Well technically speaking, NV is on my brother's laptop, not mine. His laptop is so increadibly ****y when playing a game that I have no problem admitting ( and indeed, he has argued this) that most of my resentment for the game may infact stem from the ****y preformance I got when playing it. However, I do stand by my problem with what they did and didn't do with the canon. All the ridiculous lag in the world did not obscure my view of that.
That's nice and all, but didn't the encounters start to feel a little bit too scripted after a few playthroughs? IMO, NV would have been a much better game if it had gone with a more refined version of FO3's random encounters.
I think I had New Vegas and 3 all on medium, and I have Skyrim on medium now. All three still look amazing. I did have some crashes with New Vegas, though, and hardly any with Fallout 3. I think Skyrim froze on me once, and that's about it.
I dunno dude, I've played FO3 since it was released for Xbox, and I enjoyed the story, but it didn't have much going for it. Fallout: New Vegas improved everything else, but lacked a fan-friggin'-tastic story. Sure, whenever I play, it's funny as hell and the DLC are nice, but it just doesn't hold up to FO3 on that field. I guess, I can't decide between the two, I like playing both, and I do so frequently.
I don't know. Default, I think. I don't remember ever tinkering with the settings. Of course, like I said, it is my brother's laptop, so I can't check.
I think the game automatically detects the optimal settings for your system when you first start the game.
Automatically adjusts my boot. That would suggest that the game would preform acceptably when I play it. Which it didn't and it still looked like crap. (Well, I didn't like the asctetics to begin with in any case).
