram at all. 1gb stick and a 512 mb stick. (after complaining to thq about metro they sent me everything including the kitchen sink but ram) I already knew that was the problem anyway.
And I'll run on Med or high.
If that doesn't work I'm going to cry.

And crysis ran 40 ish usually. But me2 will run at like 700 if I turn vsync off. Yeah srsly.

Indeed, very true.

gamesas have added a lot on top of Gamebryo (which is pretty much just a renderer and nothing more), either by other middlewares like Havok (physics) & SpeedTree (trees) or by writing it themselves (AI, quest system, dialogue system, plug-in system, controls and the rest).

The plug-in system is a very complex work, it allow large game worlds to be built with a relatively small memory footprint as it only streams and loads what is needed instead of loading the whole level at once (which is suicide for a large outdoor area). But can also cause stuttering while the data is loading as you explore the outdoor areas.

Another thing, if you play around with the Half-Life 2 editor (or most of the game editors), you will see that a lot of level content will have to be compiled to be run in the main game, shadows are often pre-calculated and so on. That is not the case with the plug-in system, as the whole game world is dynamic and calculated in real-time. So they taken a very different approach compared to most game developers, going with better and easier to develop content over render speed. Which I think it's a perfectly valid trade-off.

Nice review. What, you play the game for about 10 minutes? Half an hour tops?