Fallout: New Vegas PC System Requirements Announced

The latest episode of publisher Bethesda's podcast brings word that Fallout: New Vegas has gone gold, as well as revealing the minimum PC system requirements for the post-apocalyptic RPG developed by Obsidian Entertainment.

New Vegas will be released for PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 on October 19 in North America, hitting Europe on October 22. The PC minimum system requirements follow.

  • Processor: Dual Core 2.0GHz
  • Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 6 series, ATI 1300XT series
  • Memory: 2GB RAM
  • Hard drive: 10GB free space
  • OS: Windows 7/Vista/XP

There's still time to pre-order and receive the various in-game items on offer as incentives. There'll also be an $80 Collector's Edition with bags of physical goodies on all three platforms, while Direct2Drive is exclusively offering a PC-only Digital Collector's Edition with a digital graphic novel and in-game item pack.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    October 5, 2010 7:06 AM

    So they didnt fix the shadows bug after all, this game on graphics will really suck.

    • reply
      October 5, 2010 7:13 AM

      This is your game. This is your game on graphics.

      • reply
        October 5, 2010 7:30 AM

        Without your game, these graphics are useless. Without these graphics, your game is useless.

        • reply
          October 5, 2010 9:25 AM

          my game and myself know that what counts in this title is not the pixels we push, the channels of our surround sound, nor the shadows we cast. we know that it is the gameplay that counts. we will play!

    • reply
      October 5, 2010 7:15 AM

      what is the "shadows" bug?

      • reply
        October 5, 2010 7:23 AM

        Yes.. please do tell... what exactly is the "shadows bug"? Or do you mean that some things just lack shadows at all?

        • reply
          October 5, 2010 12:32 PM

          A few of the screenshots show shadows cast towards the light source.

    • reply
      October 5, 2010 7:18 AM

      It uses the same engine as FO3 with few modifications. It's not going to look much better without moving to a better engine.

    • reply
      October 5, 2010 7:33 AM

      I really don't think this game is going to win people over on graphics... the engine is essentially the same (maybe with a few tweaks here and there). I just recently finished Fallout 3 and while I'll admit that it's not exactly Crysis-like cutting edge in terms of graphics today... for the most part it's good enough to get the story across and I still came across parts (even in the 360 version) where I thought it looked pretty nice and impressed me.

      I think really good design can work around the need for a super high-end graphics engine though. If the artists work really hard to design nice environments and make things interesting and believable... then it will look good despite the aged engine. Duke Nukem 3d is a perfect example of this because the Build engine was essentially a spruced up version of what the Doom engine was. It effectively uses 'tricks' to make 2d images look like a 3d environment. The only reason Duke 3d looked as good as it did at the time it was released was because those guys really worked their asses off and made some amazing levels with the limited engine they had to work with. Duke 3d is voodoo magic... it's incredible it looks as good as it does.

      I, personally, don't mind that the engine is basically the same (with New Vegas) because this means the team was almost 100% focused on story, content, models and environments. These guys have been working away for YEARS on just generating content for an RPG which felt was already one of my favorite games of the last 10 years. I think New Vegas has potential to be a very, very good game. But yeah... pure graphics are not going to drive sales on this one I think.

      • reply
        October 5, 2010 8:47 AM

        I've been replaying fallout3 last couple of days aswell. it really looks great in small confined spaces, inside, especially in ones where the lighting/conditions aren't exactly the same throughout. and also especially if you don't look at the whole picture but focus in on details. the lighting/colours situations gets preposterous outside when viewing the entire landscape. and also if you go outside in megaton and get up high to view the town which I just did last night before activating the bomb and blowing up the town. it just looks terrible, like watching a bunch of noise. like old style snow on the tv or something. new vegas got a pretty wacky colour scheme, but still looks really weird in the barren outside areas. and doesn't seem to have the same detail that fallout3 does. not sure. both games overall look really weird. bethesda seriously need to ditch this graphics/rendering tech for their next game. watching the nuke in megaton go off from tenpenny tower looks superb though. I can see where the guy in the hat is coming from jizzing in his pants viewing that

    • reply
      October 5, 2010 7:42 AM


      • reply
        October 5, 2010 7:50 AM

        It would want to be fun, it looks like Quake 2...

        • reply
          October 5, 2010 8:10 AM


        • reply
          October 5, 2010 3:16 PM

          So, so tired of bullshit hyperbole such as this.

          • reply
            October 5, 2010 5:24 PM

            It's not bullshit if you have eyes.

            Fallout 3 is a very, VERY, ugly game. It has ugly textures, ugly animations. It is ugly. UGLY.

            It may well be fun, which is nice, but it is ugly. Fun and ugly.

Hello, Meet Lola