hey guys my friend showed me this game, its called Frets on Fire. obviously it was inspired by guitar hero, but you play with your keyboard. Its alot of fun so i just wanted to share.http://fretsonfire.sourceforge.net/Poor mans guitar hero
The good thing about FoF is that you can have a practically unlimited amount of songs.
You can also play with a GH controller though, my bro has a PS2 GH2 controller, and some PS2 connection to USB converter.
Poor mans guitar hero
[QUOTE=''Spunky1119''] hey guys my friend showed me this game, its called Frets on Fire. obviously it was inspired by guitar hero, but you play with your keyboard. Its alot of fun so i just wanted to share.http://fretsonfire.sourceforge.net/[/QUOTE] Its a truly awesome game!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Is it too late?
Hi I'm kinda new to PC gaming and I was wondering if it is still ok to get WOW since everyone's moved on to Burning Crusade and then the second one that's coming out. Are there still people in the world of the original game? Is it a good time to jump into Azeroth for the first time?Is it too late?
[QUOTE=''bastila19'']Hi I'm kinda new to PC gaming and I was wondering if it is still ok to get WOW since everyone's moved on to Burning Crusade and then the second one that's coming out. Are there still people in the world of the original game? Is it a good time to jump into Azeroth for the first time?[/QUOTE]Everyone still plays in the same world (Or server if you want to be technical) but without the expansions you will be unable to access certain instances/items/areas/etc.As for starting now, it never hurts to try it out. Some people like it, some people hate it, and some people make it their life. I personally play on and off.Is it too late?
No it's not too late, although numbers are down in the levelling areas there are still new people starting and old people starting new characters. I don't play anymore but Wow is really worth a try. Just don't let it take over your life.
You can still play any non-BC race to level 60, I bought BC when it came out, I had actually quit and almost.....ALMOST forsaken WoW, but those bastards they call friends managed to get me to buy BC, however, we decided to start a new char, since there were some otehr people who hadn't played before.
I now have a lvl 40something warrior, which was my first main char, and a level 50something hunter, which was my second main.
I don't think I've really touched any BC content, as they're both orcs.
Of course, that's not counting alts.
But really, why waste your time on WoW when there's an endless amount of way better games out there? Just look around, I'm sure you'll find something.
just be prepared to lose months of your life :)don't worry about buying BC expansion until you are reaching levels in the high 50's, since you need BC to get 61-70... but it'll take at least a month to hit lvl 60 even if you play a couple hours a day.I quit wow many months ago, but its still a good idea to try it out if you are interested in it.
It's never too late. It's not too late to start UO and it has been out for ten years.
It's still fifteen bucks a month right?
[QUOTE=''bastila19'']Hi I'm kinda new to PC gaming and I was wondering if it is still ok to get WOW since everyone's moved on to Burning Crusade and then the second one that's coming out. Are there still people in the world of the original game? Is it a good time to jump into Azeroth for the first time?[/QUOTE]The expansion added new areas for levels 10-20, and for levels 60-70. If you within the 20 - 60 level range, you will not really notice whether you have the expansion or not.
[QUOTE=''bastila19'']Hi I'm kinda new to PC gaming and I was wondering if it is still ok to get WOW since everyone's moved on to Burning Crusade and then the second one that's coming out. Are there still people in the world of the original game? Is it a good time to jump into Azeroth for the first time?[/QUOTE]Everyone still plays in the same world (Or server if you want to be technical) but without the expansions you will be unable to access certain instances/items/areas/etc.As for starting now, it never hurts to try it out. Some people like it, some people hate it, and some people make it their life. I personally play on and off.Is it too late?
No it's not too late, although numbers are down in the levelling areas there are still new people starting and old people starting new characters. I don't play anymore but Wow is really worth a try. Just don't let it take over your life.
You can still play any non-BC race to level 60, I bought BC when it came out, I had actually quit and almost.....ALMOST forsaken WoW, but those bastards they call friends managed to get me to buy BC, however, we decided to start a new char, since there were some otehr people who hadn't played before.
I now have a lvl 40something warrior, which was my first main char, and a level 50something hunter, which was my second main.
I don't think I've really touched any BC content, as they're both orcs.
Of course, that's not counting alts.
But really, why waste your time on WoW when there's an endless amount of way better games out there? Just look around, I'm sure you'll find something.
just be prepared to lose months of your life :)don't worry about buying BC expansion until you are reaching levels in the high 50's, since you need BC to get 61-70... but it'll take at least a month to hit lvl 60 even if you play a couple hours a day.I quit wow many months ago, but its still a good idea to try it out if you are interested in it.
It's never too late. It's not too late to start UO and it has been out for ten years.
It's still fifteen bucks a month right?
[QUOTE=''bastila19'']Hi I'm kinda new to PC gaming and I was wondering if it is still ok to get WOW since everyone's moved on to Burning Crusade and then the second one that's coming out. Are there still people in the world of the original game? Is it a good time to jump into Azeroth for the first time?[/QUOTE]The expansion added new areas for levels 10-20, and for levels 60-70. If you within the 20 - 60 level range, you will not really notice whether you have the expansion or not.
Cinematic for Battle March
Looks like they did it again and made a cool cinematic for battle march as well. Bit of a warning, it looks grainy but i don't think it has anything to do with the cinematic but more to do with the size of the video and keeping it down. So for those interested in mark of chaos and battle march, what is your thoughts on this ?http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/19642/PC/Warhammer-Mark-of-Chaos-Battle-Marchlip chapstick
Trying to run Stalker-Shadow of Chernobyl
I am trying to install Stalker and when system status window comes up all looks good except it warns: ''Page file 1996mb''. What does this mean? I checked the system requirements provided with the game and it does not list a ''page file'' requirement. So when I go through the entire install and try to open the game I get a warning box, IN GERMAN, that I can't read and the game won't start. Any help with this? Thank you.Trying to run Stalker-Shadow of Chernobyl
What are your PC specs?Trying to run Stalker-Shadow of Chernobyl
Mine runs fine
just make your page file bigger I guess, in windowsmy computer properties, advanced, performance, virtual memory
Thanks for the info. guys. I changed the size of my virtual memory file and all seems well.
What are your PC specs?Trying to run Stalker-Shadow of Chernobyl
Mine runs fine
just make your page file bigger I guess, in windowsmy computer properties, advanced, performance, virtual memory
Thanks for the info. guys. I changed the size of my virtual memory file and all seems well.
Can i run Bioshock??
Hi guys... sry to bother you but i'd like to know if on a pc that has an ati radeon x700 256mb pro.. i could run bioshock... i am able to run cryisis at medium specs... processor and ram are good enough to run the game... but i still dont know if the video card is good enough..even at low specs will be fine... oh and pls dont say buy a new video card cause right now i dont have to money to buy one... seeing that i just bought cod4 for ps3,^^... so pls just tell me if i can run it on this pc thnxCan i run Bioshock??
www.systemrequirementslab.com Can i run Bioshock??
Nope
Try the domo then.
www.systemrequirementslab.com Can i run Bioshock??
Nope
Try the domo then.
Crysis is bad
Hey ignore the topic it was juz to get attentionI gonna get a laptop and play to play games like Crysis, World in conflict, Bioshock, CoD 4 and all those great new game on the highest graphicbut also wanna to play old games. What system do u think I should be looking 4?Crysis is bad
U are sillyCrysis is bad
[QUOTE=''heime2003'']U are silly[/QUOTE]
Laptops and gaming dont usualy go well togeter. That being said you should prolly look at dells XPS lineup
i was watching a work mate play crysis on his laptop yesterday - ran smoothly.not sure of the specs - think they were dual core processor, 2gig ram, 8600?? graphics card.
would all the new games work ona window xp or only on windows vista
For now all work under XP
u better get yourself an alienware or dell xps unit
hi also look at alianware there laptops are for gaming (to rich ＃?for my blood)Also games like Halo 2 is vista only and remembersomeuseDX10 although they will work under DX9 (crysis has a fix to allow all dx10 FX in XP lol clever boys who worked that out :lol:)
BY a MAC BOOK PRO, run XP on it voila.And they look sooooo sexy.
U are sillyCrysis is bad
[QUOTE=''heime2003'']U are silly[/QUOTE]
Laptops and gaming dont usualy go well togeter. That being said you should prolly look at dells XPS lineup
i was watching a work mate play crysis on his laptop yesterday - ran smoothly.not sure of the specs - think they were dual core processor, 2gig ram, 8600?? graphics card.
would all the new games work ona window xp or only on windows vista
For now all work under XP
u better get yourself an alienware or dell xps unit
hi also look at alianware there laptops are for gaming (to rich ＃?for my blood)Also games like Halo 2 is vista only and remembersomeuseDX10 although they will work under DX9 (crysis has a fix to allow all dx10 FX in XP lol clever boys who worked that out :lol:)
BY a MAC BOOK PRO, run XP on it voila.And they look sooooo sexy.
An idea for EA
Since this has been the year of the PS2 port of many EA Sports titles onto the PC platform, why doesn't EA release PC versions of NCAA Football, Arena Football, and MVP NCAA Baseball? Sell them cheap, don't market them as next gen, and give us a few more games to run...instead of trying to force PC gamers to buy next gen consoles. Just a thought....But then again, EA has alienated so many people this year....An idea for EA
Another thought would be for EA to stop making unoriginal, lousy, slapdash games with loads of bugs in them and actually make decent games.
Another thought would be for EA to stop making unoriginal, lousy, slapdash games with loads of bugs in them and actually make decent games.
RTS Game Of The Year?
Hi, so what do you think the RTS game of the year is??World in Conflict- Innovative RTS game.COH: Opposing Fronts- A stand alone expansion pack for COH.Supreme Commander- A Sci-fi RTS game that was a sequal to Total Annilation.C%26C 3- The sequal to Tiberian Sun. UAW- Made by the same people who used to make C%26C games, ex-WW. RTS Game Of The Year?
Id have to go with world in conflict..Its original an great and addicting gameplay..Great on graphics also...RTS Game Of The Year?
No Dawn of War.....probably the best out of all of those
WiC.
[QUOTE=''Adam-117'']No Dawn of War.....probably the best out of all of those[/QUOTE] Dawn of war didn't come out this year, lol. But I agree, DOW ROCKS!
WIC, amazing game.
WiC... I hate that ''Build a mini-city then go to war'' crap... And in WiC you just call for reinforcements and you're off. You're ''money'' (reinforcement points) charge up without you doing anything, so you don't need to waste time mining or whatever.
WIC just owning!
World In Conflict, then Supreme Commander for me.
GO WIC!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']WiC... I hate that ''Build a mini-city then go to war'' crap... And in WiC you just call for reinforcements and you're off. You're ''money'' (reinforcement points) charge up without you doing anything, so you don't need to waste time mining or whatever.[/QUOTE] i agree![]()
I think CoH Opposing Fronts is the best, I personaly don't like WiC units because are too small(I hate that in RTS)
World in conflict
WiC for me. Its gameplay felt really fresh and innovative: call for reinforcements, the tactical aids. And it also had really nice graphics. CnC 3 comes in a close second place
WiC without a doubt
I vote C%26C3! :P
World in Conflict - i love this game. btw i think that ressource collecting thing is no longer up to date
Well i'm sure w8-inf ofr universe at war ... but we haven't played it yet ...so we don't know ...anyway its between CoH OF .... %26 universe at war for me !
WiC, WiC, WiC!
World in Conflict is gonna get it, cuz of visuals and innovation, but CoH is way better IMO. You have to build a base, but there's hardly any base building, it's still very focused on combat and catching strategic points. WiC is just simple and boring, it just looked pretty.
Id have to go with world in conflict..Its original an great and addicting gameplay..Great on graphics also...RTS Game Of The Year?
No Dawn of War.....probably the best out of all of those
WiC.
[QUOTE=''Adam-117'']No Dawn of War.....probably the best out of all of those[/QUOTE] Dawn of war didn't come out this year, lol. But I agree, DOW ROCKS!
WIC, amazing game.
WiC... I hate that ''Build a mini-city then go to war'' crap... And in WiC you just call for reinforcements and you're off. You're ''money'' (reinforcement points) charge up without you doing anything, so you don't need to waste time mining or whatever.
WIC just owning!
World In Conflict, then Supreme Commander for me.
GO WIC!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']WiC... I hate that ''Build a mini-city then go to war'' crap... And in WiC you just call for reinforcements and you're off. You're ''money'' (reinforcement points) charge up without you doing anything, so you don't need to waste time mining or whatever.[/QUOTE] i agree
I think CoH Opposing Fronts is the best, I personaly don't like WiC units because are too small(I hate that in RTS)
World in conflict
WiC for me. Its gameplay felt really fresh and innovative: call for reinforcements, the tactical aids. And it also had really nice graphics. CnC 3 comes in a close second place
WiC without a doubt
I vote C%26C3! :P
World in Conflict - i love this game. btw i think that ressource collecting thing is no longer up to date
Well i'm sure w8-inf ofr universe at war ... but we haven't played it yet ...so we don't know ...anyway its between CoH OF .... %26 universe at war for me !
WiC, WiC, WiC!
World in Conflict is gonna get it, cuz of visuals and innovation, but CoH is way better IMO. You have to build a base, but there's hardly any base building, it's still very focused on combat and catching strategic points. WiC is just simple and boring, it just looked pretty.
Should I get Crysis or Bioshock?
I need help. Which one would you recommend for a fan of first person shooters.Should I get Crysis or Bioshock?
They are very different from eachother. It would be better for you to read reviews, watch videos, etc. and see what looks more appealing to you, instead of just asking this question.Should I get Crysis or Bioshock?
I think u shold get Crysis .. I would also recommend u Kane %26 Lynch: Dead Man if u like 3th person shoting
I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.
Crysis. Combat in BS is boring.
TY for the input.
Crysis...i pefer a game that doesnt hold my hand the whole time and wanna go my own way
It's worth noting that BioShock lacks any kind of multiplayer functionality. If this matters to you, it'd be best to go with Crysis.
Crysis by a longshot. Crysis's multiplayer is lacking compared to other games with multiplayer but the core gameplay beats the crap out of Bioshock's
Neither.... get The witcher or COD 4I have Crysis and Bioshock niether of them are as good as The Witcher or COD 4.
[QUOTE=''cperry005'']Neither.... get The witcher or COD 4I have Crysis and Bioshock niether of them are as good as The Witcher or COD 4.[/QUOTE]I just bought CoD4 AND The Witcher in the past couple of weeks. both are amazing.
Crysis is by far the better game, but Bioshock is definitely worth playing - especially if you've not played System Shock 2.I'd say grab yourself a copy of Crysis right now - I don't have time to go into my reasons, but if you have the machine to run it, Crysis is just by far the better game. But keep an eye out of low price/bargain bin deals in Bioshock. It's definitely worth playing.
if you want value for your money definitely get crysis first.
Crysis
[QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock
[QUOTE=''brandp32''] [QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock[/QUOTE] how is halo like crysis???????
I own both, but without any doubt at all, Crysis is the FAR better value, and it generally a better game too. Bioshock is nice, but has 0 replay value, overall it's charm comes from the setting and presentation, not the gameplay.
Wow this is a really hard question... I would get bioshock. it took longer to beat and is overall a more memorable experience. Cyris multiplayer is bad and slow so it is pointless. Crysis is like would be ''far cry 2'' so if you really liked far cry then that might be good but if you want a completely original and different experience i would get bioshock. Actually it would be better to get both...
I would get both...and did.
[QUOTE=''Anthony9000''][QUOTE=''brandp32''] [QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock[/QUOTE] how is halo like crysis???????[/QUOTE]Yeah I don't see how Crysis is like Halo at all... I'm guessing brandp probably hasn't played Crysis and is going from screenshots and videos.lip chapstick
They are very different from eachother. It would be better for you to read reviews, watch videos, etc. and see what looks more appealing to you, instead of just asking this question.Should I get Crysis or Bioshock?
I think u shold get Crysis .. I would also recommend u Kane %26 Lynch: Dead Man if u like 3th person shoting
I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.
Crysis. Combat in BS is boring.
TY for the input.
Crysis...i pefer a game that doesnt hold my hand the whole time and wanna go my own way
It's worth noting that BioShock lacks any kind of multiplayer functionality. If this matters to you, it'd be best to go with Crysis.
Crysis by a longshot. Crysis's multiplayer is lacking compared to other games with multiplayer but the core gameplay beats the crap out of Bioshock's
Neither.... get The witcher or COD 4I have Crysis and Bioshock niether of them are as good as The Witcher or COD 4.
[QUOTE=''cperry005'']Neither.... get The witcher or COD 4I have Crysis and Bioshock niether of them are as good as The Witcher or COD 4.[/QUOTE]I just bought CoD4 AND The Witcher in the past couple of weeks. both are amazing.
Crysis is by far the better game, but Bioshock is definitely worth playing - especially if you've not played System Shock 2.I'd say grab yourself a copy of Crysis right now - I don't have time to go into my reasons, but if you have the machine to run it, Crysis is just by far the better game. But keep an eye out of low price/bargain bin deals in Bioshock. It's definitely worth playing.
if you want value for your money definitely get crysis first.
Crysis
[QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock
[QUOTE=''brandp32''] [QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock[/QUOTE] how is halo like crysis???????
I own both, but without any doubt at all, Crysis is the FAR better value, and it generally a better game too. Bioshock is nice, but has 0 replay value, overall it's charm comes from the setting and presentation, not the gameplay.
Wow this is a really hard question... I would get bioshock. it took longer to beat and is overall a more memorable experience. Cyris multiplayer is bad and slow so it is pointless. Crysis is like would be ''far cry 2'' so if you really liked far cry then that might be good but if you want a completely original and different experience i would get bioshock. Actually it would be better to get both...
I would get both...and did.
[QUOTE=''Anthony9000''][QUOTE=''brandp32''] [QUOTE=''DarknessDeku'']I never played Crysis yet,but Bioshock is a good game. Beware for all the System Shock 2 fanboys, though.[/QUOTE]LOL!anyhow, if youre more of a halo person go crysis, but if you like a deeper experience play bioshock[/QUOTE] how is halo like crysis???????[/QUOTE]Yeah I don't see how Crysis is like Halo at all... I'm guessing brandp probably hasn't played Crysis and is going from screenshots and videos.
Big Rigs Re-review
I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?Big Rigs Re-review
First... big rigs is not a company.Second, they wouldn't have to the money to advertsie.Big Rigs Re-review
Third, Big Rigs owns. You're just in denial.
What is ''Poop spot'' ?? the toilet?
[QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame!
[QUOTE=''daytona_178''][QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame![/QUOTE]Well, it wouldn't be a lame topic if he took the time to make a video re-review of big rigs stressing its positive aspects (i.e., rather than saying the game is ugly, saying that it's rough around the edges but still fun to play).
[QUOTE=''spierdalaj666''][QUOTE=''daytona_178''][QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame![/QUOTE]Well, it wouldn't be a lame topic if he took the time to make a video re-review of big rigs stressing its positive aspects (i.e., rather than saying the game is ugly, saying that it's rough around the edges but still fun to play).[/QUOTE]Well some games are ugly and some are ''rough around the edges but still fun to play''. I guess editor thought that Big Rigs are ugly...
First... big rigs is not a company.Second, they wouldn't have to the money to advertsie.Big Rigs Re-review
Third, Big Rigs owns. You're just in denial.
What is ''Poop spot'' ?? the toilet?
[QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame!
[QUOTE=''daytona_178''][QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame![/QUOTE]Well, it wouldn't be a lame topic if he took the time to make a video re-review of big rigs stressing its positive aspects (i.e., rather than saying the game is ugly, saying that it's rough around the edges but still fun to play).
[QUOTE=''spierdalaj666''][QUOTE=''daytona_178''][QUOTE=''Lithium0022'']I wonder, if Big Rigs ever decides to put ads on poopspot will they fire Alex N also?[/QUOTE] This topic is so lame![/QUOTE]Well, it wouldn't be a lame topic if he took the time to make a video re-review of big rigs stressing its positive aspects (i.e., rather than saying the game is ugly, saying that it's rough around the edges but still fun to play).[/QUOTE]Well some games are ugly and some are ''rough around the edges but still fun to play''. I guess editor thought that Big Rigs are ugly...
Mac Switchers are unwise!!!(to say the least)
Wow, you bought a mac, and its better than your pc? I Wonder if thats because your mac is a new computer, and your PC is from 2001!!!Mac Switchers are unwise!!!(to say the least)
Actually, I use a MacBook as a laptop and its great for musical applications ranging from swaping audio clips to panning samples with Ableton Live. Gaming-wise... yes it has its problems though that doesn't necessarily means that it's crap.Mac Switchers are unwise!!!(to say the least)
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''quietguy'']Actually, I use a MacBook as a laptop and its great for musical applications ranging from swaping audio clips to panning samples with Ableton Live. Gaming-wise... yes it has its problems though that doesn't necessarily means that it's crap.[/QUOTE] i never was attacking your mac, i said mac switchers were unwise.It's the fact that most of them are ''unwise'', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tq7yykR-DMThey even market to these ''unwise''
i never understood why some people like macs so much it just dont make sense to me. besideds it not having as many viruses. and they seem way more expensive to me. but hey everyone has their opinion
I'm a semi-professtional video editor, soon to be pro, and moving to Hollywood. PC's don't have FCP; sure, you can get a GTX and what not, but for a Mac, gaming isn't a big deal so it doesn't matter. This post is ridiculous.I make money on my Mac, I have a huge hobby for games and building PC's. So yes, that means have a Mac Pro, Power Mac G5, Apple Cinema Displays, MacBook Pro, and an iMac for my video editing and for home use. I have a gaming PC (see sig for details) for GAMING!Yes, Apple's operating system is much more solid than Vista; Vista has crashed on me, and Mac OS X over five years of use, has not. I trust Mac OS X. They are two different platforms without two different sets of applications, and two different specialities.Yeah, please don't say Mac's suck; I wouldn't be successful without one, they are a much better for video editing.
Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards...
''I couldn't find the button''
''What cable do I use''
wtf..
[QUOTE=''amekhov'']Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards... ''I couldn't find the button'' ''What cable do I use'' wtf..[/QUOTE]A percentage of Mac users are those who aren't computer savvy, and were told a Mac was simply and they needed a computer; usually one will go for it. Another percentages are those people who want a computer that just works; so they go with a Mac. Another percentage is for the people, like me for instance, who use Macs for professtional productions and so on.
The whole scheme that macs are SOOOO good for professional editing is a hoax... you can make a pc for half as much, install adobe premier/Photoshop/Reason/Whatever professional software you need and get better performance and stability. Mac users are all elitist morons. End of case.
[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']The whole scheme that macs are SOOOO good for professional editing is a hoax... you can make a pc for half as much, install adobe premier/Photoshop/Reason/Whatever professional software you need and get better performance and stability. Mac users are all elitist morons. End of case.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry sir but your post fails with that ''elitist'' attitude of yours. One of the reasons I use a Mac primarily for editing is due to its robustness. That way I don't lose jack *bleep* halfway through a track edit; unlike Windows, which has a tendency to crash on occasions whenever more than 13 audio samples are compiled at the same time! That and I can actually kill the process better than wait for XP to close the damn program, even when I try killing it through task manager.[QUOTE=''amekhov'']Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards...
''I couldn't find the button''
''What cable do I use''
wtf..[/QUOTE]That and people have a tendency to just assume/envisions things of a Mac or not go and learn how to use a PC, thus making them the morons. And those videos are pretty much biased. You'll see that most advance users today branches off into both fields to take advantage of their benefits.
Mac excels in the laptop department, I personally am buying a Mac Book Pro for college and dual booting Vista. Mac has the better hardware right now.
Ive got to say some of the Mac ads really piss me off. I feel as though they embelish the high points of the product but at the end of the day thats what ads are for. I use a Macbook at home and for my college work and its fine. I cant say its any better than the pc i previously owned but i can say that ive had no problems, all my drawing and graphics applications work hitch-free, aswel as the music programs i run. It has a simple interface which is nicer to look at than the xp one i had previous to this.The Mac ads should be more along these lines: Mac - Great for creative work, crap for games.
I hate the Mac... They need to leave computers and continue selling iPods... I guess since Amber McArthur likes Mac, I will leave it alone, shes just so cute with her technology understandings, to bad she left...
Well, a friend of mine is now an official Mac whore, however he plays all his games on he Xbox, so yeah. In that case I think you'd actually be better of with a Mac.
Moi, however, couldn't care less the Xbox or PS3, the Wii is the only one I'm still considering buying IF there's ever a game out that suits me. Because games are the reason why I have my PC. So no Mac's.
Macs have their place in the world. They are good, reliable PCs for typing documents, browsing the internet, and doing assorted ''chores''. Imo, their only bad aspects are their inability to play games well, and their price.Also, for people proficient with computers, the ''ease of use'' that macs have can actually cause frustration, at least for me. Thats how all Mac products are from my experience.I used my mom's ipod yesterday, and (as with my other MP3, non-ipod) i simply hooked it up to my PC via USB and expected to be able to load songs on since the ipod has internal software. Nope. I had to download itunes, which in turn has about THREE background programs that run even when itunes is closed. Then I have to ''sync'' my mom's ipod which deletes all her music, then I had to make a new account, then I had to resync it. This is good if you have directions and not a clue, but if you have lots of experience with PCs and then you get your hand held by Macs because they dont trust you to do the right thing on your own, its annoying.The mac computers are the same way. I dont want to sound cruel, but the only people who should use macs are people who dont know jack. And video editors, but I think thats more due to a lack of software and whatnot than due to Macs being more capable. Just my opinion.
Actually, I use a MacBook as a laptop and its great for musical applications ranging from swaping audio clips to panning samples with Ableton Live. Gaming-wise... yes it has its problems though that doesn't necessarily means that it's crap.Mac Switchers are unwise!!!(to say the least)
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''quietguy'']Actually, I use a MacBook as a laptop and its great for musical applications ranging from swaping audio clips to panning samples with Ableton Live. Gaming-wise... yes it has its problems though that doesn't necessarily means that it's crap.[/QUOTE] i never was attacking your mac, i said mac switchers were unwise.It's the fact that most of them are ''unwise'', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tq7yykR-DMThey even market to these ''unwise''
i never understood why some people like macs so much it just dont make sense to me. besideds it not having as many viruses. and they seem way more expensive to me. but hey everyone has their opinion
I'm a semi-professtional video editor, soon to be pro, and moving to Hollywood. PC's don't have FCP; sure, you can get a GTX and what not, but for a Mac, gaming isn't a big deal so it doesn't matter. This post is ridiculous.I make money on my Mac, I have a huge hobby for games and building PC's. So yes, that means have a Mac Pro, Power Mac G5, Apple Cinema Displays, MacBook Pro, and an iMac for my video editing and for home use. I have a gaming PC (see sig for details) for GAMING!Yes, Apple's operating system is much more solid than Vista; Vista has crashed on me, and Mac OS X over five years of use, has not. I trust Mac OS X. They are two different platforms without two different sets of applications, and two different specialities.Yeah, please don't say Mac's suck; I wouldn't be successful without one, they are a much better for video editing.
Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards...
''I couldn't find the button''
''What cable do I use''
wtf..
[QUOTE=''amekhov'']Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards... ''I couldn't find the button'' ''What cable do I use'' wtf..[/QUOTE]A percentage of Mac users are those who aren't computer savvy, and were told a Mac was simply and they needed a computer; usually one will go for it. Another percentages are those people who want a computer that just works; so they go with a Mac. Another percentage is for the people, like me for instance, who use Macs for professtional productions and so on.
The whole scheme that macs are SOOOO good for professional editing is a hoax... you can make a pc for half as much, install adobe premier/Photoshop/Reason/Whatever professional software you need and get better performance and stability. Mac users are all elitist morons. End of case.
[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']The whole scheme that macs are SOOOO good for professional editing is a hoax... you can make a pc for half as much, install adobe premier/Photoshop/Reason/Whatever professional software you need and get better performance and stability. Mac users are all elitist morons. End of case.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry sir but your post fails with that ''elitist'' attitude of yours. One of the reasons I use a Mac primarily for editing is due to its robustness. That way I don't lose jack *bleep* halfway through a track edit; unlike Windows, which has a tendency to crash on occasions whenever more than 13 audio samples are compiled at the same time! That and I can actually kill the process better than wait for XP to close the damn program, even when I try killing it through task manager.[QUOTE=''amekhov'']Macs are good, but that video on youtube makes the people look like retards...
''I couldn't find the button''
''What cable do I use''
wtf..[/QUOTE]That and people have a tendency to just assume/envisions things of a Mac or not go and learn how to use a PC, thus making them the morons. And those videos are pretty much biased. You'll see that most advance users today branches off into both fields to take advantage of their benefits.
Mac excels in the laptop department, I personally am buying a Mac Book Pro for college and dual booting Vista. Mac has the better hardware right now.
Ive got to say some of the Mac ads really piss me off. I feel as though they embelish the high points of the product but at the end of the day thats what ads are for. I use a Macbook at home and for my college work and its fine. I cant say its any better than the pc i previously owned but i can say that ive had no problems, all my drawing and graphics applications work hitch-free, aswel as the music programs i run. It has a simple interface which is nicer to look at than the xp one i had previous to this.The Mac ads should be more along these lines: Mac - Great for creative work, crap for games.
I hate the Mac... They need to leave computers and continue selling iPods... I guess since Amber McArthur likes Mac, I will leave it alone, shes just so cute with her technology understandings, to bad she left...
Well, a friend of mine is now an official Mac whore, however he plays all his games on he Xbox, so yeah. In that case I think you'd actually be better of with a Mac.
Moi, however, couldn't care less the Xbox or PS3, the Wii is the only one I'm still considering buying IF there's ever a game out that suits me. Because games are the reason why I have my PC. So no Mac's.
Macs have their place in the world. They are good, reliable PCs for typing documents, browsing the internet, and doing assorted ''chores''. Imo, their only bad aspects are their inability to play games well, and their price.Also, for people proficient with computers, the ''ease of use'' that macs have can actually cause frustration, at least for me. Thats how all Mac products are from my experience.I used my mom's ipod yesterday, and (as with my other MP3, non-ipod) i simply hooked it up to my PC via USB and expected to be able to load songs on since the ipod has internal software. Nope. I had to download itunes, which in turn has about THREE background programs that run even when itunes is closed. Then I have to ''sync'' my mom's ipod which deletes all her music, then I had to make a new account, then I had to resync it. This is good if you have directions and not a clue, but if you have lots of experience with PCs and then you get your hand held by Macs because they dont trust you to do the right thing on your own, its annoying.The mac computers are the same way. I dont want to sound cruel, but the only people who should use macs are people who dont know jack. And video editors, but I think thats more due to a lack of software and whatnot than due to Macs being more capable. Just my opinion.
Heroes of Might and Magic goes Massive Multiplayer
Heroes of Might and Magic Online
a legendary RSLG played it since 1997 now TQ Digital has it, good news or bad news?
Bright side is finally someone make it online, but my new concern is how it turns out to be a MMO.
Dark side, TQ Digital......................
btw Heroes of Might and Magic III is my all time favorite XDHeroes of Might and Magic goes Massive Multiplayer
Cool.. we'll see how this plays out.Heroes of Might and Magic goes Massive Multiplayer
I'm a big fan of HOMM and it needs a change. In a good or bad way? We'll see.
*snore*............wuh?
Hurray, yet another ''We want yachts and chicks so we're gonna make an MMORPG!''-MMORPG.
How many players will this one have? 10 perhaps? Good for them! Now, are there actually any games coming out?
Yes, Heroes need a change, becouse it feel's like you're playing the same HOMM III (which isn't a bad thing, but it's getting boring :? ). But this is just my opinion :)
How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..
[QUOTE=''sSubZerOo''] How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..[/QUOTE]probably, so that's why we call it a CHANGE =)
[QUOTE=''LHOO''] [QUOTE=''sSubZerOo''] How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..[/QUOTE]probably, so that's why we call it a CHANGE =)[/QUOTE] If its not a TBS game its not a heroes of might and magic game.. That game is defined by that play style.. Its as ludcrious as calling World of Warcraft, Warcraft 4.
What the hell?! :evil:Why do you people keep having faith?!The ''Heroes of Might and Magic'' saga died long time ago,along with the deceased ''3DO''...''Ubisoft'' and their blasphemy,have taken away all the enthusiasm and respect we had towards such title.
Plus add the fact that ''Heroes of Might and Magic'' is based upon the universe of ''Might and Magic''.We'll probably see a massive multiplayer game of ''Might and Magic''...
Rylsader the Doomsayer...
[QUOTE=''LHOO'']btw Heroes of Might and Magic III is my all time favorite XD[/QUOTE]''Heroes III'' = Apocalypse spell + Black Dragons = Most lamest form of victory!!The third release of ''Heroes'' was quite impressive,but the game had some overpowered spells and an unbalanced characters improvement...If you seek tougher gaming experience,try the fourth release of ''Heroes''.By the way,''Sandro'' is the freaking king of all times.He appears at every release(I don't know if he appears in ''Heroes of Might and Magic V'').
a legendary RSLG played it since 1997 now TQ Digital has it, good news or bad news?
Bright side is finally someone make it online, but my new concern is how it turns out to be a MMO.
Dark side, TQ Digital......................
btw Heroes of Might and Magic III is my all time favorite XDHeroes of Might and Magic goes Massive Multiplayer
Cool.. we'll see how this plays out.Heroes of Might and Magic goes Massive Multiplayer
I'm a big fan of HOMM and it needs a change. In a good or bad way? We'll see.
*snore*............wuh?
Hurray, yet another ''We want yachts and chicks so we're gonna make an MMORPG!''-MMORPG.
How many players will this one have? 10 perhaps? Good for them! Now, are there actually any games coming out?
Yes, Heroes need a change, becouse it feel's like you're playing the same HOMM III (which isn't a bad thing, but it's getting boring :? ). But this is just my opinion :)
How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..
[QUOTE=''sSubZerOo''] How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..[/QUOTE]probably, so that's why we call it a CHANGE =)
[QUOTE=''LHOO''] [QUOTE=''sSubZerOo''] How can it be done though? Its a TBS game after all..[/QUOTE]probably, so that's why we call it a CHANGE =)[/QUOTE] If its not a TBS game its not a heroes of might and magic game.. That game is defined by that play style.. Its as ludcrious as calling World of Warcraft, Warcraft 4.
What the hell?! :evil:Why do you people keep having faith?!The ''Heroes of Might and Magic'' saga died long time ago,along with the deceased ''3DO''...''Ubisoft'' and their blasphemy,have taken away all the enthusiasm and respect we had towards such title.
Plus add the fact that ''Heroes of Might and Magic'' is based upon the universe of ''Might and Magic''.We'll probably see a massive multiplayer game of ''Might and Magic''...
Rylsader the Doomsayer...
[QUOTE=''LHOO'']btw Heroes of Might and Magic III is my all time favorite XD[/QUOTE]''Heroes III'' = Apocalypse spell + Black Dragons = Most lamest form of victory!!The third release of ''Heroes'' was quite impressive,but the game had some overpowered spells and an unbalanced characters improvement...If you seek tougher gaming experience,try the fourth release of ''Heroes''.By the way,''Sandro'' is the freaking king of all times.He appears at every release(I don't know if he appears in ''Heroes of Might and Magic V'').
Question about installing WoW?
Yes my friend finally convinced me to start playing again. I was just wondering, do I have to patch the classical version of WoW and then install Burning crusade.... or can I just install Regular WoW, and then right after download BC without patching the first game?Question about installing WoW?
Install WoW, install Burning Crusade, and then patch.Question about installing WoW?
You can do it in the order you want. WoW>BC>patch saves time though.
You should get better friends :?
Install WoW, install Burning Crusade, and then patch.Question about installing WoW?
You can do it in the order you want. WoW>BC>patch saves time though.
You should get better friends :?
Looking for a game where I can roam free and destroy stuff.
Hey all. I'm looking for a game where I can roam around freely and just destroy things on random. I don't want to have to follow a storyline, but I don't mind if there is one. The type of game I'm talking about is like FlatOut (first one) where you can roam around and just destroy things on random, or the GTA games where you can reak havoc on cars and kill people on random. Does anyone know of any games like this? I don't mind if it's seven years old as long as it's playable on Windows XP. The ''True Crime'' games was not very good, and Burnout and games like that does not allow you to really roam free and have an impact on your environment.I do however like Saints Row, but as far as I know it's not available on PC which is what I'm looking for here. Any and all help and friendly tips would be greatly appreciated.Looking for a game where I can roam free and destroy stuff.
grand theft auto san andreas, mafia is somewhat free roaming, far cry is free roaming on an island, oblivion you can go wherever you wantLooking for a game where I can roam free and destroy stuff.
Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.
Try the Witcher.
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]those are not end levels, you have to think of how to get out of that barred room, so many options such as digging a tunnel through the wall with a spoon, or escape through the laundry shutes, the non-linearity of reality is so great,you just dont want to stop playing!but ontopic, I really cant think of a game such as that other than GTA, RPG games like Oblivion let you go ''whereever'' you want, but not blowing stuff up and stealing cars, just settle with GTA until a new game hopefully comes out that fulfills this.
GTA series is the only once I can think of right now.....
If you have either a PS2 or an Xbox, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction is good fun. Lots of stuff to destroy there...
[QUOTE=''Doom_HellKnight'']If you have either a PS2 or an Xbox, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction is good fun. Lots of stuff to destroy there...[/QUOTE] that was what i was going to say
In City of Villains, inside some instanced(Mayhem)...you can blow up stuff.Auto-Assault (RIP) used to be that way.
Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction
[QUOTE=''Ahurigaan'']Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]I tried that, but my stamina and respawning skills are just horribly bad.
[QUOTE=''TA127'']Try the Witcher.[/QUOTE]It's not as open ended as most games.I hear Crackdown is a very fun 'free roaming destroy everything' kind of game, don't know if there's a PC version though.
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]Yeah but 6 billion NPCs makes up for that.
Carmageddon 2 is your game. You drive around killing pedestrians and blowing up cars and you also have the option to race. There is a time limit, but for everything you destroy you get more time so if you run over a bunch of people you will be able to play for a very long time.
Boiling point let's you do pretty much as you please. Although your actions will have a little more consequences as gta for example. It has a faction system so unless you compensate for your transgressions against a faction at some point you will be attacked and hunt down whenever they spot you and even civilians will pull a gun on you if you have a bad standing with them.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]:D Haha, well played sir.
The GTA3 series is the only good one atm, they all have a lot of mods so they should really satisfy you. GTA4 on PC (hopefully) in a year or so, so you have that to look forward to too.
grand theft auto san andreas, mafia is somewhat free roaming, far cry is free roaming on an island, oblivion you can go wherever you wantLooking for a game where I can roam free and destroy stuff.
Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.
Try the Witcher.
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]those are not end levels, you have to think of how to get out of that barred room, so many options such as digging a tunnel through the wall with a spoon, or escape through the laundry shutes, the non-linearity of reality is so great,you just dont want to stop playing!but ontopic, I really cant think of a game such as that other than GTA, RPG games like Oblivion let you go ''whereever'' you want, but not blowing stuff up and stealing cars, just settle with GTA until a new game hopefully comes out that fulfills this.
GTA series is the only once I can think of right now.....
If you have either a PS2 or an Xbox, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction is good fun. Lots of stuff to destroy there...
[QUOTE=''Doom_HellKnight'']If you have either a PS2 or an Xbox, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction is good fun. Lots of stuff to destroy there...[/QUOTE] that was what i was going to say
In City of Villains, inside some instanced(Mayhem)...you can blow up stuff.Auto-Assault (RIP) used to be that way.
Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction
[QUOTE=''Ahurigaan'']Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]I tried that, but my stamina and respawning skills are just horribly bad.
[QUOTE=''TA127'']Try the Witcher.[/QUOTE]It's not as open ended as most games.I hear Crackdown is a very fun 'free roaming destroy everything' kind of game, don't know if there's a PC version though.
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]Yeah but 6 billion NPCs makes up for that.
Carmageddon 2 is your game. You drive around killing pedestrians and blowing up cars and you also have the option to race. There is a time limit, but for everything you destroy you get more time so if you run over a bunch of people you will be able to play for a very long time.
Boiling point let's you do pretty much as you please. Although your actions will have a little more consequences as gta for example. It has a faction system so unless you compensate for your transgressions against a faction at some point you will be attacked and hunt down whenever they spot you and even civilians will pull a gun on you if you have a bad standing with them.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''Spindry69''][QUOTE=''Ahurigaan''] Reality is your best bet, the graphics are amazing, even though it is ages old.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that game is fun for awhile, but the end levels are boring. Stuck in a little room with bars on the window.[/QUOTE]:D Haha, well played sir.
The GTA3 series is the only good one atm, they all have a lot of mods so they should really satisfy you. GTA4 on PC (hopefully) in a year or so, so you have that to look forward to too.
so what is game of the year ?
Well the year is nearly over and all the christmas releases are out. 2007 has to be the best gaming years I can remember.So here are a number of the big releases over the last 12 months - which has been the best (I say COD 4)WHAT DO YOU SAY IS GAME OF THE YEAR ?Rainbow six vegasdark messiah of might %26 magictabula rasalord of the rings onlineguild wars eye of the norththe witcher bioshockquakewarscompany of heroes opposing frontshalf life orange boxghost recon advanced warfighter 2crysisut3cod 4 world in conflictcommand %26 conquer tiberium warshellgate londonso what is game of the year ?
My pick is half life orange box becuase you get alot for your money, and has great replayability to it. Also the plot in the half life series is always well written.so what is game of the year ?
Crysis....i just enjoy playing that game.
CrysisI like some of the other choices as well though: The Orange Box, although that's not really a ''game'' per se.Call of Duty 4 is solid fun. But IMO still less in the sum of it's parts than the Battlefield series (vehicles, large maps ftw).And in the end, while I enjoy MP, a great SP mode is what I really dig :D
A lot of great games there but i'd say COD4. Great singleplayer and awesome multiplayer.Not far behind is Crysis.
CoD4.But Crysis surely stands a chance for the GoTY for its stunning graphics.
Crysis of The Orange Box.
crysis. ob for me would be deal of the year if i didn't already had hl 2 and ep1
I know it's overrated, but out of those games I'd have to say Bioshock, mainly because of the artwork and setting, which really sucked me in.
Crysis was missing a worthwhile story and characters (and felt like a Far Cry retread in some parts),it was fun and nice to look at, but it's not my favorite game this year.
From Orange Box, I'd say HL2 Episode 2 if it was a few hours longer,though in the episodic genre it definitely takes the cake (which is a LIE!!!).
Interesting - as the OP i think Crysis was terrble - too short (7 hours gameplay), buggy, overhyped graphics compared to the trailers, poor multiplayerand only the first half of the single player game is any good.
Dark Messiah was released in 2006.Orange Box is overall GOTY.
Portal. The most ingenious and creative game to come out for a long time.
COD4. GAME of the YEAR
I think I would say Orange Box, Crysis is damn good, but WAAAY to short, I beat it in one day. The story is also pretty bad in some parts. But back to orange box, The games are amazing, and the graphics are pretty good also considering that it came out about 3 years ago.
Stalker, the game I had the most fun playing this year. Nice story, nice levels, nice graphics, nice AI, nice time it takes to beat the game
Unfortunately it was filled with bugs and is using an unoptimized graphics engine, and they had made some terrible design choices. But despite it's flaws it's a great game. My choice for GoTY
Crysis.i don't understand the hype about Orange Box. bang for a buck, yes, but i was BORED playing it. it's all seen and done already in HL2. maybe it's good for real HL2 fans, but not me. Portal and TF2 were good, but after few hours i was done with them.Bioshock was great too, but Crysis takes the lead for me this year.
COD4 or Crysis
Quite easily The Orange Box. Five fantastic games for the price of one.
Crysis.
Crysis is number one for me - it's just an expert blend of so many different mechanics and concepts, all of which play off eachother so well.In terms of sheer enjoyment, only The Orange Box and Sam and Max Season 1 come close this year, both of which I would place as runners up.The Witcher is a masterpiece, but on reflection I find myself thinking that as impressed as I was with the game, I often didn't find myself having fun. I actually found a lot of it quite tedious. Awesome game for sure, thouugh.lip chapstick
My pick is half life orange box becuase you get alot for your money, and has great replayability to it. Also the plot in the half life series is always well written.so what is game of the year ?
Crysis....i just enjoy playing that game.
CrysisI like some of the other choices as well though: The Orange Box, although that's not really a ''game'' per se.Call of Duty 4 is solid fun. But IMO still less in the sum of it's parts than the Battlefield series (vehicles, large maps ftw).And in the end, while I enjoy MP, a great SP mode is what I really dig :D
A lot of great games there but i'd say COD4. Great singleplayer and awesome multiplayer.Not far behind is Crysis.
CoD4.But Crysis surely stands a chance for the GoTY for its stunning graphics.
Crysis of The Orange Box.
crysis. ob for me would be deal of the year if i didn't already had hl 2 and ep1
I know it's overrated, but out of those games I'd have to say Bioshock, mainly because of the artwork and setting, which really sucked me in.
Crysis was missing a worthwhile story and characters (and felt like a Far Cry retread in some parts),it was fun and nice to look at, but it's not my favorite game this year.
From Orange Box, I'd say HL2 Episode 2 if it was a few hours longer,though in the episodic genre it definitely takes the cake (which is a LIE!!!).
Interesting - as the OP i think Crysis was terrble - too short (7 hours gameplay), buggy, overhyped graphics compared to the trailers, poor multiplayerand only the first half of the single player game is any good.
Dark Messiah was released in 2006.Orange Box is overall GOTY.
Portal. The most ingenious and creative game to come out for a long time.
COD4. GAME of the YEAR
I think I would say Orange Box, Crysis is damn good, but WAAAY to short, I beat it in one day. The story is also pretty bad in some parts. But back to orange box, The games are amazing, and the graphics are pretty good also considering that it came out about 3 years ago.
Stalker, the game I had the most fun playing this year. Nice story, nice levels, nice graphics, nice AI, nice time it takes to beat the game
Unfortunately it was filled with bugs and is using an unoptimized graphics engine, and they had made some terrible design choices. But despite it's flaws it's a great game. My choice for GoTY
Crysis.i don't understand the hype about Orange Box. bang for a buck, yes, but i was BORED playing it. it's all seen and done already in HL2. maybe it's good for real HL2 fans, but not me. Portal and TF2 were good, but after few hours i was done with them.Bioshock was great too, but Crysis takes the lead for me this year.
COD4 or Crysis
Quite easily The Orange Box. Five fantastic games for the price of one.
Crysis.
Crysis is number one for me - it's just an expert blend of so many different mechanics and concepts, all of which play off eachother so well.In terms of sheer enjoyment, only The Orange Box and Sam and Max Season 1 come close this year, both of which I would place as runners up.The Witcher is a masterpiece, but on reflection I find myself thinking that as impressed as I was with the game, I often didn't find myself having fun. I actually found a lot of it quite tedious. Awesome game for sure, thouugh.
What happened to the physics in Crysis?
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Screenshots/Screenshots/Village-03.jpgLooking at this picture it looks like all the wood and that broke like it should do in real life, however when playing the game it all stayed in panels and nothing like what was shown in this early picture. I'm running the game on very high so it's not my settings but i just find it weird how this is clearly in the game and yet they take it out.What happened to the physics in Crysis?
that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplayWhat happened to the physics in Crysis?
Sneaky! But then all game companies do it.. i had seeing pictures of games that are first released.. they are nearly always better than what the gameplay will be like because they are either edited or are taken from a cinematic.
[QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]It wasn't. It's a cinematic.
It looks like an air brushed cinematic. If it was a game pic they may have remove things from the game because of performance issues.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious'']Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]No, not really. Most of the early stuff was real, just not included in the game. Like the famous nuke scene. It's not in the game, but the mod community has already recreated it. So alot of the stuff isnt really a lie, it's just that the screenshot in the first post is a cinematic. It just happenes to very identical to the game
Crysis doesn't show the true capabilities of CryEngine2.
yeah, the big problem is that systems can't run the game well. the good folks at crytek have said that as new tech is developed new patches will be released to show of the games true potential. the head crytek guy, Yerveti or w/e ,was saying that so many technical aspects of the engine had to be scaled down to meet the demands of computers..... lets all pray the 9800 GTX's come out soon so we can maybe see the game at true potential.
If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping).
[QUOTE=''SpecNav'']If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]oh brilliant thanks a lot ... just watched the trailers and am hooked ... mostly wll be taking out my copy of kotor2 to play it where i left off
[QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.
[QUOTE=''Johnny_Rock''][QUOTE=''Grantelicious''] [QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]It wasn't. It's a cinematic. [/QUOTE]it is a cinematic, but they did use the Crysis engine. The cinematic is just prerendered since no consumer PC could render that in real time.
Well, Crysis is already a huge system hog, you're suggesting they crank it up a bit more? :P
[QUOTE=''SpecNav'']If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]You do realize The Force Unleashed is not slated for PC right...?Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P
[QUOTE=''DragonfireXZ95'']Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P[/QUOTE]Not that special. Its just cubes with textures flying around. They dont even break apart.
[QUOTE=''Pessu''] [QUOTE=''DragonfireXZ95'']Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P[/QUOTE]Not that special. Its just cubes with textures flying around. They dont even break apart. [/QUOTE]Did you even watch the whole thing? That was awesome. No, it wasnt realistic, but it certainly came close.I was secretly hoping they would light the giant box man on fire, though, sort of in an ode to Burning Man :twisted:
I watched the whole thing and was bored throughout.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.[/QUOTE]Which is 100% a mistake. If LucasArts made anything like that for the PC and made it as good as JK2: JO then they'd be onto a no brainer best seller.
[QUOTE=''F4ll3n_1''][QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.[/QUOTE]Which is 100% a mistake. If LucasArts made anything like that for the PC and made it as good as JK2: JO then they'd be onto a no brainer best seller.[/QUOTE]Totally agree.
that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplayWhat happened to the physics in Crysis?
Sneaky! But then all game companies do it.. i had seeing pictures of games that are first released.. they are nearly always better than what the gameplay will be like because they are either edited or are taken from a cinematic.
[QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]It wasn't. It's a cinematic.
It looks like an air brushed cinematic. If it was a game pic they may have remove things from the game because of performance issues.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious'']Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]No, not really. Most of the early stuff was real, just not included in the game. Like the famous nuke scene. It's not in the game, but the mod community has already recreated it. So alot of the stuff isnt really a lie, it's just that the screenshot in the first post is a cinematic. It just happenes to very identical to the game
Crysis doesn't show the true capabilities of CryEngine2.
yeah, the big problem is that systems can't run the game well. the good folks at crytek have said that as new tech is developed new patches will be released to show of the games true potential. the head crytek guy, Yerveti or w/e ,was saying that so many technical aspects of the engine had to be scaled down to meet the demands of computers..... lets all pray the 9800 GTX's come out soon so we can maybe see the game at true potential.
If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping).
[QUOTE=''SpecNav'']If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]oh brilliant thanks a lot ... just watched the trailers and am hooked ... mostly wll be taking out my copy of kotor2 to play it where i left off
[QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.
[QUOTE=''Johnny_Rock''][QUOTE=''Grantelicious''] [QUOTE=''TeamR'']that screenshot is from a cinematic. it's not gameplay[/QUOTE]Yeh but it looks like it's made with the in game engine meaning it exists but they never put it in. I know the graphics they showed with the early stuff was just fake CG stuff toget investors interested but this looks like it was made ont he actual Crysis engine.[/QUOTE]It wasn't. It's a cinematic. [/QUOTE]it is a cinematic, but they did use the Crysis engine. The cinematic is just prerendered since no consumer PC could render that in real time.
Well, Crysis is already a huge system hog, you're suggesting they crank it up a bit more? :P
[QUOTE=''SpecNav'']If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]You do realize The Force Unleashed is not slated for PC right...?Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P
[QUOTE=''DragonfireXZ95'']Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P[/QUOTE]Not that special. Its just cubes with textures flying around. They dont even break apart.
[QUOTE=''Pessu''] [QUOTE=''DragonfireXZ95'']Also, see this for some truly breath taking physics. :P[/QUOTE]Not that special. Its just cubes with textures flying around. They dont even break apart. [/QUOTE]Did you even watch the whole thing? That was awesome. No, it wasnt realistic, but it certainly came close.I was secretly hoping they would light the giant box man on fire, though, sort of in an ode to Burning Man :twisted:
I watched the whole thing and was bored throughout.
[QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.[/QUOTE]Which is 100% a mistake. If LucasArts made anything like that for the PC and made it as good as JK2: JO then they'd be onto a no brainer best seller.
[QUOTE=''F4ll3n_1''][QUOTE=''Grantelicious''][QUOTE=''SpecNav''] If you're really looking forward to a good physics engine, go find the youtube/preview videos of LucasArt's Force Unleashed.They have actual tech demos of realistic object modeling/breaking and a pretty neat AI system to boot. And yeah, it will be in the final game (or at least it better be since that's what they're hyping). [/QUOTE]problem is LA have ditched the PC and i don't like consoles.[/QUOTE]Which is 100% a mistake. If LucasArts made anything like that for the PC and made it as good as JK2: JO then they'd be onto a no brainer best seller.[/QUOTE]Totally agree.
What is happening to the F.E.A.R. Games .....
In 05 when F.E.A.R. it was the best game out there, no one could've said no (with a 9.1 score) , Amazing Graphics, Great AI , Real Sorround Sound ,strong graphics thatneeded top of the line to max , but two yrs later , with 2 expansions I can see that the quaility of the game is getting lower . In 06 the 1st Expansion was released F.E.A.R. Extraction Point 7.8 score , some said it was a total letdown due to the Developer\publisher being apart , thus the game fot new developers that wanted to make their own Game ( Fear 2 or Project Origin ), so the publisher were left to finish the story, on their own , ( idkwhat happende here , they were forced to get rid of the characters ofF.E.A.R. by killing them 1 by 1 so that they can continue without any lawsuits or stuff like that?!?! can someone please explain ) , %26 this yr 07 they released the new expansion F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandatewhich appears to be a total letdown . Whatis happening ??? What is happening to the F.E.A.R. Games .....
I didn't even like the first FEAR. Time is just catching up with the engine.What is happening to the F.E.A.R. Games .....
I enjoyed F.E.A.R. quite a bit when it was released.The original devs (Monolith) of F.E.A.R. have nothing to do with the F.E.A.R. expansions (Timegate Studios) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.E.A.R._Perseus_Mandate I'm reluctant to completely disrespect Timegate as developers though, they might be doing exactly what they're being paid to do, and on an aging engine. Again, it's Monolith's developed engine, so Timegate might not be doing any tweaking at all (not like Valve has done with Source for example keeping it modern).Project Origin is Monolith's game though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Origin in the F.E.A.R. universe (they don't own the rights to the F.E.A.R. name however). Hopefully we see some improvement in the series with this title :D
Fear 2 (or Project Origin) will continue the story from the original F.E.A.R and Extraction Point. *SPOILERS (Extraction Point)* If you remember correctly, Extraction Point ends with the helicopter blowing up on the rooftop of the hospital. And Project Origin starts in the same hospital. Project Origin will breath some fresh air into the series. It uses a modified engine of the original but the action is upped quite a bit and horror cutscenes will be even better.
[QUOTE=''DGFreak'']I didn't even like the first FEAR. Time is just catching up with the engine.[/QUOTE] ya same here, the freakiness of the game is fake
One problem with the 2 expansions is that, although they are made by another developer, there is no point to it. From what I have read there is little or no story, it's just an excuse to prolong the franchise.
I honestly don't know what happened with Perseus Mandate. What the hell was Timegate thinking? I mean, they did a pretty good job with Extraction Point. Yes, it was more of the same for the most part, but the quality was pretty much just as good as in FEAR. But Perseus Mandate, my God, just what the hell did they do? Graphics were toned down, production quality was crap (poor level design, awful new voice-acting, etc.), gameplay was tweaked in a lot of bad ways, such as making you take damage much more quickly (bad idea, I know a lot of people complain that FEAR is too easy because of slow-mo, but they could have just added higher difficulties for those who wanted more of a challenge).FEAR's engine isn't aging (not to the degree that people keep trying to say), Perseus Mandate just did a crap job of level design on top of having downgraded graphics (play FEAR or Extraction Point, then quit and immediately play Perseus Mandate, you'll notice the difference). I really just don't get what went on there with Timegate, creating a quality game with EP, then a game barely worthy of being called a budget title with PM. Maybe they had mass layoffs and had to replace them with newer, incredibly incompetent workers.
[QUOTE=''Deliza432'']One problem with the 2 expansions is that, although they are made by another developer, there is no point to it. From what I have read there is little or no story, it's just an excuse to prolong the franchise. [/QUOTE] I completely agree. This is where I feel the publisher was simply trying to milk the name, much like the console versions of Far Cry after Crytek sold off the rights to that.
I didn't even like the first FEAR. Time is just catching up with the engine.What is happening to the F.E.A.R. Games .....
I enjoyed F.E.A.R. quite a bit when it was released.The original devs (Monolith) of F.E.A.R. have nothing to do with the F.E.A.R. expansions (Timegate Studios) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.E.A.R._Perseus_Mandate I'm reluctant to completely disrespect Timegate as developers though, they might be doing exactly what they're being paid to do, and on an aging engine. Again, it's Monolith's developed engine, so Timegate might not be doing any tweaking at all (not like Valve has done with Source for example keeping it modern).Project Origin is Monolith's game though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Origin in the F.E.A.R. universe (they don't own the rights to the F.E.A.R. name however). Hopefully we see some improvement in the series with this title :D
Fear 2 (or Project Origin) will continue the story from the original F.E.A.R and Extraction Point. *SPOILERS (Extraction Point)* If you remember correctly, Extraction Point ends with the helicopter blowing up on the rooftop of the hospital. And Project Origin starts in the same hospital. Project Origin will breath some fresh air into the series. It uses a modified engine of the original but the action is upped quite a bit and horror cutscenes will be even better.
[QUOTE=''DGFreak'']I didn't even like the first FEAR. Time is just catching up with the engine.[/QUOTE] ya same here, the freakiness of the game is fake
One problem with the 2 expansions is that, although they are made by another developer, there is no point to it. From what I have read there is little or no story, it's just an excuse to prolong the franchise.
I honestly don't know what happened with Perseus Mandate. What the hell was Timegate thinking? I mean, they did a pretty good job with Extraction Point. Yes, it was more of the same for the most part, but the quality was pretty much just as good as in FEAR. But Perseus Mandate, my God, just what the hell did they do? Graphics were toned down, production quality was crap (poor level design, awful new voice-acting, etc.), gameplay was tweaked in a lot of bad ways, such as making you take damage much more quickly (bad idea, I know a lot of people complain that FEAR is too easy because of slow-mo, but they could have just added higher difficulties for those who wanted more of a challenge).FEAR's engine isn't aging (not to the degree that people keep trying to say), Perseus Mandate just did a crap job of level design on top of having downgraded graphics (play FEAR or Extraction Point, then quit and immediately play Perseus Mandate, you'll notice the difference). I really just don't get what went on there with Timegate, creating a quality game with EP, then a game barely worthy of being called a budget title with PM. Maybe they had mass layoffs and had to replace them with newer, incredibly incompetent workers.
[QUOTE=''Deliza432'']One problem with the 2 expansions is that, although they are made by another developer, there is no point to it. From what I have read there is little or no story, it's just an excuse to prolong the franchise. [/QUOTE] I completely agree. This is where I feel the publisher was simply trying to milk the name, much like the console versions of Far Cry after Crytek sold off the rights to that.
splinter cell double agent online play?
does splinter cell double agent have fun and good online play?splinter cell double agent online play?
It is severely lacking in the fun department.splinter cell double agent online play?
Dont even think about purchasing it, save some money...
Ubisoft has been really sucking lately, and doesnt listen to a word from its community
It is severely lacking in the fun department.splinter cell double agent online play?
Dont even think about purchasing it, save some money...
Ubisoft has been really sucking lately, and doesnt listen to a word from its community
the witcher or neverwinter nights 2
Hey all i ahve money to buy either one of these games but only the one . As you might jave guessed im hungry for a rpg and i really enjoy the genre from fallout to final fantasy and even semi rpg games like dues ex anyways im looking for a something to really immersive my self in i know neverwinter nights 2 will do the job either way thanks to its great community but ive haerd good things about the witcher.the witcher or neverwinter nights 2
The Witcher has a better single-player campaign, but NWN 2 offers multiplayer and player-made adventures.Still, I would say that The Witcher is the better game.the witcher or neverwinter nights 2
They're both great games. I don't personally own The Witcher but I was watching a friend play it for a bit. Neverwinter Nights 2 is good, but I honestly felt the story was a bit dull. However, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer had a really awesome and improved setting/story, and I would definetely recommend getting Mask of the Betrayer expansion if you liked Neverwinter Nights 2.
NWN2 offers more of a traditional RPG in that you can look forward to finding the next best magic item, weapon, or armor in the next chest you open, the Witcher just does not have that great loot anticipation when you kill a tough monster or open a chest. Also of course in NWN2 you customize your own character in every way, in The Witcher you are playing an existing character, so it is more of an interactive story (choose your own adventure books anyone?). I enjoy both, but I have to say from an RPG traditionalist standpoint NWN2 is the better RPG.
I have both and i prefer the witcher over NWN2.
Okay, first of all. They're totally different games.
NWN1 and 2 singleplayer are more meant to show off what can be done with the toolset.
If you only care about singleplayer, The Witcher is your game.
However, if you either like building levels and whole campaigns of your own, NWN1 or 2 is for you.
Or if you like playing online with hundreds of high quality servers, each one with a totally different setting but often with a just as great community, then NWN1 or 2 is for you.
Then it also comes down to NWN1 or 2. That one's pretty hard for me to answer, I've been playing NWN1 for a long time, and I've also been building just as long. However, I've only scratched NWN2, back during the release. My overal impression was that while some things were vastly improved, there were also some things which were not as good in relation to 1.
Especially the toolset seems to give a lot more options, at the cost of a lot of more effort.
P.S.: Anyone who's only played NWN 1 or 2 in singleplayer, please go play MP now or keep out. :P Seriously, you haven't even played the game.
The Witcher by farNeverwinter Nights is the buggiest game ever (with every patch they fix a few things, but create even more bugs), the most unoptimised game ever (the graphics are like KOTOR with pixel shader and the system requirements are like Oblivion, but the graphics aren't nearly as good as Oblivion's), has a lame linear plot and has one of the worst endings ever (the expansion continues the story though). It's only good for the multiplayer and because it has mods. NWN2 was a HUGE disappointment. Obsidian will never be as good as Black Isle was.
The Witcher for sure.
I found that the Witcher was more satisfying storyline-wise %26 in single player. Everything in The Witcher seems to be of top notch quality while I found Neverwinter Nights II could be buggy and crazy in some aspects. Though the multiplayer and level building capability in Neverwinter is quite good so that can provide some hours of entertainment in that aspect, along with the general length of the main story. To avoid a lengthly post about the pros and cons of one another, I believe this decision comes down to one simple answer...If you're looking for quality singleplayer, I would highly suggest The WitcherIf you're looking for more of a multiplayer and replayable aspect (NWN will soak up duckets of your time) then go with Neverwinter Nights II.
get The Witcher first. Most sophisticated RPG in a while.then, when you're able and the prices drop...get NWN2 and expansion together. True D%26D games are rare these days and there's no telling when the next one will (ever)show up.
The Witcher, hands down.
Stupid question...The Witcher
Neverwinter Nights 2 has a class system, it's party based, one of the most annoying camera view systems ever, has multiplayer, a serious mod scene and a great combat system. The Witcher offers none of these but as far as a mainstream game goes the Witcher is ahead on storytelling and more complicated/engaging questing. It depends what you're into in an RPG, because they're completely different - to my eyes it's like asking 'Half Life 2 or CoD 4' - they are completely different. Anybody who explicitly goes OMG A or OMG B without elaborating on it is a blatent fanboy.
The Witcher has a better single-player campaign, but NWN 2 offers multiplayer and player-made adventures.Still, I would say that The Witcher is the better game.the witcher or neverwinter nights 2
They're both great games. I don't personally own The Witcher but I was watching a friend play it for a bit. Neverwinter Nights 2 is good, but I honestly felt the story was a bit dull. However, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer had a really awesome and improved setting/story, and I would definetely recommend getting Mask of the Betrayer expansion if you liked Neverwinter Nights 2.
NWN2 offers more of a traditional RPG in that you can look forward to finding the next best magic item, weapon, or armor in the next chest you open, the Witcher just does not have that great loot anticipation when you kill a tough monster or open a chest. Also of course in NWN2 you customize your own character in every way, in The Witcher you are playing an existing character, so it is more of an interactive story (choose your own adventure books anyone?). I enjoy both, but I have to say from an RPG traditionalist standpoint NWN2 is the better RPG.
I have both and i prefer the witcher over NWN2.
Okay, first of all. They're totally different games.
NWN1 and 2 singleplayer are more meant to show off what can be done with the toolset.
If you only care about singleplayer, The Witcher is your game.
However, if you either like building levels and whole campaigns of your own, NWN1 or 2 is for you.
Or if you like playing online with hundreds of high quality servers, each one with a totally different setting but often with a just as great community, then NWN1 or 2 is for you.
Then it also comes down to NWN1 or 2. That one's pretty hard for me to answer, I've been playing NWN1 for a long time, and I've also been building just as long. However, I've only scratched NWN2, back during the release. My overal impression was that while some things were vastly improved, there were also some things which were not as good in relation to 1.
Especially the toolset seems to give a lot more options, at the cost of a lot of more effort.
P.S.: Anyone who's only played NWN 1 or 2 in singleplayer, please go play MP now or keep out. :P Seriously, you haven't even played the game.
The Witcher by farNeverwinter Nights is the buggiest game ever (with every patch they fix a few things, but create even more bugs), the most unoptimised game ever (the graphics are like KOTOR with pixel shader and the system requirements are like Oblivion, but the graphics aren't nearly as good as Oblivion's), has a lame linear plot and has one of the worst endings ever (the expansion continues the story though). It's only good for the multiplayer and because it has mods. NWN2 was a HUGE disappointment. Obsidian will never be as good as Black Isle was.
The Witcher for sure.
I found that the Witcher was more satisfying storyline-wise %26 in single player. Everything in The Witcher seems to be of top notch quality while I found Neverwinter Nights II could be buggy and crazy in some aspects. Though the multiplayer and level building capability in Neverwinter is quite good so that can provide some hours of entertainment in that aspect, along with the general length of the main story. To avoid a lengthly post about the pros and cons of one another, I believe this decision comes down to one simple answer...If you're looking for quality singleplayer, I would highly suggest The WitcherIf you're looking for more of a multiplayer and replayable aspect (NWN will soak up duckets of your time) then go with Neverwinter Nights II.
get The Witcher first. Most sophisticated RPG in a while.then, when you're able and the prices drop...get NWN2 and expansion together. True D%26D games are rare these days and there's no telling when the next one will (ever)show up.
The Witcher, hands down.
Stupid question...The Witcher
Neverwinter Nights 2 has a class system, it's party based, one of the most annoying camera view systems ever, has multiplayer, a serious mod scene and a great combat system. The Witcher offers none of these but as far as a mainstream game goes the Witcher is ahead on storytelling and more complicated/engaging questing. It depends what you're into in an RPG, because they're completely different - to my eyes it's like asking 'Half Life 2 or CoD 4' - they are completely different. Anybody who explicitly goes OMG A or OMG B without elaborating on it is a blatent fanboy.
What game will Last you Longer, Crysis or UT3
So the question is simple. Which game will you spent longer playing Crysis or Unreal Tournament 3?What game will Last you Longer, Crysis or UT3
Crysis will be forgotten within the year, whereas UT3 will be one of the most popular LAN party games until the next UT, just like UT2k4 was.What game will Last you Longer, Crysis or UT3
Hey guys, which game will last your longer, a repetitive multiplayer game or a game that's strength is singleplayer?Damn...difficult question...seriously what a silly topic. Obviously multiplayer will last longer.
As for me, after crysis SP i'll probably shelve it for a few months and then play through it again like I did with Far Cry. As for multiplayer, Team Fortress 2 all the way!
no idea. atm ut 3 mp is what i prefer and will play it more, but then if crysis gets some cool mods then it would be difficult to answer
Crysis sandbox + user maps + modsnuff said
Crysis. I am going to play through the single player mulitple times.
I would go for UT3. That game serie has very strong lan gaming roots.
[QUOTE=''baal46'']Crysis sandbox + user maps + modsnuff said[/QUOTE]You actually have a good point there!UT3 will dominate on the multiplayer front and people still play the multiplayer of games that have been out for years!But Crysis has huge mod potential and already there are many awesome looking mods in development. Plus, it's just fun to play around with the Crysis Sandbox just for fun. It's like the Crysis G-Mod :P
UT3, I guess.
I tried playing Crysis for a second time this week.....goddamn that was boring...
Its so obvious....
I guess UT3.
UT3 will last more, the multiplayer is much better than Crysis multiplayer
Crysis. I played the UT3 demo, and while it was fun for what it was... it's the exact same thing *every* *single* *time* you play it. You won't play UT3 one day and think to yourself ''Boy, I can't wait to see what today's rounds will be like,'' because you already know - utterly the same thing as what you just did the last time you played it. I realize that's not a bad thing for some people, but it simply isn't to my liking. I don't mind some good yet repetitive run-and-gun fun every now and then, but Jesus...Again, for what it is, UT3 is a pretty great game. But what it is just doesn't appeal to me a lot because ''it'' isn't much at all. Granted, I'm much more of a single player gamer, so that slants my preference against it a little to begin with. While multiplayer's constant competition is motivating, it's also irritating, stressful, monotonous, and sometimes downright infuriating. But there are some multiplayer games like Battlefield I like because I know my experience has a good chance of being relatively different from the last time, and in a way that most single player games can't quite replicate, so I'm willing to put up with the stress. Since UT3 is such an incredibly repetitious run-and-gunner (even Serious Sam has more variation), it doesn't offer much of anything to alleviate the frustations of multiplayer.UT3's only selling point for me was the cool and fun weapons, and boy, were they fun. But they only held me over in the demo for so long before it became more of the same, and that's just no good in a multiplayer game. I can honestly say, though, that if it had a more significant single player component (nothing special, just enough to actually call it a campaign, not the bot matches with a storyline I've heard about), I would buy UT3. I think it's such a shame they didn't put just a tiny bit more work into the campaign. They would have had me sold if they had, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.Now, as for Crysis... I played through the demo alone over a dozen times and my experience never dulled. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I haven't installed and played the full game on my computer yet even though I have the game with me because I've been working insane and tiring hours lately, but I'm confident I'll have just as much fun as in the demo when I do get around to playing it. Oh yeah, don't forget I had even more fun with Crysis's weapons. ;)And that's just considering the game by itself. Don't even get me started on Crysis's unbelievable moddability. I have no doubt that Crysis will last me a long, long, long time, and I don't even care about its multiplayer.
Hard to say.Crysis has FANTASTIC SP that is replayable.UT3 has a crap SP campaign, but great bots.Crysis has very good multiplayerUT3 has EXELLENT multiplayerBoth have exellent editiors - though Crysis's is much easier to use and acessable.get both.Im still going to keep comming back to them for a long time
I voted crysis because I'm not buying ut99 with a facelift..arcade run around and pick up the best gun shooters are old and tired.
[QUOTE=''JP_Russell''] Crysis. I played the UT3 demo, and while it was fun for what it was... it's the exact same thing *every* *single* *time* you play it. You won't play UT3 one day and think to yourself ''Boy, I can't wait to see what today's rounds will be like,'' because you already know - utterly the same thing as what you just did the last time you played it. [/QUOTE] Interesting point. When you go and play a game of basketball, are you expecting a drastically different experience every time? I see UT very similar to a sport where the thrill is in scoring the frag each time, not in being surprised at each step.I don't really play UT3, but in UT2k4, when I had battles and I pulled out a headshot, or shock combo, or midair rocket, it was far more rewarding than anything a singleplayer based game can provide.
Crysis will be forgotten within the year, whereas UT3 will be one of the most popular LAN party games until the next UT, just like UT2k4 was.What game will Last you Longer, Crysis or UT3
Hey guys, which game will last your longer, a repetitive multiplayer game or a game that's strength is singleplayer?Damn...difficult question...seriously what a silly topic. Obviously multiplayer will last longer.
As for me, after crysis SP i'll probably shelve it for a few months and then play through it again like I did with Far Cry. As for multiplayer, Team Fortress 2 all the way!
no idea. atm ut 3 mp is what i prefer and will play it more, but then if crysis gets some cool mods then it would be difficult to answer
Crysis sandbox + user maps + modsnuff said
Crysis. I am going to play through the single player mulitple times.
I would go for UT3. That game serie has very strong lan gaming roots.
[QUOTE=''baal46'']Crysis sandbox + user maps + modsnuff said[/QUOTE]You actually have a good point there!UT3 will dominate on the multiplayer front and people still play the multiplayer of games that have been out for years!But Crysis has huge mod potential and already there are many awesome looking mods in development. Plus, it's just fun to play around with the Crysis Sandbox just for fun. It's like the Crysis G-Mod :P
UT3, I guess.
I tried playing Crysis for a second time this week.....goddamn that was boring...
Its so obvious....
I guess UT3.
UT3 will last more, the multiplayer is much better than Crysis multiplayer
Crysis. I played the UT3 demo, and while it was fun for what it was... it's the exact same thing *every* *single* *time* you play it. You won't play UT3 one day and think to yourself ''Boy, I can't wait to see what today's rounds will be like,'' because you already know - utterly the same thing as what you just did the last time you played it. I realize that's not a bad thing for some people, but it simply isn't to my liking. I don't mind some good yet repetitive run-and-gun fun every now and then, but Jesus...Again, for what it is, UT3 is a pretty great game. But what it is just doesn't appeal to me a lot because ''it'' isn't much at all. Granted, I'm much more of a single player gamer, so that slants my preference against it a little to begin with. While multiplayer's constant competition is motivating, it's also irritating, stressful, monotonous, and sometimes downright infuriating. But there are some multiplayer games like Battlefield I like because I know my experience has a good chance of being relatively different from the last time, and in a way that most single player games can't quite replicate, so I'm willing to put up with the stress. Since UT3 is such an incredibly repetitious run-and-gunner (even Serious Sam has more variation), it doesn't offer much of anything to alleviate the frustations of multiplayer.UT3's only selling point for me was the cool and fun weapons, and boy, were they fun. But they only held me over in the demo for so long before it became more of the same, and that's just no good in a multiplayer game. I can honestly say, though, that if it had a more significant single player component (nothing special, just enough to actually call it a campaign, not the bot matches with a storyline I've heard about), I would buy UT3. I think it's such a shame they didn't put just a tiny bit more work into the campaign. They would have had me sold if they had, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.Now, as for Crysis... I played through the demo alone over a dozen times and my experience never dulled. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I haven't installed and played the full game on my computer yet even though I have the game with me because I've been working insane and tiring hours lately, but I'm confident I'll have just as much fun as in the demo when I do get around to playing it. Oh yeah, don't forget I had even more fun with Crysis's weapons. ;)And that's just considering the game by itself. Don't even get me started on Crysis's unbelievable moddability. I have no doubt that Crysis will last me a long, long, long time, and I don't even care about its multiplayer.
Hard to say.Crysis has FANTASTIC SP that is replayable.UT3 has a crap SP campaign, but great bots.Crysis has very good multiplayerUT3 has EXELLENT multiplayerBoth have exellent editiors - though Crysis's is much easier to use and acessable.get both.Im still going to keep comming back to them for a long time
I voted crysis because I'm not buying ut99 with a facelift..arcade run around and pick up the best gun shooters are old and tired.
[QUOTE=''JP_Russell''] Crysis. I played the UT3 demo, and while it was fun for what it was... it's the exact same thing *every* *single* *time* you play it. You won't play UT3 one day and think to yourself ''Boy, I can't wait to see what today's rounds will be like,'' because you already know - utterly the same thing as what you just did the last time you played it. [/QUOTE] Interesting point. When you go and play a game of basketball, are you expecting a drastically different experience every time? I see UT very similar to a sport where the thrill is in scoring the frag each time, not in being surprised at each step.I don't really play UT3, but in UT2k4, when I had battles and I pulled out a headshot, or shock combo, or midair rocket, it was far more rewarding than anything a singleplayer based game can provide.
splinter cell chaos theory walmart?
Do you think they would have splinter cell chaos theory at wal-mart? because i want to buy it.splinter cell chaos theory walmart?
call and find out or download it onlinelip chapstick
call and find out or download it online
kotor 3?
yeah, im a little behind on asking this question, seeing as how KOTOR 2 game out so many years ago. I just recently played through both KOTOR 1 and 2 and it was, in all honesty one of the greatest gaming experiences of my life. just wondering if anyone has any news on theirsequel KOTOR 3. ive googled but all ive seen were rumors of an early '08 release, some people saying its been canceled, and some people even saying its being turned into an MMO :(. just wondering if anyone here on GS had some news about this.kotor 3?
I've just started playing the first KOTOR for the first time ;) And its really got me hooked, its a lot of fun and if the rest of the first game and second game is keeping it like that then bring on a third one, because those games are up there with deus ex.kotor 3?
i agree, Deus Ex is my favorite game of all time, and i think the KOTOR series comes in at a close second place.
There's been no news on KOTOR3 so everything is just rumor and speculation. LucasArts said awhile back in an interview that they had no intention of letting the franchise die which means we will see KOTOR3 sooner or later. LucasArts has also said recently that they're working on a major Star Wars project. Combined with the news that BioWare is known to be working on an MMO, which EA apparantly thought had enough promise to be worth buying out BioWare, leads many people to believe that the next KOTOR game will be an MMO.
Yeah, if you look at Bioware's corporate page it lists an MMO property that people suspect will be Star Wars, but it hasn't been confirmed.If you're really hankering for a KOTOR fix, you can always play Mass Effect on Xbox or when it (hopefully) come out for the PC. It has many of the same mechanics you found in KOTOR, including fantastic storytelling, tons of dialogue, good/evil scales, and an unending stream of sidequests.Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to finish KOTORII.
Well, count me out if KOTOR 3 becomes a MMO :)
Many great ideas, and games are left undevelopped.Players have asked for Krynn games...and we didn't get many since tDQoK...
I think KOTOR could have potential to be a pretty interesting MMO.
[QUOTE=''Stephen_Q'']I think KOTOR could have potential to be a pretty interesting MMO. [/QUOTE]Nah, it needs to stay as a single player game. I hate MMO's :)
WOW, KOTOR is one big a.. game :) Im just done with the jedi training stuf on datooine and i can see on save ive used 11 hours and now i got access to the entire galaxy... :shock:
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark'']WOW, KOTOR is one big a.. game :) Im just done with the jedi training stuf on datooine and i can see on save ive used 11 hours and now i got access to the entire galaxy... :shock:[/QUOTE]If you can believe it, it gets even better later. Enjoy!
If you like KOTOR, try playing some of the older RPG's such as Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They're so much better then KOTOR.
That is, unless you can't stand outdated graphics and such. But in that case you're in the wrong genre, I think. Most of the best RPG's are a lot older.
Try them.
[QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny'']If you like KOTOR, try playing some of the older RPG's such as Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They're so much better then KOTOR.
That is, unless you can't stand outdated graphics and such. But in that case you're in the wrong genre, I think. Most of the best RPG's are a lot older.
Try them.
[/QUOTE]I have nothing against outdated graphics, but im not a big fan of the setting in baldurs gate or a game like oblivion. Im more into sci fi like KOTOR and horror Vampire Bloodlines, but maybe i should check out Fallout when im done with both KOTOR games :)
I've just started playing the first KOTOR for the first time ;) And its really got me hooked, its a lot of fun and if the rest of the first game and second game is keeping it like that then bring on a third one, because those games are up there with deus ex.kotor 3?
i agree, Deus Ex is my favorite game of all time, and i think the KOTOR series comes in at a close second place.
There's been no news on KOTOR3 so everything is just rumor and speculation. LucasArts said awhile back in an interview that they had no intention of letting the franchise die which means we will see KOTOR3 sooner or later. LucasArts has also said recently that they're working on a major Star Wars project. Combined with the news that BioWare is known to be working on an MMO, which EA apparantly thought had enough promise to be worth buying out BioWare, leads many people to believe that the next KOTOR game will be an MMO.
Yeah, if you look at Bioware's corporate page it lists an MMO property that people suspect will be Star Wars, but it hasn't been confirmed.If you're really hankering for a KOTOR fix, you can always play Mass Effect on Xbox or when it (hopefully) come out for the PC. It has many of the same mechanics you found in KOTOR, including fantastic storytelling, tons of dialogue, good/evil scales, and an unending stream of sidequests.Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to finish KOTORII.
Well, count me out if KOTOR 3 becomes a MMO :)
Many great ideas, and games are left undevelopped.Players have asked for Krynn games...and we didn't get many since tDQoK...
I think KOTOR could have potential to be a pretty interesting MMO.
[QUOTE=''Stephen_Q'']I think KOTOR could have potential to be a pretty interesting MMO. [/QUOTE]Nah, it needs to stay as a single player game. I hate MMO's :)
WOW, KOTOR is one big a.. game :) Im just done with the jedi training stuf on datooine and i can see on save ive used 11 hours and now i got access to the entire galaxy... :shock:
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark'']WOW, KOTOR is one big a.. game :) Im just done with the jedi training stuf on datooine and i can see on save ive used 11 hours and now i got access to the entire galaxy... :shock:[/QUOTE]If you can believe it, it gets even better later. Enjoy!
If you like KOTOR, try playing some of the older RPG's such as Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They're so much better then KOTOR.
That is, unless you can't stand outdated graphics and such. But in that case you're in the wrong genre, I think. Most of the best RPG's are a lot older.
Try them.
[QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny'']If you like KOTOR, try playing some of the older RPG's such as Baldur's Gate or Fallout. They're so much better then KOTOR.
That is, unless you can't stand outdated graphics and such. But in that case you're in the wrong genre, I think. Most of the best RPG's are a lot older.
Try them.
[/QUOTE]I have nothing against outdated graphics, but im not a big fan of the setting in baldurs gate or a game like oblivion. Im more into sci fi like KOTOR and horror Vampire Bloodlines, but maybe i should check out Fallout when im done with both KOTOR games :)
The day video games will achieve their maximum GFX potential...
The developers will mainly focus on gameplay and it will be awesome! Or maybe we would havealready beenkilled by WWIII or global warming or you or maybe... Me! Anyway, no more new GFX cards since there won't be any improvements on the GFX side. What do you think? Also, I posted this on the PC games forum because by that day, all console gamers have already died. ;)Why? They became mad when they saw how good Crysis 3looked.The day video games will achieve their maximum GFX potential...
The day games achieve their maximum graphical protential is when we all have holosuites like in Star Trek or chips in our brains so we see the games using our own eyes.The day video games will achieve their maximum GFX potential...
I think that game developers will stop following gfx hardware at some point due to budget restrictions. I mean, it costs alot of money to make good looking games. Unless way down the road there is some quick and easy way to generate good looking games using mainly procedural techniques, which is probably going to eventually be the case.
i think games will always start looking better and better until eventually we reach Real Life Graphics...
I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.
[QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.
Yeah, sounds about right but maybe we get bored of newgames just because they're not new at all. I mean sure they got new features but nothing mind-blowing whereas older games were most of the time revolutionary games just because they were among the first into that particular genre. Now, I don't think we can create new genres as it's risky and there's nothingelse to create. Now, I hope that some crazy developers will take the risk and introduce their game as the first to step into a new era of gaming; one that will not just slightly edit the already existingcontent but one that will build itself a name we shall all remember!
No editing function... Sorry for the 2 'now' and mistakes. Was in a hurry!
[QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny''][QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.[/QUOTE]crysis only lasted like 7 housr :P
[QUOTE=''ERROR19621''][QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny''][QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.[/QUOTE]crysis only lasted like 7 housr :P[/QUOTE]
Double that as a minimum.
Maybe when you can have full battles on screen with no problems with lagg etc not like the total war franchise but like oblivion but where you have 1000's of npc's fighting each other on screen instead of just 6.
The day games achieve their maximum graphical protential is when we all have holosuites like in Star Trek or chips in our brains so we see the games using our own eyes.The day video games will achieve their maximum GFX potential...
I think that game developers will stop following gfx hardware at some point due to budget restrictions. I mean, it costs alot of money to make good looking games. Unless way down the road there is some quick and easy way to generate good looking games using mainly procedural techniques, which is probably going to eventually be the case.
i think games will always start looking better and better until eventually we reach Real Life Graphics...
I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.
[QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.
Yeah, sounds about right but maybe we get bored of newgames just because they're not new at all. I mean sure they got new features but nothing mind-blowing whereas older games were most of the time revolutionary games just because they were among the first into that particular genre. Now, I don't think we can create new genres as it's risky and there's nothingelse to create. Now, I hope that some crazy developers will take the risk and introduce their game as the first to step into a new era of gaming; one that will not just slightly edit the already existingcontent but one that will build itself a name we shall all remember!
No editing function... Sorry for the 2 'now' and mistakes. Was in a hurry!
[QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny''][QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.[/QUOTE]crysis only lasted like 7 housr :P
[QUOTE=''ERROR19621''][QUOTE=''ShotGunBunny''][QUOTE=''SentientGames'']I dunno dude. At this rate, I think humanity will kill itself before we have a chance to even come close to reaching our maximum potential in any field of technology.[/QUOTE]
Same thing I was thinking. :P
I've been saying it for years. The more the graphics have improved, the further the overal value of games has decreased.
I mean, look at Crysis. It's fun for a while, but gets boring eventually, and it's only 15-20 hours long. Come on! Sure the graphics were stunning at certain points.
This is gonna sound weird, but when I think back on certain parts in Baldur's Gate 2 that I almost feel like I can smell and taste the stuff there. :P Now when I think back on Crysis, I only remember a few tiny ''wow'' moments, and I only remember them because I can't help but think they were terribly forced.[/QUOTE]crysis only lasted like 7 housr :P[/QUOTE]
Double that as a minimum.
Maybe when you can have full battles on screen with no problems with lagg etc not like the total war franchise but like oblivion but where you have 1000's of npc's fighting each other on screen instead of just 6.
Is GTA: San Andreas worth getting?
Topic ^: I am looking for a game to play since my acquired version of SS2 doesn't play the cutscenes and wont run ...argh...Is GTA: San Andreas worth getting?
noIs GTA: San Andreas worth getting?
[QUOTE=''skyyfox1'']no[/QUOTE]Oh okay. Whats wrong with it? I thought it got good reviews?
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser''] [QUOTE=''skyyfox1'']no[/QUOTE]Oh okay. Whats wrong with it? I thought it got good reviews?[/QUOTE]there are many things wrong with it... i just don't like it.
its definatleyt worth getting really fun game kinda long but its fun especially with mods and stuff
San Andreas is an awesome game. It has an enormous world, tons to do, a great main story arc, interesting and original missions (which is impressive after half a dozen games), as well as some cool new features like - finally - the ability to swim.If you don't enjoy black culture, SA may grate on you a little. It's full of homie this and dawg that, and the music is oriented towards certain tastes - it's mostly hiphop, rap and soul. But there's some cool rock, some great alternative and an hilarious talk sttion.SA holds true to everything that makes GTA great, while - as with all new GTA games - making the previous games all but redundant. Vice CIty is still my personal favourite, but SA is the bigger game, and it's certainly the better game - so long as you can stomach the culture. Word, yo!
[QUOTE=''mfsa'']San Andreas is an awesome game. It has an enormous world, tons to do, a great main story arc, interesting and original missions (which is impressive after half a dozen games), as well as some cool new features like - finally - the ability to swim.If you don't enjoy black culture, SA may grate on you a little. It's full of homie this and dawg that, and the music is oriented towards certain tastes - it's mostly hiphop, rap and soul. But there's some cool rock, some great alternative and an hilarious talk sttion.SA holds true to everything that makes GTA great, while - as with all new GTA games - making the previous games all but redundant. Vice CIty is still my personal favourite, but SA is the bigger game, and it's certainly the better game - so long as you can stomach the culture. Word, yo![/QUOTE]Trust me my friend....I'm all soul....Can you uhh...''dig it''?
worth due to its lengthly storyline and a huge world to explore.but its flight mission is suck.
If you like GTA, yes.
GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE] The game is more easy to with a keyboard/mouse than a controller in my opinion O_O
[QUOTE=''Franko_3''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE] The game is more easy to with a keyboard/mouse than a controller in my opinion O_O[/QUOTE]Really? Wait... You HAVE played it on PC right? You're not just guessing that any game with guns is easier on a PC?
San Andreas is the best GTA game in the series and its one of my favourite game.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easierBTW, SA is a great game, but Vice City was better
definitly yes it is one of the best games I've ever played ... you wont regret it...
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[/QUOTE]You sold it because games for PS2 aren't being released any more. If you had a PS3 would you have sold it for PC game money?
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[/QUOTE]You sold it because games for PS2 aren't being released any more. If you had a PS3 would you have sold it for PC game money?[/QUOTE] Hell yes. And I sold my PS2 before I came close to beating GT4, and FFX-2, so it wasn't that I was bored without any PS2 games, it was because I was excited for new PC games. And just for the record... If i still had a PS2 and also a PS3 I would sold teh PS3 for PS2 game money. Seriously. I hate PS3.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]Keyboard and mouse:Out of car:Easy, fps style control. Uses no more keys than a typical WASD game.Mouse aim on shooting makes combat fun.In car:Easy, up-down-left-right controls for driving, mouse-controlled camera gives smooth and fluid control over what you want to look at, making high speed driving a breeze.Gamepad:Out of car:Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim In car:Smooth driving controls, but chunky N E S W camera control means fast driving becomes far more hazardous, not to mention awkward.And that's just controls. The PC version also has higher resolution textures, a much longer draw distance and, unless your PC is junk, none of the frame rate issues the console version had.The PC version plays better and it looks better.
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]Keyboard and mouse:Out of car:Easy, fps style control. Uses no more keys than a typical WASD game.Mouse aim on shooting makes combat fun.[/QUOTE] No more than a WASD game?? Mouse aim?? You know GTA uses lock-on aiming and not a reticle, right? And you have to use the R2 and L2 equivalents to change targets and, bah...Whatever, I have my opinions, and you have yours. Maybe I thought it was complicated because I'm used to FPS's simple WASD+2 mouse button play...
noIs GTA: San Andreas worth getting?
[QUOTE=''skyyfox1'']no[/QUOTE]Oh okay. Whats wrong with it? I thought it got good reviews?
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser''] [QUOTE=''skyyfox1'']no[/QUOTE]Oh okay. Whats wrong with it? I thought it got good reviews?[/QUOTE]there are many things wrong with it... i just don't like it.
its definatleyt worth getting really fun game kinda long but its fun especially with mods and stuff
San Andreas is an awesome game. It has an enormous world, tons to do, a great main story arc, interesting and original missions (which is impressive after half a dozen games), as well as some cool new features like - finally - the ability to swim.If you don't enjoy black culture, SA may grate on you a little. It's full of homie this and dawg that, and the music is oriented towards certain tastes - it's mostly hiphop, rap and soul. But there's some cool rock, some great alternative and an hilarious talk sttion.SA holds true to everything that makes GTA great, while - as with all new GTA games - making the previous games all but redundant. Vice CIty is still my personal favourite, but SA is the bigger game, and it's certainly the better game - so long as you can stomach the culture. Word, yo!
[QUOTE=''mfsa'']San Andreas is an awesome game. It has an enormous world, tons to do, a great main story arc, interesting and original missions (which is impressive after half a dozen games), as well as some cool new features like - finally - the ability to swim.If you don't enjoy black culture, SA may grate on you a little. It's full of homie this and dawg that, and the music is oriented towards certain tastes - it's mostly hiphop, rap and soul. But there's some cool rock, some great alternative and an hilarious talk sttion.SA holds true to everything that makes GTA great, while - as with all new GTA games - making the previous games all but redundant. Vice CIty is still my personal favourite, but SA is the bigger game, and it's certainly the better game - so long as you can stomach the culture. Word, yo![/QUOTE]Trust me my friend....I'm all soul....Can you uhh...''dig it''?
worth due to its lengthly storyline and a huge world to explore.but its flight mission is suck.
If you like GTA, yes.
GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE] The game is more easy to with a keyboard/mouse than a controller in my opinion O_O
[QUOTE=''Franko_3''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE] The game is more easy to with a keyboard/mouse than a controller in my opinion O_O[/QUOTE]Really? Wait... You HAVE played it on PC right? You're not just guessing that any game with guns is easier on a PC?
San Andreas is the best GTA game in the series and its one of my favourite game.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easierBTW, SA is a great game, but Vice City was better
definitly yes it is one of the best games I've ever played ... you wont regret it...
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[/QUOTE]You sold it because games for PS2 aren't being released any more. If you had a PS3 would you have sold it for PC game money?
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]What's wrong with you console fanboy? The controls are not hard at all For almost any game: mouse+keyboard>>>>>>>>>>>>>gamepad ( I know because I play both PC and console games )SA with a gamepad SUCKS. I still can't understand how people can actually play shooters and RTS with a gamepad. It's very hard to aim and run using a gamepad while with a mouse and keyboard it's much easier [/QUOTE] CONSOLE FANBOY??!!? I just effin sold my PS2 for PC GAME MONEY, and I don't plan on getting a console for the next at least SIX MONTHS. I'V BEEN A HERMIT SINCE AUGUST, FOO'.
[/QUOTE]You sold it because games for PS2 aren't being released any more. If you had a PS3 would you have sold it for PC game money?[/QUOTE] Hell yes. And I sold my PS2 before I came close to beating GT4, and FFX-2, so it wasn't that I was bored without any PS2 games, it was because I was excited for new PC games. And just for the record... If i still had a PS2 and also a PS3 I would sold teh PS3 for PS2 game money. Seriously. I hate PS3.
[QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]Keyboard and mouse:Out of car:Easy, fps style control. Uses no more keys than a typical WASD game.Mouse aim on shooting makes combat fun.In car:Easy, up-down-left-right controls for driving, mouse-controlled camera gives smooth and fluid control over what you want to look at, making high speed driving a breeze.Gamepad:Out of car:Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim Autoaim In car:Smooth driving controls, but chunky N E S W camera control means fast driving becomes far more hazardous, not to mention awkward.And that's just controls. The PC version also has higher resolution textures, a much longer draw distance and, unless your PC is junk, none of the frame rate issues the console version had.The PC version plays better and it looks better.
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''Ps2stony'']GTA: SA for PC... Nope, not worth it without a gamepad. My friend got it for his PC as well, and he was playing with his keyboard and mouse... It was almost like playing one of those games that use every single friggin' key on the keyboard... If it's gamepad compatible then, heck, why not?[/QUOTE]Keyboard and mouse:Out of car:Easy, fps style control. Uses no more keys than a typical WASD game.Mouse aim on shooting makes combat fun.[/QUOTE] No more than a WASD game?? Mouse aim?? You know GTA uses lock-on aiming and not a reticle, right? And you have to use the R2 and L2 equivalents to change targets and, bah...Whatever, I have my opinions, and you have yours. Maybe I thought it was complicated because I'm used to FPS's simple WASD+2 mouse button play...
How Do I Make My Computer Download Faster???
I was just trying to download the GTA 4 trailer and it was downloading steadily at 20 kbps but I ussuallydownload at50kbps.Anyway to make my computer go faster?I heard you could click run and type njconig or something and you could disable some stuff.Any tips? PLZHow Do I Make My Computer Download Faster???
Um, upgrade your internet connection? Disable any P2P stuff you have running? (although I'm not sure how much that would do...)How Do I Make My Computer Download Faster???
Turn off your porn first?
one word....DAP (google it)
Um, upgrade your internet connection? Disable any P2P stuff you have running? (although I'm not sure how much that would do...)How Do I Make My Computer Download Faster???
Turn off your porn first?
one word....DAP (google it)
What kind of PC would I need to play today's current games?
I have always been a console gamer. But now I am interested in PC Gaming as many people say it is highly superior to console gaming. Thing is my PC most likely would not be able to play the games that are currently coming out. So what kind of PC would I need to be able to play these new games? What kind of PC would I need to play today's current games?
PC hardware forum can help ya out!Don't believe the myth's about PC bieng the most expensive and lasts only 1 month until you have to upgrade. My PC lasted me almost a decade until Bioshock came out. If you are smart about it, you'll only have to make very small and minute upgrades every 'generation' of video games. This is the generation that made me spend the most though, mainly because of the 8800 card, otherwise my total expenses would have been 150 dollars instead of 450. No big deal, my PC will last till the next thing the video game world has to offer now. What kind of PC would I need to play today's current games?
No less than:E2140 or X2 4000+ (E4500 recommended)
1GB RAM (2GB Preferably)
HD 2600XT (HD 3850 Recommended if you can get it)
[QUOTE=''ElArab'']PC hardware forum can help ya out![/QUOTE]Yup, please head there.
PC hardware forum can help ya out!Don't believe the myth's about PC bieng the most expensive and lasts only 1 month until you have to upgrade. My PC lasted me almost a decade until Bioshock came out. If you are smart about it, you'll only have to make very small and minute upgrades every 'generation' of video games. This is the generation that made me spend the most though, mainly because of the 8800 card, otherwise my total expenses would have been 150 dollars instead of 450. No big deal, my PC will last till the next thing the video game world has to offer now. What kind of PC would I need to play today's current games?
No less than:E2140 or X2 4000+ (E4500 recommended)
1GB RAM (2GB Preferably)
HD 2600XT (HD 3850 Recommended if you can get it)
[QUOTE=''ElArab'']PC hardware forum can help ya out![/QUOTE]Yup, please head there.
Do games go on sale near xmas and boxing day?
Hey I wanna pick up Orange box, but it's like 54.99 where I live (Vancouver, Canada). I'm wondering if it'll be on sale closer to xmas or during boxing day.
thnx.lip chapstick
thnx.
I downloaded COD4 and wont work
I brought the game off of steama dn it says Preparing to launch and it wont launchI downloaded COD4 and wont work
reinstall?I downloaded COD4 and wont work
make sure it is 100% downloaded.
reinstall?I downloaded COD4 and wont work
make sure it is 100% downloaded.
Achievement In PC Gaming
I noticed in the games in Orange Box have achievement goals and points like those in Xbox 360 games. Do they do this in all recent games, or just the Orange Box?Achievement In PC Gaming
That's mostly just Valve. Most games that are published for the 360 and the PC don't carry over achievements at all. Since the Steam Community thing has launched, though, I guess Valve thought it would be a good way to show off your achievements for your friends. I don't think they offer any points for them, though.Achievement In PC Gaming
no, only for hl2ep2, portal and tf2. Some games for windows live offer achievements too, but i think you need a gold account to enable them (gold acc is 50$ O_o).
Well they should change that. The achievements make games so much more lasting. Portal would normally make an hour game without it.
Now that Windows Live is out there, a lot of games will probably start including Windows Live achievements, and it will just snowball from there into being a commonplace thing in PC gamng. I think the PC version of Gears has Windows Live achievements.They're very easy to implement, and they are definitely well received. At least, I doubt anyone would avoid a game for offering achievements.Personally, I just don't really like them. It reminds me of old games - points based games, where you find yourself replaying games to get that high score. Only now, you're just unlocking achievements. I really like to think that gaming is getting away from things like that. This to me seems like a step backwards. How long before developers start designing games with the sole purpose of replaying them to earn these points, rather than offering solid original content.I'm all for replayability, but I don't think it's a fair traidoff if developers start cutting corners and making sacrifices simply because it's assumed that players will want to replay games - or sections of games - for those points. And I think it won't be long before developers start looking at stretching out a five hour game rather than making a seven hour game. Sure, it may work out the same for people who love those points, but what about the rest of us?I think it's something we can do without, but I think it'll probably end up as a standard feature soon enough.
That's mostly just Valve. Most games that are published for the 360 and the PC don't carry over achievements at all. Since the Steam Community thing has launched, though, I guess Valve thought it would be a good way to show off your achievements for your friends. I don't think they offer any points for them, though.Achievement In PC Gaming
no, only for hl2ep2, portal and tf2. Some games for windows live offer achievements too, but i think you need a gold account to enable them (gold acc is 50$ O_o).
Well they should change that. The achievements make games so much more lasting. Portal would normally make an hour game without it.
Now that Windows Live is out there, a lot of games will probably start including Windows Live achievements, and it will just snowball from there into being a commonplace thing in PC gamng. I think the PC version of Gears has Windows Live achievements.They're very easy to implement, and they are definitely well received. At least, I doubt anyone would avoid a game for offering achievements.Personally, I just don't really like them. It reminds me of old games - points based games, where you find yourself replaying games to get that high score. Only now, you're just unlocking achievements. I really like to think that gaming is getting away from things like that. This to me seems like a step backwards. How long before developers start designing games with the sole purpose of replaying them to earn these points, rather than offering solid original content.I'm all for replayability, but I don't think it's a fair traidoff if developers start cutting corners and making sacrifices simply because it's assumed that players will want to replay games - or sections of games - for those points. And I think it won't be long before developers start looking at stretching out a five hour game rather than making a seven hour game. Sure, it may work out the same for people who love those points, but what about the rest of us?I think it's something we can do without, but I think it'll probably end up as a standard feature soon enough.
Playing without discs
Is here a legal program out their that lets me play the games I buy without the discs. Im sick of loosing a scatching themPlaying without discs
I believe that if you legally own the game, you can use a no-CD crack. Personally I do use them, as I find it much more practical than switching discs if you want to play a different game, every time you switch the discs the chances of it being damaged are farely big and I play a lot of games at once so there is a lot of swtiching going on.Playing without discs
[QUOTE=''imhioncrak'']I believe that if you legally own the game, you can use a no-CD crack. Personally I do use them, as I find it much more practical than switching discs if you want to play a different game, every time you switch the discs the chances of it being damaged are farely big and I play a lot of games at once so there is a lot of swtiching going on.[/QUOTE]''The PC forum is available for you to discuss PC games. MAC game discussions are welcome. Important! Read all sticky threads for this forum. No hardware specific discussions are allowed, and any CD cracks, trading of game keys or illegal game downloading topics can lead to a moderation with suspension or the possibility of permanent ban''To answer the initial question, there's no special program that will let you play without CDs. Most games will require you to use CDs. If you find it inconvenient, you may want to try finding your games on a service like Steam or EA's downloader service.
I believe that if you legally own the game, you can use a no-CD crack. Personally I do use them, as I find it much more practical than switching discs if you want to play a different game, every time you switch the discs the chances of it being damaged are farely big and I play a lot of games at once so there is a lot of swtiching going on.Playing without discs
[QUOTE=''imhioncrak'']I believe that if you legally own the game, you can use a no-CD crack. Personally I do use them, as I find it much more practical than switching discs if you want to play a different game, every time you switch the discs the chances of it being damaged are farely big and I play a lot of games at once so there is a lot of swtiching going on.[/QUOTE]''The PC forum is available for you to discuss PC games. MAC game discussions are welcome. Important! Read all sticky threads for this forum. No hardware specific discussions are allowed, and any CD cracks, trading of game keys or illegal game downloading topics can lead to a moderation with suspension or the possibility of permanent ban''To answer the initial question, there's no special program that will let you play without CDs. Most games will require you to use CDs. If you find it inconvenient, you may want to try finding your games on a service like Steam or EA's downloader service.
Play Gears of War with out CD?
Is therea way to play gears of war with out the CD? Is there a crack or a patch? Thanks in advance...Play Gears of War with out CD?
There's always programs that you can buy that create an image of your CD (something like that) which allows you to play without one (like Alchohol 120%). But that might be illegal, I dunno.Play Gears of War with out CD?
Is there a way?Yes.But that doesn't mean you'll be supplied with them here though.
Read all sticky threads for this forum. No hardware specific discussions are allowed, and any CD cracks, trading of game keys or illegal game downloading topics can lead to a moderation with suspension or the possibility of permanent ban.
There's always programs that you can buy that create an image of your CD (something like that) which allows you to play without one (like Alchohol 120%). But that might be illegal, I dunno.Play Gears of War with out CD?
Is there a way?Yes.But that doesn't mean you'll be supplied with them here though.
Read all sticky threads for this forum. No hardware specific discussions are allowed, and any CD cracks, trading of game keys or illegal game downloading topics can lead to a moderation with suspension or the possibility of permanent ban.
Does anyone remember the name of this MMO?
All I remember is stupid little details about it. I remember that it was reviewed in PC Gamer about.... let's say 5-8 years ago and it got something in the high 70s as a score. It was science fiction themed (but not Anarchy Online). One of the races was like a bipedal frog race and there were also standard humans and some other races I don't really remember. The style of play was a little reminiscent of FPSs and experience points were based on hits not kills. That's all I remember. I'm not going to buy it (I doubt it's even around anymore),but the fact that I can't remember the name of this game is really bugging me. Hopefully one you guys out there remembers that name of this game.Does anyone remember the name of this MMO?
Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)Does anyone remember the name of this MMO?
It was for PC.
Neocron?http://ng.neocron.com/
[QUOTE=''LahiruD'']Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)[/QUOTE] A MMO that was review by a magazine called PC gamer... nope it had to be for gameboy!
[QUOTE=''Nerkcon''][QUOTE=''LahiruD'']Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)[/QUOTE] A MMO that was review by a magazine called PC gamer... nope it had to be for gameboy![/QUOTE]There's no MMO for gameboy.:roll::P
1 of the versions of Star Wars Galaxy? :PJumpgate?
Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)Does anyone remember the name of this MMO?
It was for PC.
Neocron?http://ng.neocron.com/
[QUOTE=''LahiruD'']Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)[/QUOTE] A MMO that was review by a magazine called PC gamer... nope it had to be for gameboy!
[QUOTE=''Nerkcon''][QUOTE=''LahiruD'']Which platform ? (I mean PC, PS, Xbox....)[/QUOTE] A MMO that was review by a magazine called PC gamer... nope it had to be for gameboy![/QUOTE]There's no MMO for gameboy.:roll::P
1 of the versions of Star Wars Galaxy? :PJumpgate?
For all of you WiC haters.
Here is just a sample of how amazing WiC is. http://www.gamespot.com/users/Wasdie/video_player?id=d3Mzkmf85b8FujPdI shot this entire thing myself. This is only a taste of how awesome WiC is.For all of you WiC haters.
good vid good choice of music!didnt change my opinioni just dont like instant action rts' i like to build up an army and build buildings and barracks and such. just differnce in taste.For all of you WiC haters.
It's a matter of taste but good for you if you insanelylike WiC. I prefer CoH because I like watching infantry taking cover! So if WiC 2 somehow manages to focus a little moreon infantry, cover system and deep strategy %26 tactics, then I'll rate it higher than CoH for sure becauseWiC looks awesome.
what do you care if people hate or love the game? if you like it, you like it, but everyone doesn't have to agree.EDIT: but nice video. i love Muse :)
Nice video. But I don't see how this would make people stop disliking WiC. All you basically did was show the graphics.I, personally, don't like the game because it's so arcade and simple. Fighting feels so pointless because I know I will destroy that group of tanks up there with my own. And I know my tanks will get destroyed after that by enemy choppers. Which in turn will get destroyed by my allies' AA. Which again in turn will get destroyed by enemy tanks. Repeat from beginning. It doesn't matter whether you got a tank or a chopper or a group of infantry. Everyone is the same, except for their 1 (out of 3) weaknesses.It's just rock, paper, scissors non-stop, like an endless cycle. So what's the point of fighting? I like to use superior tactics and strategy to keep my own units alive, but this is next to impossible in this game. But I can see why people like this game. It's the Unreal Tournament of RTS games, atleast in my eyes.
It's more than just that. That's completely disregarding the team aspect and the tactical support system, whichsets this game apart from other rts games.
And the singleplayer campaign is great too.
I jsut cant get into WiC. Its a good looking game, but I prefer the CoH series. In all reality tho, RTS are about middle of my liking for genres.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that WiC isn't a fast paced, action filled twist on conventional RTS games ... with some great looking explosions and effects (especially if you have DX10). I can vouch for all that first hand. I played through the SP campaign and played dozens of multiplayer matches.The game for me, though, just lost its pull ... it just seemed shallow after a while, and the graphics weren't enough to really keep my attention anymore. I simply prefer the territory holding+resource management and base defense aspect you get with CoH more than the ability to drop in reenforcements, and having (imo here) more tactical 1on1 or 2on2 fights in multiplayer which keeps bringing me back to CoH time and time again.I think WiC is a worthy purchase and a lot of fun, but if I wanted quick mindless destruction I'd just load up UT3 or something similar. If, however, you're not a FPS fan and you want some quick strategy game adrenalinized fun then WiC is a good option. But overall gameplay, strategy and community are all very important factors for the long-term viability of any multiplayer game, and for my pennies, CoH wins over WiC in the long run on those grounds.
Oh ... sorry that was rude of me to forget something.Wasdie ... it was a very good video. Well edited with the pace of music and would make a very good game trailer.Maybe you can hope to pull a Nick Haley from it :D
Very well done movie, I liked it a lot, but if I said what I actually thought about WiC, then I'd be re-stating what alexmatusiak said.
[QUOTE=''Wasdie''] Here is just a sample of how amazing WiC is. http://www.gamespot.com/users/Wasdie/video_player?id=d3Mzkmf85b8FujPdI shot this entire thing myself. This is only a taste of how awesome WiC is.[/QUOTE] hopefully this great vid. will change SOMEONE'S mind.
[QUOTE=''Gog'']It's more than just that. That's completely disregarding the team aspect and the tactical support system, whichsets this game apart from other rts games.[/QUOTE]Yeah I didn't really talk about that to much.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']And the singleplayer campaign is great too.[/QUOTE]I've never played WiC and that ending just made me want to go out and buy it. Absoulutly loved it!:lol:
Great video, I love this game a lot@Blackalpha...That is why teamplay is highly emphasized in this game.lip chapstick
good vid good choice of music!didnt change my opinioni just dont like instant action rts' i like to build up an army and build buildings and barracks and such. just differnce in taste.For all of you WiC haters.
It's a matter of taste but good for you if you insanelylike WiC. I prefer CoH because I like watching infantry taking cover! So if WiC 2 somehow manages to focus a little moreon infantry, cover system and deep strategy %26 tactics, then I'll rate it higher than CoH for sure becauseWiC looks awesome.
what do you care if people hate or love the game? if you like it, you like it, but everyone doesn't have to agree.EDIT: but nice video. i love Muse :)
Nice video. But I don't see how this would make people stop disliking WiC. All you basically did was show the graphics.I, personally, don't like the game because it's so arcade and simple. Fighting feels so pointless because I know I will destroy that group of tanks up there with my own. And I know my tanks will get destroyed after that by enemy choppers. Which in turn will get destroyed by my allies' AA. Which again in turn will get destroyed by enemy tanks. Repeat from beginning. It doesn't matter whether you got a tank or a chopper or a group of infantry. Everyone is the same, except for their 1 (out of 3) weaknesses.It's just rock, paper, scissors non-stop, like an endless cycle. So what's the point of fighting? I like to use superior tactics and strategy to keep my own units alive, but this is next to impossible in this game. But I can see why people like this game. It's the Unreal Tournament of RTS games, atleast in my eyes.
It's more than just that. That's completely disregarding the team aspect and the tactical support system, whichsets this game apart from other rts games.
And the singleplayer campaign is great too.
I jsut cant get into WiC. Its a good looking game, but I prefer the CoH series. In all reality tho, RTS are about middle of my liking for genres.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that WiC isn't a fast paced, action filled twist on conventional RTS games ... with some great looking explosions and effects (especially if you have DX10). I can vouch for all that first hand. I played through the SP campaign and played dozens of multiplayer matches.The game for me, though, just lost its pull ... it just seemed shallow after a while, and the graphics weren't enough to really keep my attention anymore. I simply prefer the territory holding+resource management and base defense aspect you get with CoH more than the ability to drop in reenforcements, and having (imo here) more tactical 1on1 or 2on2 fights in multiplayer which keeps bringing me back to CoH time and time again.I think WiC is a worthy purchase and a lot of fun, but if I wanted quick mindless destruction I'd just load up UT3 or something similar. If, however, you're not a FPS fan and you want some quick strategy game adrenalinized fun then WiC is a good option. But overall gameplay, strategy and community are all very important factors for the long-term viability of any multiplayer game, and for my pennies, CoH wins over WiC in the long run on those grounds.
Oh ... sorry that was rude of me to forget something.Wasdie ... it was a very good video. Well edited with the pace of music and would make a very good game trailer.Maybe you can hope to pull a Nick Haley from it :D
Very well done movie, I liked it a lot, but if I said what I actually thought about WiC, then I'd be re-stating what alexmatusiak said.
[QUOTE=''Wasdie''] Here is just a sample of how amazing WiC is. http://www.gamespot.com/users/Wasdie/video_player?id=d3Mzkmf85b8FujPdI shot this entire thing myself. This is only a taste of how awesome WiC is.[/QUOTE] hopefully this great vid. will change SOMEONE'S mind.
[QUOTE=''Gog'']It's more than just that. That's completely disregarding the team aspect and the tactical support system, whichsets this game apart from other rts games.[/QUOTE]Yeah I didn't really talk about that to much.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']And the singleplayer campaign is great too.[/QUOTE]I've never played WiC and that ending just made me want to go out and buy it. Absoulutly loved it!:lol:
Great video, I love this game a lot@Blackalpha...That is why teamplay is highly emphasized in this game.
Things you would like to see in Battlefield 3.
I've been playing Battlefield (BF) games since 1942 in 2002, and heres a breif list of what they where about...:BF1942: The first BF game in the series. Based in WW2, arguebly the best WW2 FPS MP shooter.BFVietnam: Based in Vietnam, nothin like playin classic rock while napalming the vietcong, unfortenetly didnt catch on to the public.BF2: Argubly the best BF in the series, Argubly the best FPS MP ever, based in current times, the public caught on to this game more than any other BF.BF2142: Kind of a mod of BF2, did innovate somethings however, still fun and alot of people play it to this day.... now what do you wana see in BF3? heres a list of my wants:destructable enviroments like Bad Company, based in modern times or a near WW3, customizable classes like COD4 and BF2142, sole Naval and air maps such as coral sea in BF1942, FP cover system (would be a good innovation), more realistic flight charecteristics. Things you would like to see in Battlefield 3.
I would like to see real time physics, quicker loading times, and better graphics: not 2142 graphics but a complete new engine :)Things you would like to see in Battlefield 3.
BF 2142 is best in the series..........that game owns!!!
have you not seen the leaked info sheet?it is indeed using the bad company engine, which means the game supports destructable enviroments...the site also listed an ''MMO level of customazation''
I want Battlefield 1742.
I would like to see larger maps with ships and tanks again, like in BF1942 ( what was the best game in the series imo)
I would like to see EA as far away from the developers as possible. No expansions the week after the game comes out (shows that they just cut out material to sell later on).
I would like for them to use the CryEngine 2.
[QUOTE=''cobrax75'']have you not seen the leaked info sheet?it is indeed using the bad company engine, which means the game supports destructable enviroments...the site also listed an ''MMO level of customazation''[/QUOTE] intristing info, but we can still speculate.
I would like weapons to differ from BF2 even though they are both modern-day. I also want good graphics (as others mentioned), even more unlockable stuff through ranking (probably would mean more ranks), and return of naval combat if possible. Also would like to see balanced tank/helicopter/jet vs infantry cause in BF2 tanks, jets and helis were OP and in 2142 they lacked oomph.
Oohhh.... interesting thread:1) quicker loading times2) a new server search engine (this one sucks big time)3) 2 factions would be ok, though 4 factions would be better IMO. Something like US and EU against MEC and some other faction.4) A couple more vehicles: like having a heavy and a medium tank, we already have an APC for each side. 2 types of attack chopper (light and heavy, like AH-1Z/Mangusta for the light role and AH-64D/EC Tigerfor the heavy role. And Im talking on the same game, not on an expanssion or boostar pack).5) More weapons: It would be nice to have a pool of 3-4 extra weapons for each class from which to choose before spawning or for creating custom classes like CoD 46) Less classes: I think that 4-5 classes would be better, something like 21427) Balance the jets: either make them more vulnerable to AA fire, or make the Stinger/IGLA cause more damage. Also, a Stinger MANPADS for 1 or 2 classes would be awesomeFrom tha list: 1, 6 and 7 are the most important IMO. While 5 and 4 come in a close second place.Any other ideas??????
BF3 will use the new frostbite engine with destructible everything and it should have better graphics and physics than bad company (which are both incredible)
I really dont care about the graphics or physics engine. I can live with what BF2 is offering us right now on those 2 fields (BF2 is still a great looking game for me).However, as I mentioned on my previous post: there are some technical and gameplay issues that should be corrected/enhanced.
I would just love a new game lol
I want global team chat with options to mute and so on. Expand the friends list and server browser. I would like to see them stay away from the mass destruction of the Bad Company game. I want to be able to play with more than 20 people. I enjoy my 64 player servers. I would also like to see more character customization. Maybe armors and various other loots to become available with ranks. Mostly cosmetic like in Warhawk. I think the commander system needs to be simplified even more. Make the Kick/ban option and Mutiny more visible. Most players will not even vote. Finally I would like to be able to reset my points at least once a month. I know they want you to pick a role and fight but sometimes it gets old and boring being a engineer or whatever.
[QUOTE=''LTZH''] I've been playing Battlefield (BF) games since 1942 in 2002, and heres a breif list of what they where about...:BF1942: The first BF game in the series. Based in WW2, arguebly the best WW2 FPS MP shooter.BFVietnam: Based in Vietnam, nothin like playin classic rock while napalming the vietcong, unfortenetly didnt catch on to the public.BF2: Argubly the best BF in the series, Argubly the best FPS MP ever, based in current times, the public caught on to this game more than any other BF.BF2142: Kind of a mod of BF2, did innovate somethings however, still fun and alot of people play it to this day.... now what do you wana see in BF3? heres a list of my wants:destructable enviroments like Bad Company, based in modern times or a near WW3, customizable classes like COD4 and BF2142, sole Naval and air maps such as coral sea in BF1942, FP cover system (would be a good innovation), more realistic flight charecteristics. [/QUOTE] i'm just hoping for a game with a battlefield 2 setting with a mixture of gameplay from all the battlefield series (including 2142)
a new engine would be nice. im hoping they go back to present day or day a much farther ahead future
Knowing that the game is based upon a modern warfare just like ''Battlefield 2'',i would like to see a stealth operative unit.Something like ''Solid Snake'' or ''Sam Fisher''.
[QUOTE=''Rylsadar'']Knowing that the game is based upon a modern warfare just like ''Battlefield 2'',i would like to see a stealth operative unit.Something like ''Solid Snake'' or ''Sam Fisher''.[/QUOTE]Stealth has nothing to do with BF. Anyway, I would like more vehicles from desert combat (bf1942) like the mobile missle launcher, And I would also like better AA, the jets are so overpowered but the AA are some crap heat seeking missles that move so god damn slow, most modern AA missles move at mach 5-7. But I guess its fair since the jets are pretty slow too. But why are they heat seeking? flares loose them so easily, most modern AA are radar guided
found the leaked info sheet.found the leaked info sheet.http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/10/09/breaking-battlefield-3-leaked-info/
I would like to see real time physics, quicker loading times, and better graphics: not 2142 graphics but a complete new engine :)Things you would like to see in Battlefield 3.
BF 2142 is best in the series..........that game owns!!!
have you not seen the leaked info sheet?it is indeed using the bad company engine, which means the game supports destructable enviroments...the site also listed an ''MMO level of customazation''
I want Battlefield 1742.
I would like to see larger maps with ships and tanks again, like in BF1942 ( what was the best game in the series imo)
I would like to see EA as far away from the developers as possible. No expansions the week after the game comes out (shows that they just cut out material to sell later on).
I would like for them to use the CryEngine 2.
[QUOTE=''cobrax75'']have you not seen the leaked info sheet?it is indeed using the bad company engine, which means the game supports destructable enviroments...the site also listed an ''MMO level of customazation''[/QUOTE] intristing info, but we can still speculate.
I would like weapons to differ from BF2 even though they are both modern-day. I also want good graphics (as others mentioned), even more unlockable stuff through ranking (probably would mean more ranks), and return of naval combat if possible. Also would like to see balanced tank/helicopter/jet vs infantry cause in BF2 tanks, jets and helis were OP and in 2142 they lacked oomph.
Oohhh.... interesting thread:1) quicker loading times2) a new server search engine (this one sucks big time)3) 2 factions would be ok, though 4 factions would be better IMO. Something like US and EU against MEC and some other faction.4) A couple more vehicles: like having a heavy and a medium tank, we already have an APC for each side. 2 types of attack chopper (light and heavy, like AH-1Z/Mangusta for the light role and AH-64D/EC Tigerfor the heavy role. And Im talking on the same game, not on an expanssion or boostar pack).5) More weapons: It would be nice to have a pool of 3-4 extra weapons for each class from which to choose before spawning or for creating custom classes like CoD 46) Less classes: I think that 4-5 classes would be better, something like 21427) Balance the jets: either make them more vulnerable to AA fire, or make the Stinger/IGLA cause more damage. Also, a Stinger MANPADS for 1 or 2 classes would be awesomeFrom tha list: 1, 6 and 7 are the most important IMO. While 5 and 4 come in a close second place.Any other ideas??????
BF3 will use the new frostbite engine with destructible everything and it should have better graphics and physics than bad company (which are both incredible)
I really dont care about the graphics or physics engine. I can live with what BF2 is offering us right now on those 2 fields (BF2 is still a great looking game for me).However, as I mentioned on my previous post: there are some technical and gameplay issues that should be corrected/enhanced.
I would just love a new game lol
I want global team chat with options to mute and so on. Expand the friends list and server browser. I would like to see them stay away from the mass destruction of the Bad Company game. I want to be able to play with more than 20 people. I enjoy my 64 player servers. I would also like to see more character customization. Maybe armors and various other loots to become available with ranks. Mostly cosmetic like in Warhawk. I think the commander system needs to be simplified even more. Make the Kick/ban option and Mutiny more visible. Most players will not even vote. Finally I would like to be able to reset my points at least once a month. I know they want you to pick a role and fight but sometimes it gets old and boring being a engineer or whatever.
[QUOTE=''LTZH''] I've been playing Battlefield (BF) games since 1942 in 2002, and heres a breif list of what they where about...:BF1942: The first BF game in the series. Based in WW2, arguebly the best WW2 FPS MP shooter.BFVietnam: Based in Vietnam, nothin like playin classic rock while napalming the vietcong, unfortenetly didnt catch on to the public.BF2: Argubly the best BF in the series, Argubly the best FPS MP ever, based in current times, the public caught on to this game more than any other BF.BF2142: Kind of a mod of BF2, did innovate somethings however, still fun and alot of people play it to this day.... now what do you wana see in BF3? heres a list of my wants:destructable enviroments like Bad Company, based in modern times or a near WW3, customizable classes like COD4 and BF2142, sole Naval and air maps such as coral sea in BF1942, FP cover system (would be a good innovation), more realistic flight charecteristics. [/QUOTE] i'm just hoping for a game with a battlefield 2 setting with a mixture of gameplay from all the battlefield series (including 2142)
a new engine would be nice. im hoping they go back to present day or day a much farther ahead future
Knowing that the game is based upon a modern warfare just like ''Battlefield 2'',i would like to see a stealth operative unit.Something like ''Solid Snake'' or ''Sam Fisher''.
[QUOTE=''Rylsadar'']Knowing that the game is based upon a modern warfare just like ''Battlefield 2'',i would like to see a stealth operative unit.Something like ''Solid Snake'' or ''Sam Fisher''.[/QUOTE]Stealth has nothing to do with BF. Anyway, I would like more vehicles from desert combat (bf1942) like the mobile missle launcher, And I would also like better AA, the jets are so overpowered but the AA are some crap heat seeking missles that move so god damn slow, most modern AA missles move at mach 5-7. But I guess its fair since the jets are pretty slow too. But why are they heat seeking? flares loose them so easily, most modern AA are radar guided
found the leaked info sheet.found the leaked info sheet.http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/10/09/breaking-battlefield-3-leaked-info/
Dumb WoW question
I have a canceled account and threw out my game, but i want to get back into playing it. So I was wondering if I could just download the free trial and then go buy a gamecard and reactivate my account, so I don't have to rebuy the game. Is that possible?Dumb WoW question
I think so.... I think you can download the whole game client from the website. I can only suggest you try it and find out.Dumb WoW question
I hope it would work because I only have enough money for a gamecard.
*bump* has anyone ever tried this?? Does it work?
If you canceled account, you need create one and for that you need unique key if you have it it doesnt matter from where you get client. I think so, sorry if mistaken
Yea i think you can do this but i say it was stupid of you to throw out the game
Go to their website, sign your account back up, then download the game again. Simple as that, and your characters will all still be there.
Yes as the other guy said,
Download WOW from the worldofwarcraft.com site and login your acc and add a game time and your ready to go.
Update to BC if you want to play BC
Thanks
[QUOTE=''Snugglecakes13'']I have a canceled account and threw out my game, but i want to get back into playing it. So I was wondering if I could just download the free trial and then go buy a gamecard and reactivate my account, so I don't have to rebuy the game. Is that possible?[/QUOTE]That should work fine.
I think so.... I think you can download the whole game client from the website. I can only suggest you try it and find out.Dumb WoW question
I hope it would work because I only have enough money for a gamecard.
*bump* has anyone ever tried this?? Does it work?
If you canceled account, you need create one and for that you need unique key if you have it it doesnt matter from where you get client. I think so, sorry if mistaken
Yea i think you can do this but i say it was stupid of you to throw out the game
Go to their website, sign your account back up, then download the game again. Simple as that, and your characters will all still be there.
Yes as the other guy said,
Download WOW from the worldofwarcraft.com site and login your acc and add a game time and your ready to go.
Update to BC if you want to play BC
Thanks
[QUOTE=''Snugglecakes13'']I have a canceled account and threw out my game, but i want to get back into playing it. So I was wondering if I could just download the free trial and then go buy a gamecard and reactivate my account, so I don't have to rebuy the game. Is that possible?[/QUOTE]That should work fine.
How do I use the PS2 Wireless guitar on the PC?
i have a PS2 GH3 wireless guitar but i wanted to play it in my pc (i just moved and don't have a tv in my room only the pc), i saw a video on utub of a guy who hacked it and was using with fof, i wanted to know if anybody knwo how to do it and if i can use it with the GH3 PC version...
PC gaming or 360 gaming? your thoughts!!
Was kinda stuck on whether to buy a new high end PC or get a 360. What do you guys think has better games overall, if money was not an issue? and please state your side somehow cause sometimes its hard to discern what someone's side really is..thanks PC gaming or 360 gaming? your thoughts!!
Both*Making bad answers since 2004*PC gaming or 360 gaming? your thoughts!!
if you get a high end pc you should get vista ultimate and everything max specs like 2gb or more ram and lots of space and a nvidia geforce 8600 or above so you have direct x 10 try get 8800 because vista has games like halo2 and also pc has gears of war and bioshock and some other games 360 has along with the fact that you can play alot of other games on pc but 360 is great if you just wana play games i would say get both lol cos gears of war on pc does glitch occasionally so you pause for a seccond even with a high end 4000$+ pc
well if you like sports and racing games 360 is better, if you like fps/rpg/rts games pc is better. if money is no issue and you like all games then I guess both is the way to go
beeter games depend upon what you like.360 has/stronger in jrpgs,fighters,sports,action-adveturepc has/stronger in fps,wrpgs,rts,tbs,advenure
Well, it depends on what you like.If you like FPS, RTS and RPG - or any other PC-centric genre, you simply need to be buying a PC. Sure, many FPS games are multiplat these days, but if you're a PC gamer, you don't consider playing a FPS with a pad playing a FPS. If you're into making your own content or playing mods, you also want to be on the PC scene.If you're a tech-head or want cutting edge visuals, you also want a PC.But if you're mre into fighting games, platformers, serialised sports franchises or perhaps even driving games, you may find a 360 a smarter purchase.If you're more into party gaming, you may also find the 360 a smarter purchase, since it easily accomodates multiple players in the same room. Similarly, if you're kinda casual with your gaming, you may find a 360 the better purchase, since there's no messing about trying to get games to run, it's all simply plug and play. You won't waste any time.As far as exclusives go, the PC has some, the 360 has some. Some wonderful games like Crysis, The Witcher and Sam and Max have hit the PC this year, whle the 360 has seen titles like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed and will soon be getting GTA4 - though admittedly, some or all of those will be hitting PC shelves.The most honest answer is both. If you're an all-round gamer, you want botha PC and a 360. If I had to choose one, I'd unsurprisingly vote for PC, what with this being a PC forum and all, full of PC gamers.
I had a 360,i hated it,i'm a hermit and proud of it.
PC through and through :D
It really comes down to money...how much do you want to spend?
3rd person, Xbox. First Person, PC.Japan style games? PS2.
[QUOTE=''crashndash'']if you get a high end pc you should get vista ultimate and everything max specs like 2gb or more ram and lots of space and a nvidia geforce 8600 or above so you have direct x 10 try get 8800 because vista has games like halo2 and also pc has gears of war and bioshock and some other games 360 has along with the fact that you can play alot of other games on pc but 360 is great if you just wana play games i would say get both lol cos gears of war on pc does glitch occasionally so you pause for a seccond even with a high end 4000$+ pc[/QUOTE]Did you ever learn how to use punctuation marks in school??? LOL
Does anyone have any idea about how much money is required to keep up with PC gaming since hardware moves so fast? I mean I dont wanna spend over $100 a year for updating a PC. $50 sounds more reasonable to me..I dont want to run everything at top performance but rather just have enough hardware that can run it smoothly w/ no lag online without turning the graphics at lowest..
[QUOTE=''morpheusnj''] Does anyone have any idea about how much money is required to keep up with PC gaming since hardware moves so fast? I mean I dont wanna spend over $100 a year for updating a PC. $50 sounds more reasonable to me..I dont want to run everything at top performance but rather just have enough hardware that can run it smoothly w/ no lag online without turning the graphics at lowest..[/QUOTE]If you want a full blown high end gaming PC, you're gonna have an initial investment of about $1,200 or so. After that, your GPU will probably need replacing every two years if you want to stay close to the speartip. CPU replacemens probably 3 or so years, which probably also means a new motherboard every three years.RAM is one of the cheapest and easiest things to keep current, and you don't need to futureproof. Sound card you can buy and forget about.As far as costs go for upgrades, you'll probably want to spend about $300 on your graphics card, $250 or so on your CPU and maybe $150-200 on your motherboard. So you might be looking at $700 every three to fouryears to stay current. But that's if you want to keep running on high settings. You could pay much less and still get a great experience. And the gap between PC visuals and console visuals is going to just get wider now that the heavy duty PC cards are finally out, with more to come. Epecially since this console generation is looking like being a long one.
So how much do you think it might cost if I dont stay on the ''speartip'' as you said. I just wanna run it smoothly. I'm not aiming for top notch graphics quality. rather just being able to run all games smoothly and the best visually without spending much money..I guess what I'm saying is I wanna be in that ''happy medium''
PC, but I'm a big mmorpg fan myself.
Just read my blog if you want my thoughts on Xbox...PC FTW.
Well, considering the steep requirements for the better PC games, and the amount of money it would take to max out all settings and get a good frame rate, I'm definatly leaning toward 360 games more. It's cheaper, and less hassle. With a PC game you have to worry about patches, and there's usually some kind of glitch or problem that I get with almost every game right out of the box which needs to get fixed, then you have to fiddle with settings, drivers, and tweaks to try and get the game to run well. I'm just kinda tired of the hassle. So unless you're ready and willing to drop a ton of money on this thing, I'd go with 360. otherwise, have fun playing Crysis!
I didnt know PC games were such a pain. I used to play WoW and I never had any real problems other than internet connection sometimes but I dont think it was the game's fault. I just always knew that PC gaming was the most expensive form of gaming out there..
[QUOTE=''Threesixtyci''] 3rd person, Xbox. First Person, PC.Japan style games? PS2.[/QUOTE]Ever played Max Payne or Gears on pc? Feels totally natural. How does the camera being behind the character suddenly make it better suited to a controller?Controls for tps are just like an fps.
If money is not an issue then why not both?
Both*Making bad answers since 2004*PC gaming or 360 gaming? your thoughts!!
if you get a high end pc you should get vista ultimate and everything max specs like 2gb or more ram and lots of space and a nvidia geforce 8600 or above so you have direct x 10 try get 8800 because vista has games like halo2 and also pc has gears of war and bioshock and some other games 360 has along with the fact that you can play alot of other games on pc but 360 is great if you just wana play games i would say get both lol cos gears of war on pc does glitch occasionally so you pause for a seccond even with a high end 4000$+ pc
well if you like sports and racing games 360 is better, if you like fps/rpg/rts games pc is better. if money is no issue and you like all games then I guess both is the way to go
beeter games depend upon what you like.360 has/stronger in jrpgs,fighters,sports,action-adveturepc has/stronger in fps,wrpgs,rts,tbs,advenure
Well, it depends on what you like.If you like FPS, RTS and RPG - or any other PC-centric genre, you simply need to be buying a PC. Sure, many FPS games are multiplat these days, but if you're a PC gamer, you don't consider playing a FPS with a pad playing a FPS. If you're into making your own content or playing mods, you also want to be on the PC scene.If you're a tech-head or want cutting edge visuals, you also want a PC.But if you're mre into fighting games, platformers, serialised sports franchises or perhaps even driving games, you may find a 360 a smarter purchase.If you're more into party gaming, you may also find the 360 a smarter purchase, since it easily accomodates multiple players in the same room. Similarly, if you're kinda casual with your gaming, you may find a 360 the better purchase, since there's no messing about trying to get games to run, it's all simply plug and play. You won't waste any time.As far as exclusives go, the PC has some, the 360 has some. Some wonderful games like Crysis, The Witcher and Sam and Max have hit the PC this year, whle the 360 has seen titles like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed and will soon be getting GTA4 - though admittedly, some or all of those will be hitting PC shelves.The most honest answer is both. If you're an all-round gamer, you want botha PC and a 360. If I had to choose one, I'd unsurprisingly vote for PC, what with this being a PC forum and all, full of PC gamers.
I had a 360,i hated it,i'm a hermit and proud of it.
PC through and through :D
It really comes down to money...how much do you want to spend?
3rd person, Xbox. First Person, PC.Japan style games? PS2.
[QUOTE=''crashndash'']if you get a high end pc you should get vista ultimate and everything max specs like 2gb or more ram and lots of space and a nvidia geforce 8600 or above so you have direct x 10 try get 8800 because vista has games like halo2 and also pc has gears of war and bioshock and some other games 360 has along with the fact that you can play alot of other games on pc but 360 is great if you just wana play games i would say get both lol cos gears of war on pc does glitch occasionally so you pause for a seccond even with a high end 4000$+ pc[/QUOTE]Did you ever learn how to use punctuation marks in school??? LOL
Does anyone have any idea about how much money is required to keep up with PC gaming since hardware moves so fast? I mean I dont wanna spend over $100 a year for updating a PC. $50 sounds more reasonable to me..I dont want to run everything at top performance but rather just have enough hardware that can run it smoothly w/ no lag online without turning the graphics at lowest..
[QUOTE=''morpheusnj''] Does anyone have any idea about how much money is required to keep up with PC gaming since hardware moves so fast? I mean I dont wanna spend over $100 a year for updating a PC. $50 sounds more reasonable to me..I dont want to run everything at top performance but rather just have enough hardware that can run it smoothly w/ no lag online without turning the graphics at lowest..[/QUOTE]If you want a full blown high end gaming PC, you're gonna have an initial investment of about $1,200 or so. After that, your GPU will probably need replacing every two years if you want to stay close to the speartip. CPU replacemens probably 3 or so years, which probably also means a new motherboard every three years.RAM is one of the cheapest and easiest things to keep current, and you don't need to futureproof. Sound card you can buy and forget about.As far as costs go for upgrades, you'll probably want to spend about $300 on your graphics card, $250 or so on your CPU and maybe $150-200 on your motherboard. So you might be looking at $700 every three to fouryears to stay current. But that's if you want to keep running on high settings. You could pay much less and still get a great experience. And the gap between PC visuals and console visuals is going to just get wider now that the heavy duty PC cards are finally out, with more to come. Epecially since this console generation is looking like being a long one.
So how much do you think it might cost if I dont stay on the ''speartip'' as you said. I just wanna run it smoothly. I'm not aiming for top notch graphics quality. rather just being able to run all games smoothly and the best visually without spending much money..I guess what I'm saying is I wanna be in that ''happy medium''
PC, but I'm a big mmorpg fan myself.
Just read my blog if you want my thoughts on Xbox...PC FTW.
Well, considering the steep requirements for the better PC games, and the amount of money it would take to max out all settings and get a good frame rate, I'm definatly leaning toward 360 games more. It's cheaper, and less hassle. With a PC game you have to worry about patches, and there's usually some kind of glitch or problem that I get with almost every game right out of the box which needs to get fixed, then you have to fiddle with settings, drivers, and tweaks to try and get the game to run well. I'm just kinda tired of the hassle. So unless you're ready and willing to drop a ton of money on this thing, I'd go with 360. otherwise, have fun playing Crysis!
I didnt know PC games were such a pain. I used to play WoW and I never had any real problems other than internet connection sometimes but I dont think it was the game's fault. I just always knew that PC gaming was the most expensive form of gaming out there..
[QUOTE=''Threesixtyci''] 3rd person, Xbox. First Person, PC.Japan style games? PS2.[/QUOTE]Ever played Max Payne or Gears on pc? Feels totally natural. How does the camera being behind the character suddenly make it better suited to a controller?Controls for tps are just like an fps.
If money is not an issue then why not both?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)