Having recently purchased PoP4 from Steam (now at a bargain X-mas price!) I was in the joly mood for a thrashing. The problem starts upon the clicking of said ''Start New Game'' button. You see, the opening cinematic with the black/blue wave speaking in the evil voices is fine I can hear everything they say. But then once the camera zooms to the Prince when hes trundling through the desert, I get no dialogue audio whatsoever from there. However when the action starts and I control the Prince, I hear all the sounds such as guards shouting and me jumping and breathing. But then when the next cinematic engages I hear not a peep of dialogue audio at all.So far I can gauge that the issue occurs only in cinematics, and it's a real bummer because I have all my sound options up and I still hear no one speaking. Is it a driver issue? Steam issue? or do I just reinstall the game? It sucks having to play through a good game like this not hearing any dialogue during cutscenes.I got Prince of Persia 4 audio issues.
On Windows XP go to control panel > sounds and audio devices > advanced > performance > hardware acceleration and make sure its set to none then click ok. That should do the trick.I got Prince of Persia 4 audio issues.
Man thanks a load, that sounds professional enough to actually do the trick! (I unfortunately and quite stupidly uninstalled and am now reinstalling the game because I thought that would fix it /sigh - I now have to wait for it to redownload). Will setting this audio option to 'None' decrease sound performance in my games in any way? Will by laser/blasting noises sound as pronounced and awesome as they did before? What does this option even do anyway?I will know if this has worked in a couple of hours and thanks a tonne for the help bud.
[QUOTE=''maddock171'']Man thanks a load, that sounds professional enough to actually do the trick! (I unfortunately and quite stupidly uninstalled and am now reinstalling the game because I thought that would fix it /sigh - I now have to wait for it to redownload). Will setting this audio option to 'None' decrease sound performance in my games in any way? Will by laser/blasting noises sound as pronounced and awesome as they did before? What does this option even do anyway?I will know if this has worked in a couple of hours and thanks a tonne for the help bud.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't decrease any sound performance if you have any more trouble just post back.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Games like MGS4 for PC
Can some recommend some good PC Games like MGS4 for PC , also some war/action games released in a last year or so.Also the games needs to be Third Person Shooter , as i find it tough play with FPS.Games like MGS4 for PC
lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. Games like MGS4 for PC
[QUOTE=''mhofever'']lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. [/QUOTE]
He's just asking for games like MGS4. :P
Anyhoo yea Assassins Creed and Splinter Cell:Choas Theory.
Want a good game play Counter-Strike Online
Have played Splinter Cell , not sure about Assassins Creed , any more games.
And is Assassins Creed good is single player as i'm only interested in single player
[QUOTE=''dinjo_jo'']Have played Splinter Cell , not sure about Assassins Creed , any more games. And is Assassins Creed good is single player as i'm only interested in single player[/QUOTE]
I liked Assassin's Creed, thought it had an interesting story, but the gameplay is a bit repetitive.
Splinter Cell series
Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 are available for PC
[QUOTE=''MrLions''][QUOTE=''mhofever'']lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. [/QUOTE] He's just asking for games like MGS4. :P Anyhoo yea Assassins Creed and Splinter Cell:Choas Theory.[/QUOTE] aw ok lol, i totally misunderstood it then
So, what aspect of MGS4 are you most interested in? Gameplay? Setting? Story? MGS4, at least as much as the other MGS games is basically in a class of its own, all things considered. I don't think it's possible to find a game outside the Metal Gear series that is thoroughly ''like'' MGS4.
Gears of war , kane and lynch Dead men are 3rd Person shooters the new prince of persia lost planet quantom of solace those are good games
dead space, gears of war
For a pc game to be like a MGS game, it would need to be roughly 20% gameplay and 80% cutscenes. I can't think of a single current pc game that comes close. Play for 5 minutes, watch a half-hour cutscene, play 5 minutes more, another half-hour cutscene, and so on. This is no exaggeration. And the cutscenes sometimes last much longer. And in the dialogue, the. . .characters. . .talk. . . so . . . slowly.
IMO Splinter Cell sucks , it only has 2 guns in it lool pathetic
Try the Hitman series. 2 and 4 (Blood Money) are my favourites.
Definitely Splinter Cell and you might like the Hitman series as well.
[QUOTE=''G-Lord'']Try the Hitman series. 2 and 4 (Blood Money) are my favourites.[/QUOTE] Oh god yes. I also recommend the Hitman series. One of my favourite third person games.
Recommend Games which came in last 1 year any action war games but not First Person Shooter.I'm currently playing Fifa 2009GTA IVSplinter Cell Chaos TheoryNFS Carbon
If you're interested in the third person part of mgs4, get max payne 1 and 2. Best TPS ever if you ask me and they're dirt cheap on steam.
[QUOTE=''kjghs'']IMO Splinter Cell sucks , it only has 2 guns in it lool pathetic[/QUOTE]
the point is to stick to the dark not shoot them!
lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. Games like MGS4 for PC
[QUOTE=''mhofever'']lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. [/QUOTE]
He's just asking for games like MGS4. :P
Anyhoo yea Assassins Creed and Splinter Cell:Choas Theory.
Want a good game play Counter-Strike Online
Have played Splinter Cell , not sure about Assassins Creed , any more games.
And is Assassins Creed good is single player as i'm only interested in single player
[QUOTE=''dinjo_jo'']Have played Splinter Cell , not sure about Assassins Creed , any more games. And is Assassins Creed good is single player as i'm only interested in single player[/QUOTE]
I liked Assassin's Creed, thought it had an interesting story, but the gameplay is a bit repetitive.
Splinter Cell series
Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 are available for PC
[QUOTE=''MrLions''][QUOTE=''mhofever'']lol MGS4 isnt even on the pc. It hasn't been announced or anything.Maybe Assassin's creed, prince of persia, gta 4 , splinter cell might suite you, they're third person, but assasins creed and PoP arent shooters though. [/QUOTE] He's just asking for games like MGS4. :P Anyhoo yea Assassins Creed and Splinter Cell:Choas Theory.[/QUOTE] aw ok lol, i totally misunderstood it then
So, what aspect of MGS4 are you most interested in? Gameplay? Setting? Story? MGS4, at least as much as the other MGS games is basically in a class of its own, all things considered. I don't think it's possible to find a game outside the Metal Gear series that is thoroughly ''like'' MGS4.
Gears of war , kane and lynch Dead men are 3rd Person shooters the new prince of persia lost planet quantom of solace those are good games
dead space, gears of war
For a pc game to be like a MGS game, it would need to be roughly 20% gameplay and 80% cutscenes. I can't think of a single current pc game that comes close. Play for 5 minutes, watch a half-hour cutscene, play 5 minutes more, another half-hour cutscene, and so on. This is no exaggeration. And the cutscenes sometimes last much longer. And in the dialogue, the. . .characters. . .talk. . . so . . . slowly.
IMO Splinter Cell sucks , it only has 2 guns in it lool pathetic
Try the Hitman series. 2 and 4 (Blood Money) are my favourites.
Definitely Splinter Cell and you might like the Hitman series as well.
[QUOTE=''G-Lord'']Try the Hitman series. 2 and 4 (Blood Money) are my favourites.[/QUOTE] Oh god yes. I also recommend the Hitman series. One of my favourite third person games.
Recommend Games which came in last 1 year any action war games but not First Person Shooter.I'm currently playing Fifa 2009GTA IVSplinter Cell Chaos TheoryNFS Carbon
If you're interested in the third person part of mgs4, get max payne 1 and 2. Best TPS ever if you ask me and they're dirt cheap on steam.
[QUOTE=''kjghs'']IMO Splinter Cell sucks , it only has 2 guns in it lool pathetic[/QUOTE]
the point is to stick to the dark not shoot them!
Darkfall???
WHat does everyone think of this game, imo it promises SO much that makes me SO excited everytime i read up on it.At the moment our guild is on WAR, but the mindless zerg mentality and lack of real death penalty makes it a real artificial experience.I personally hope it turns out to answer to all of its promises, which consist of open clan combat and racial wars, not limiting us to any ONE faction. And it's promise of real time combat just honestly makes my spine chill.Opinions?Darkfall???
provide me with some info.. i dont listen to previews...
provide me with some info.. i dont listen to previews...
fake version of GTASA?
when i try to install any patches, they all say that the names are the same and stuff but it says that it can't determine the version of the game i have. I bought it here from gamespot and don't think I should have this kind of problem. Is there any why i could fix this without having to reinstall or buying it again?fake version of GTASA?
You probably have the second version of the game.fake version of GTASA?
is there any way of downgradeing it if the installers keep refusing to install?
You ahve the second edition. It is completely patched and has the hot coffee mod stuff pulled out. They released it after the lawsuit.
so is there nothing i can do about this. I what to mod stuff and have much more fun with the game.
[QUOTE=''bmwmanis'']so is there nothing i can do about this. I what to mod stuff and have much more fun with the game.[/QUOTE]Correct
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=gtasa+down+grade
Was it that hard?
You probably have the second version of the game.fake version of GTASA?
is there any way of downgradeing it if the installers keep refusing to install?
You ahve the second edition. It is completely patched and has the hot coffee mod stuff pulled out. They released it after the lawsuit.
so is there nothing i can do about this. I what to mod stuff and have much more fun with the game.
[QUOTE=''bmwmanis'']so is there nothing i can do about this. I what to mod stuff and have much more fun with the game.[/QUOTE]Correct
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=gtasa+down+grade
Was it that hard?
Help Finding a old PC game
I played it many years ago, I think it could be called Alone In the Dark (not positive though)You start off in some mansion with just like a lighter or something, and you have to find a way out of the mansion by getting trhough puzzles and battling ghosts/monstersAnyone know this game and where i can find it?Any help is appreciated thnxHelp Finding a old PC game
Resident Evil?Help Finding a old PC game
Wait lol that wasn't a PC game. I don't know man..
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Resident Evil?[/QUOTE]
Nah, not RE
I'm pretty sure its Alone in the Dark. Year it was made? 1990's,2000?
The only one's i can think of are Silent Hill or Alone In The Dark..
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Wait lol that wasn't a PC game. I don't know man..[/QUOTE]Yes it was. Sounds like the original Alone in the Dark though.
I think i found your game it's ''Alone In The Dark: The New Nightmare
you answered your own question: alone in the dark.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE]There's more then one Alone In The Dark game..
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it is, i thought it was
Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC
Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)
Alone in the Dark 2. I think it was number 2....
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.
[QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE]
Dont know how to use it, ive tried already
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE] Dont know how to use it, ive tried already[/QUOTE]It tells you on their website, download a gui like D-Fend reloaded to make things easier.
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE] Dont know how to use it, ive tried already[/QUOTE]Read''DOSBox tutorial''and ''DOSBox and Vista''?
My bet is one the new nightmare
Resident Evil?Help Finding a old PC game
Wait lol that wasn't a PC game. I don't know man..
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Resident Evil?[/QUOTE]
Nah, not RE
I'm pretty sure its Alone in the Dark. Year it was made? 1990's,2000?
The only one's i can think of are Silent Hill or Alone In The Dark..
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Wait lol that wasn't a PC game. I don't know man..[/QUOTE]Yes it was. Sounds like the original Alone in the Dark though.
I think i found your game it's ''Alone In The Dark: The New Nightmare
you answered your own question: alone in the dark.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE]There's more then one Alone In The Dark game..
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it is, i thought it was
Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC
Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)
Alone in the Dark 2. I think it was number 2....
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.
[QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']you answered your own question: alone in the dark.[/QUOTE] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE]
Dont know how to use it, ive tried already
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE] Dont know how to use it, ive tried already[/QUOTE]It tells you on their website, download a gui like D-Fend reloaded to make things easier.
[QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''][QUOTE=''thusaha''][QUOTE=''Mkavanaugh77''] Yep, it is, i thought it was Now i tried to download it, but it wont open on my PC Ive tried to open it in compatibility mode, but ididnt work, aanyone know how to get it to run?(My OS is Windows Vista 64bit)[/QUOTE]Try DOSBox.[/QUOTE] Dont know how to use it, ive tried already[/QUOTE]Read''DOSBox tutorial''and ''DOSBox and Vista''?
My bet is one the new nightmare
Vista bad for pc games?
well I have been hearing my fair share about how vista has lots of problems and such, but after my dad talked around with his coworkers (he works for HP) he said he has heard vista is crap when it comes to games. is that true? im getting a new computer soon and its nearly garunteed to have vista, so i kinda want to get a little more insight into this before i commitso does any1 with vista have any comments to share about gaming w/ vista? pros, cons, anything?Vista bad for pc games?
[QUOTE=''uberbra'']well I have been hearing my fair share about how vista has lots of problems and such, but after my dad talked around with his coworkers (he works for HP) he said he has heard vista is crap when it comes to games. is that true? im getting a new computer soon and its nearly garunteed to have vista, so i kinda want to get a little more insight into this before i commitso does any1 with vista have any comments to share about gaming w/ vista? pros, cons, anything?[/QUOTE]If it's a good computer (dual-core, 2 Gb RAM etc) there's no problem.Maybe compatibility problems with some games, but Google always helps.Vista bad for pc games?
It's fine now, just make sure to get all of the updates. It does use a lot of ram so make sure you get at least 2gb, although it would be much better to get 3 or 4
Vista is required for DX10 so really you have no choice. Vista isnt that bad anyway as long as you are playing new games or have a windows vista and xp computer like i have
vista is fine
[QUOTE=''uberbra''] well I have been hearing my fair share about how vista has lots of problems and such, but after my dad talked around with his coworkers (he works for HP) he said he has heard vista is crap when it comes to games. is that true? im getting a new computer soon and its nearly garunteed to have vista, so i kinda want to get a little more insight into this before i commitso does any1 with vista have any comments to share about gaming w/ vista? pros, cons, anything?[/QUOTE] its a myth that has some backing to it but not a lot. The only thing you need to really worry about is much older games and running Vista on a machine with less then 2gb. And like others said if you want DirectX 10 or before long DirectX 11 you dont really have any other choice other than to upgrade. What most XP people will say is that XP out performs Vista. Well there are two basic problems here. 1. The eye can see only so many frames per second anyway so there is in fact a point where extra performance doesnt even matter. 2. When the days comes (and it will) where games are designed to use more then 3gb of Ram then without question Vista is much better becuase Vista can only see 3.5gb oh and I think (although not for sure) that XP can only use two cores not nCores (Mulit cores above 2)
I have Vista and I game on my computer all the time. It's really fine for me. STALKER, Crysis warhead, TF2, Mafia, Max Payne 1 and 2, etc. all work fine.
[QUOTE=''Derek1177'']Vista is required for DX10 so really you have no choice. Vista isnt that bad anyway as long as you are playing new games or have a windows vista and xp computer like i have[/QUOTE]Sure you do... stay with DX9. DX10 hasn't impressed me at all. And for the phoenomenal performance hit (even with general programs) it's not worth it. My Laptop came with Vista (specs below) and I upgraded to XP real quick.Worst OS ever.
I have vista. Its nothing different from XP that I noticed. Really I see zreo differnce other then the over all look of my screen. I like Vista's UI alot better. Its personal choice really. Also... If you can't game on vista your computer shouldn't be gaming anyways.
if you are mostly going to play 8-10 years old games get XP or better jet win98if you are going to play new games get 4gig ram and vista 64. With prices as they are there is no reason to not get 4gb or more ram in a new PCI just can't belive the ''zomg vista uses up a lot of resources, vista has no drivers, vista can't play games'' **** is still going on, personaly I blame the mac adds.
It's not Vista that's bad for playing games. It's the rig that decides it. Anyway 2GB RAM is too less for playing games on Vista. Get at least 3GB. BTW, i still prefer XP for gaming.
It's only bad when playing non Dx10 games.
[QUOTE=''psychodrone'']It's not Vista that's bad for playing games. It's the rig that decides it. Anyway 2GB RAM is too less for playing games on Vista. Get at least 3GB. BTW, i still prefer XP for gaming.[/QUOTE]Though would say that vista 64 is the way to go if you want more than 4gb of ram. I currently have 8gb of ram. Ram these days are dirt cheap.
general rule of thumb: If you already have XP, don't bother upgrading. If you're getting a new computer, get Vista.Since you're getting a new computer, don't worry about it having Vista. I've been using 64 bit Home Premium since July, and I've loved every second of it, haven't had any problems, and have realized that people who hate the OS either don't know what they're doing or are trying to run Vista on outdated hardware.
No problems here with Vista....just make sure your new PC isn't a HP !*+
Vista is highly inefficient compared to XP and you will gain nothing from upgrading besides playing maybe 3 vista only games all of which are terrible.
Lower frame rates, slightly better looking graphics. Not worth shelling $150+ for if you already have XP.
yeah they kill performance.. vista are bad in general egg we getting another windows os so soon!
[QUOTE=''justheretodl124'']Vista is highly inefficient compared to XP and you will gain nothing from upgrading besides playing maybe 3 vista only games all of which are terrible.[/QUOTE]
Vista is $100 for home. Yeah performance is a bit lower depending on the game. Some games actually are faster in Vista, which shows its potential. I would agree its not ''neccessary'', but if they still made drivers for windows 2000 you could get by without XP too.
Vista isn't just bad for gaming it's terrible at every other application it's used for. It's just another shameless money pot for Microsoft.black heads
[QUOTE=''uberbra'']well I have been hearing my fair share about how vista has lots of problems and such, but after my dad talked around with his coworkers (he works for HP) he said he has heard vista is crap when it comes to games. is that true? im getting a new computer soon and its nearly garunteed to have vista, so i kinda want to get a little more insight into this before i commitso does any1 with vista have any comments to share about gaming w/ vista? pros, cons, anything?[/QUOTE]If it's a good computer (dual-core, 2 Gb RAM etc) there's no problem.Maybe compatibility problems with some games, but Google always helps.Vista bad for pc games?
It's fine now, just make sure to get all of the updates. It does use a lot of ram so make sure you get at least 2gb, although it would be much better to get 3 or 4
Vista is required for DX10 so really you have no choice. Vista isnt that bad anyway as long as you are playing new games or have a windows vista and xp computer like i have
vista is fine
[QUOTE=''uberbra''] well I have been hearing my fair share about how vista has lots of problems and such, but after my dad talked around with his coworkers (he works for HP) he said he has heard vista is crap when it comes to games. is that true? im getting a new computer soon and its nearly garunteed to have vista, so i kinda want to get a little more insight into this before i commitso does any1 with vista have any comments to share about gaming w/ vista? pros, cons, anything?[/QUOTE] its a myth that has some backing to it but not a lot. The only thing you need to really worry about is much older games and running Vista on a machine with less then 2gb. And like others said if you want DirectX 10 or before long DirectX 11 you dont really have any other choice other than to upgrade. What most XP people will say is that XP out performs Vista. Well there are two basic problems here. 1. The eye can see only so many frames per second anyway so there is in fact a point where extra performance doesnt even matter. 2. When the days comes (and it will) where games are designed to use more then 3gb of Ram then without question Vista is much better becuase Vista can only see 3.5gb oh and I think (although not for sure) that XP can only use two cores not nCores (Mulit cores above 2)
I have Vista and I game on my computer all the time. It's really fine for me. STALKER, Crysis warhead, TF2, Mafia, Max Payne 1 and 2, etc. all work fine.
[QUOTE=''Derek1177'']Vista is required for DX10 so really you have no choice. Vista isnt that bad anyway as long as you are playing new games or have a windows vista and xp computer like i have[/QUOTE]Sure you do... stay with DX9. DX10 hasn't impressed me at all. And for the phoenomenal performance hit (even with general programs) it's not worth it. My Laptop came with Vista (specs below) and I upgraded to XP real quick.Worst OS ever.
I have vista. Its nothing different from XP that I noticed. Really I see zreo differnce other then the over all look of my screen. I like Vista's UI alot better. Its personal choice really. Also... If you can't game on vista your computer shouldn't be gaming anyways.
if you are mostly going to play 8-10 years old games get XP or better jet win98if you are going to play new games get 4gig ram and vista 64. With prices as they are there is no reason to not get 4gb or more ram in a new PCI just can't belive the ''zomg vista uses up a lot of resources, vista has no drivers, vista can't play games'' **** is still going on, personaly I blame the mac adds.
It's not Vista that's bad for playing games. It's the rig that decides it. Anyway 2GB RAM is too less for playing games on Vista. Get at least 3GB. BTW, i still prefer XP for gaming.
It's only bad when playing non Dx10 games.
[QUOTE=''psychodrone'']It's not Vista that's bad for playing games. It's the rig that decides it. Anyway 2GB RAM is too less for playing games on Vista. Get at least 3GB. BTW, i still prefer XP for gaming.[/QUOTE]Though would say that vista 64 is the way to go if you want more than 4gb of ram. I currently have 8gb of ram. Ram these days are dirt cheap.
general rule of thumb: If you already have XP, don't bother upgrading. If you're getting a new computer, get Vista.Since you're getting a new computer, don't worry about it having Vista. I've been using 64 bit Home Premium since July, and I've loved every second of it, haven't had any problems, and have realized that people who hate the OS either don't know what they're doing or are trying to run Vista on outdated hardware.
No problems here with Vista....just make sure your new PC isn't a HP !*+
Vista is highly inefficient compared to XP and you will gain nothing from upgrading besides playing maybe 3 vista only games all of which are terrible.
Lower frame rates, slightly better looking graphics. Not worth shelling $150+ for if you already have XP.
yeah they kill performance.. vista are bad in general egg we getting another windows os so soon!
[QUOTE=''justheretodl124'']Vista is highly inefficient compared to XP and you will gain nothing from upgrading besides playing maybe 3 vista only games all of which are terrible.[/QUOTE]
Vista is $100 for home. Yeah performance is a bit lower depending on the game. Some games actually are faster in Vista, which shows its potential. I would agree its not ''neccessary'', but if they still made drivers for windows 2000 you could get by without XP too.
Vista isn't just bad for gaming it's terrible at every other application it's used for. It's just another shameless money pot for Microsoft.
Do you think the sloppy GTA port will be patched?
Do you think its possible for R* to patch their sloppy port to fix it or is it beyond fixing with patches?Do you think the sloppy GTA port will be patched?
probably notDo you think the sloppy GTA port will be patched?
they gotta be. Their sales for GTA IV PC are dropping , they arent going anywhere near the top 10 selling PC games chart. I do think they are working on something because you know rockstar, they want to make the $$, so they'll need more customers.
I must be blessed then...the game works fine on my machine, yet I read so many other people have problems with it...
I think they are working on a patch. It would be foolish for them not to make a patch for this junk but then again, they never patched the junk that is Bully for the PC. I think they will but I still wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make one.I know one thing is for sure, I'll be definitely skipping any future GTA releases for the PC and possibly consoles if it ends up like GTA4 because that game is disappointing on so many levels and I don't mean for content either.
im gonna say yes.rockstar has generally supported the pc very well.
LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.
[QUOTE=''w0lfbreeder'']im gonna say yes.rockstar has generally supported the pc very well. [/QUOTE] Yes they supported it well when their software was designed to run on the PS2 and the average PC could run it with much more detail. GTAIV proved that Rockstar isn't ready for the big game as far as programming is concerned. GTAIV was a sloppy unoptimized mess when released on the consoles, with heavy beta testing the only saving grace from being a letdown for the company. It had good potential but it looked like a bad port of a 4 year old PC game. The game was only running at 1280X720, yet most of the game was a blurry mess due to extreme mip mapping that was needed just to keep the game from looking like a slide show. When the PC version came out, they couldn't blame difficult console programming for bad design. GTAIV should have been amazing on the pc. Instead, we got another Ultima 9.
[QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that.
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that. [/QUOTE]They will probably blame rampant piracy for poor sales, rather than rampan incompetence. That seems to be the trend of late. This is the same company that couldn't even get a console release of Bully (for the 360) to work quite right. They never did patch that mess properly, and the issues just got worse for the PC release (have to reduce your RAM to below 2 gigs to play). I didn't expect much from them for the GTA IV release, and was unfortunately not surprised. Which is a shame, I've enjoyed all the recent GTA games more on the PC than on the Playstation.
[QUOTE=''Royas''][QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that. [/QUOTE]They will probably blame rampant piracy for poor sales, rather than rampan incompetence. That seems to be the trend of late. This is the same company that couldn't even get a console release of Bully (for the 360) to work quite right. They never did patch that mess properly, and the issues just got worse for the PC release (have to reduce your RAM to below 2 gigs to play). I didn't expect much from them for the GTA IV release, and was unfortunately not surprised. Which is a shame, I've enjoyed all the recent GTA games more on the PC than on the Playstation. [/QUOTE] Right now, almost every PC gamer who owns GTA IV, retail or no retail, can say it was a **** port and there's no reason to blame piracy because alot of people are complainin about R*'s **** port on alot of forums already. Pirates won't say anything, they just shut up since they can crack this n that and since they didn't even pay for the game, the money which in return screws over honest gamers. So Rockstar will be the most hated company unless they do get a real fix working that would keep everyone calm.
already has been.
This Port is a shame in the porting history DO NOT BUY THIS GAME
OK, here's how it will pan out: In the next few months, Rockstar will release a statement via their PR agency, OR, more likely, via one of their mid- or upper-level managers who will make a comment to a gaming site during an interview with a 10-year-old kid. The statement will go something like this: Rockstar Lackey: ''...we feel that consoles are the future of gaming, so that's where we're going to focus our attention going forward.'' Interviewer: ''So no more PC ports?'' Lackey: ''Unless the situation on the platform changes drastically, no.'' This news will be instantly reported by Gamespot and all the major gaming media outlets. Console fanbois will jeer and laugh. These forums will erupt in flames with multiple threads that the mods will try to lock and consolidate with a like-herding-cats intensity. Threads on this forum will go something like this: Some dude will say this sucks, this is the worst thing to happen to PC gaming ever, PC gaming is dead, etc. Some other dude will reply that he feels betrayed how could Rockstar do this the first GTA game was on a PC, blah, blah, blah, and all of the first responders will express despair and suicidal tendencies at the prospect of no more Rockstar PC games. Then the tide will quickly shift (within the same thread) and the Rockstar Haters will jump on board and say Rockstar sucks, GTA IV was the worst port evar, PC gaming is better off without them, blah, blah, blah, Rockstar hasn't made a good game since GTA III, etc, etc, then the few diehard PC fanbois/defenders left will reiterate how PC gaming is NOT dead and that the platform is still strong look at all of the great titles coming out this year, etc, etc, then some other guy will mention well, what about Blizzard and WoW and Starcraft 2? Tell Blizzard that PC gaming is dead and then some other guy will say yeah, but WoW sucks, it's the worst MMO ever, it ruined MMOs and RPGs and everyone that thinks WoW is an RPG is retarded and then the stalwart WoW Fanbois/Defenders will jump in and say that WoW does NOT suck, YOU suck, you just don't know how to play WoW, you're probably a female night elf, etc, etc. and then the thread will veer into ten more pages of WoW debate that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rockstar canceling PC ports but then some guy will post ''weren't we talking about Rockstar?'' and then the tread will be violently wrenched back onto the rails and then somebody will ask if their five year old blueberry ''IMAC'' can play Doom 3 and then I'll make some smart-arsed comment and the mods will send me a ToS violation warning and then dock me a point, etc., etc.
Hopefully they will iron out most problems, as it stands it's a poor port. :(
patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware''
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it.
[QUOTE=''shalashaska88''][QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it. [/QUOTE] It's just another ignorant excuse from Rockstar trying to keep everyone settled, but it's not happening as we can see
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''shalashaska88''][QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it. [/QUOTE] It's just another ignorant excuse from Rockstar trying to keep everyone settled, but it's not happening as we can see[/QUOTE]True. And the fact that they said that only a handful of gamers are experiencing these problems is dissapointing. Damage control I guess.
probably notDo you think the sloppy GTA port will be patched?
they gotta be. Their sales for GTA IV PC are dropping , they arent going anywhere near the top 10 selling PC games chart. I do think they are working on something because you know rockstar, they want to make the $$, so they'll need more customers.
I must be blessed then...the game works fine on my machine, yet I read so many other people have problems with it...
I think they are working on a patch. It would be foolish for them not to make a patch for this junk but then again, they never patched the junk that is Bully for the PC. I think they will but I still wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make one.I know one thing is for sure, I'll be definitely skipping any future GTA releases for the PC and possibly consoles if it ends up like GTA4 because that game is disappointing on so many levels and I don't mean for content either.
im gonna say yes.rockstar has generally supported the pc very well.
LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.
[QUOTE=''w0lfbreeder'']im gonna say yes.rockstar has generally supported the pc very well. [/QUOTE] Yes they supported it well when their software was designed to run on the PS2 and the average PC could run it with much more detail. GTAIV proved that Rockstar isn't ready for the big game as far as programming is concerned. GTAIV was a sloppy unoptimized mess when released on the consoles, with heavy beta testing the only saving grace from being a letdown for the company. It had good potential but it looked like a bad port of a 4 year old PC game. The game was only running at 1280X720, yet most of the game was a blurry mess due to extreme mip mapping that was needed just to keep the game from looking like a slide show. When the PC version came out, they couldn't blame difficult console programming for bad design. GTAIV should have been amazing on the pc. Instead, we got another Ultima 9.
[QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that.
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that. [/QUOTE]They will probably blame rampant piracy for poor sales, rather than rampan incompetence. That seems to be the trend of late. This is the same company that couldn't even get a console release of Bully (for the 360) to work quite right. They never did patch that mess properly, and the issues just got worse for the PC release (have to reduce your RAM to below 2 gigs to play). I didn't expect much from them for the GTA IV release, and was unfortunately not surprised. Which is a shame, I've enjoyed all the recent GTA games more on the PC than on the Playstation.
[QUOTE=''Royas''][QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''attirex'']LOL! Heck no. You think Rockstar gives a rat's $$%# about the PC? If you do, you're delusional and naive. This will be the last GTA game ported to the PC. Mark my words.[/QUOTE] It will be if sales fall even more and the reason why sales fall is because of Rockstar's laziness and only soon they will realise that. [/QUOTE]They will probably blame rampant piracy for poor sales, rather than rampan incompetence. That seems to be the trend of late. This is the same company that couldn't even get a console release of Bully (for the 360) to work quite right. They never did patch that mess properly, and the issues just got worse for the PC release (have to reduce your RAM to below 2 gigs to play). I didn't expect much from them for the GTA IV release, and was unfortunately not surprised. Which is a shame, I've enjoyed all the recent GTA games more on the PC than on the Playstation. [/QUOTE] Right now, almost every PC gamer who owns GTA IV, retail or no retail, can say it was a **** port and there's no reason to blame piracy because alot of people are complainin about R*'s **** port on alot of forums already. Pirates won't say anything, they just shut up since they can crack this n that and since they didn't even pay for the game, the money which in return screws over honest gamers. So Rockstar will be the most hated company unless they do get a real fix working that would keep everyone calm.
already has been.
This Port is a shame in the porting history DO NOT BUY THIS GAME
OK, here's how it will pan out: In the next few months, Rockstar will release a statement via their PR agency, OR, more likely, via one of their mid- or upper-level managers who will make a comment to a gaming site during an interview with a 10-year-old kid. The statement will go something like this: Rockstar Lackey: ''...we feel that consoles are the future of gaming, so that's where we're going to focus our attention going forward.'' Interviewer: ''So no more PC ports?'' Lackey: ''Unless the situation on the platform changes drastically, no.'' This news will be instantly reported by Gamespot and all the major gaming media outlets. Console fanbois will jeer and laugh. These forums will erupt in flames with multiple threads that the mods will try to lock and consolidate with a like-herding-cats intensity. Threads on this forum will go something like this: Some dude will say this sucks, this is the worst thing to happen to PC gaming ever, PC gaming is dead, etc. Some other dude will reply that he feels betrayed how could Rockstar do this the first GTA game was on a PC, blah, blah, blah, and all of the first responders will express despair and suicidal tendencies at the prospect of no more Rockstar PC games. Then the tide will quickly shift (within the same thread) and the Rockstar Haters will jump on board and say Rockstar sucks, GTA IV was the worst port evar, PC gaming is better off without them, blah, blah, blah, Rockstar hasn't made a good game since GTA III, etc, etc, then the few diehard PC fanbois/defenders left will reiterate how PC gaming is NOT dead and that the platform is still strong look at all of the great titles coming out this year, etc, etc, then some other guy will mention well, what about Blizzard and WoW and Starcraft 2? Tell Blizzard that PC gaming is dead and then some other guy will say yeah, but WoW sucks, it's the worst MMO ever, it ruined MMOs and RPGs and everyone that thinks WoW is an RPG is retarded and then the stalwart WoW Fanbois/Defenders will jump in and say that WoW does NOT suck, YOU suck, you just don't know how to play WoW, you're probably a female night elf, etc, etc. and then the thread will veer into ten more pages of WoW debate that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rockstar canceling PC ports but then some guy will post ''weren't we talking about Rockstar?'' and then the tread will be violently wrenched back onto the rails and then somebody will ask if their five year old blueberry ''IMAC'' can play Doom 3 and then I'll make some smart-arsed comment and the mods will send me a ToS violation warning and then dock me a point, etc., etc.
Hopefully they will iron out most problems, as it stands it's a poor port. :(
patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware''
BULLOCKS
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it.
[QUOTE=''shalashaska88''][QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it. [/QUOTE] It's just another ignorant excuse from Rockstar trying to keep everyone settled, but it's not happening as we can see
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''shalashaska88''][QUOTE=''Hellboard'']patch it why patch it? last time R* checked they stated that this is how it suppose to work in the first place:) ''The higher settings are for the future hardware'' [/QUOTE] Yet it runs worse than the console versions, despite most PC gamers having hardware that far surpasses both the PS3 and 360.And what about the abnormal textures and frequent crashes? Oh it's how its supposed to work in the first place, I get it. [/QUOTE] It's just another ignorant excuse from Rockstar trying to keep everyone settled, but it's not happening as we can see[/QUOTE]True. And the fact that they said that only a handful of gamers are experiencing these problems is dissapointing. Damage control I guess.
Valve account creation codes too hard?
I've been trying to create a valve account, but when i come to the part of the application where i need to type in the characters shown i always enter them wrong.It has like QNFY%7, stuff like that, and every letter is capitalized. I've tried entering the codes in caps, with spaces, and out of caps, and still nothing. This is stupid. If it includes spaces, which is the only thing that i could be screwing up on, then how am i supposed to tell where to put a space in and where not to? All the characters are jumbled together.Valve account creation codes too hard?
idk...post a screenshot of it and we'll try to figure it out lolValve account creation codes too hard?
lol.. yeah I hate those sometimes, they are often hard to decifer, but just keep refreshing you'll get you that you can finally decode, lol.
I don't think i will get it, i've tried over and over, nothing. I've refreshed and tried around 30 times. I made a forum account for steam, but i don't know if that's any different then the regular account, it had a different application. Also, i don't know how to take a screenshot, i'm on a mac.
Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...
Not sure if you know this, but you only enter the letters or numbers. Don't put in the % signs and stuff. I made my steam account long ago, but I'm positive it doesn't require any special characters to verify the image. I've also never had to use anything more than letters or numbers in any other verification images. Hope you get it working!
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...[/QUOTE]Ok, thanks. I'm on a mac, so i don't have a print screen key, i think i'd have to go into preferences and keybind it to one of my keys. And same, i've never come across an application this annoying. I've done plenty of these codes, and all have been easy, no problems, but this one is being stupid. Still no luck. Thanks for the help anyways, i'm off to sleep. Most likely it's an issue on steam's side or something is being read wrong, i don't know. Anyways, thanks.
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...[/QUOTE] Thank you, i just tried this, didn't work though, lol. The signs, like % and @, are in the same font and size / color as the rest of the code, unlike the annoying lines, so im pretty sure i used them.For some reason it just decided to work, i don't know why, because i didn't do anything different.Thank you everyone for the help!
idk...post a screenshot of it and we'll try to figure it out lolValve account creation codes too hard?
lol.. yeah I hate those sometimes, they are often hard to decifer, but just keep refreshing you'll get you that you can finally decode, lol.
I don't think i will get it, i've tried over and over, nothing. I've refreshed and tried around 30 times. I made a forum account for steam, but i don't know if that's any different then the regular account, it had a different application. Also, i don't know how to take a screenshot, i'm on a mac.
Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...
Not sure if you know this, but you only enter the letters or numbers. Don't put in the % signs and stuff. I made my steam account long ago, but I'm positive it doesn't require any special characters to verify the image. I've also never had to use anything more than letters or numbers in any other verification images. Hope you get it working!
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...[/QUOTE]Ok, thanks. I'm on a mac, so i don't have a print screen key, i think i'd have to go into preferences and keybind it to one of my keys. And same, i've never come across an application this annoying. I've done plenty of these codes, and all have been easy, no problems, but this one is being stupid. Still no luck. Thanks for the help anyways, i'm off to sleep. Most likely it's an issue on steam's side or something is being read wrong, i don't know. Anyways, thanks.
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']Try print screen key, then paste it into a graphics program, save it, but then you will need somewhere to host it... Im pretty sure there should be no spaces btw, but ive never seen an app like that where I could never get it right after a few tries at the most...[/QUOTE] Thank you, i just tried this, didn't work though, lol. The signs, like % and @, are in the same font and size / color as the rest of the code, unlike the annoying lines, so im pretty sure i used them.For some reason it just decided to work, i don't know why, because i didn't do anything different.Thank you everyone for the help!
Crysis Warhead + Steam
I'm having problems with Crysis Warhead that I downloaded off of steam. In the update news option the date says Dec 31 1969 and nothing appears in it. The update number in the main menu says 1.169... even though it has updated. I also cannot download the new update for crysis wars. Also there are only like 2-3 servers online that are highly populated, is this because I don't have the same version as them. I am really confused and need help.Crysis Warhead + Steam
Try doing this and seeing if it helps at all.
Close down steam first. Go to your steam directory (usually C:\Program Files\Steam) and delete (or rename) both appupdatestats.blob and clientregistry.blob, then reopen steam. It'll take a short while to update itself, then you'll need to relog back in, then see if it's working for you.
Elsewise, it could be the content servers.Crysis Warhead + Steam
The lack of players online could be because not a lot of people play Crysis wars. The game should be automatically updated to the latest patch is you bought it off of Steam recently.
Try doing this and seeing if it helps at all.
Close down steam first. Go to your steam directory (usually C:\Program Files\Steam) and delete (or rename) both appupdatestats.blob and clientregistry.blob, then reopen steam. It'll take a short while to update itself, then you'll need to relog back in, then see if it's working for you.
Elsewise, it could be the content servers.Crysis Warhead + Steam
The lack of players online could be because not a lot of people play Crysis wars. The game should be automatically updated to the latest patch is you bought it off of Steam recently.
Is Crysis(full game) more optimized and polished then the demo i just tryed?
I noticed that alot of rocks and such, pop in at close ranges in the demo.I was playing on everything maxed out, which shouldnt be bothering my PC cause its more then enough.And it ran ok, but was choppy at times.Is the full version better?PC Specs:gtx 280 video cardAsus P6T Deluxe MotherboardIntel Core i7 2.67ghz6gb of ddr3 triple channel at 1666ghz Is Crysis(full game) more optimized and polished then the demo i just tryed?
no, no it is not!Is Crysis(full game) more optimized and polished then the demo i just tryed?
hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.
yea, i had the same issue. basically maxed out and yet stuff still just popped outnot too badly, but i still noticed. I ordered the full version and it should arrive tomorrow. i guess i'll find out then
[QUOTE=''Crypt_mx'']hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.[/QUOTE]
yea....but far cry 2 isn't nearly as much fun. it gets crazy repetitive, and the physics aren't as impressive
I haven't had the problem described in this thread on either of my gaming PCs. And Far Cry 2 doesn't look half as good.
[QUOTE=''simardbrad'']no, no it is not![/QUOTE] I think you took my quote there way out of context :?
EDIT: oh, i didn't see that you said close rangestuff popped out on me, but only near the end of my immediate view. i wouldn't say it popped out ''close'' to me
what the hell no! the game is optimized just right. your system is pretty up to date but i an it on an almost 3 year old system and it runs perfectly with everything on high with smooth framerates and no problems.don't pass on the game go out and buy it..get Warhead as well.
maybe its your cpui have mine at 3.1 ghz and i don't really get much popping, and it doesn't occur close by
Ok if you have the demo, open it and ull see what i meanGo to the first part after youland and duck through the small cave like place.You shoot the dude on the hill, and 2 more up ahead.Watch the rocks closely on the beach, and they just pop up!
[QUOTE=''REforever101'']maybe its your cpui have mine at 3.1 ghz and i don't really get much popping, and it doesn't occur close by [/QUOTE]
he has a i7 with ddr3 ram
they arnt big rocks, and they are further up the beach to the left.
does not happen to me.Turn your Object detail up.
i'm sure there are mods to fix the pop in issue but i can't imagine they wouldn't hurt performance a bit.
[QUOTE=''Crypt_mx'']hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.[/QUOTE]Far Cry 2 doesn't even compare to Crysis, gameplay or graphics...
no, no it is not!Is Crysis(full game) more optimized and polished then the demo i just tryed?
hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.
yea, i had the same issue. basically maxed out and yet stuff still just popped outnot too badly, but i still noticed. I ordered the full version and it should arrive tomorrow. i guess i'll find out then
[QUOTE=''Crypt_mx'']hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.[/QUOTE]
yea....but far cry 2 isn't nearly as much fun. it gets crazy repetitive, and the physics aren't as impressive
I haven't had the problem described in this thread on either of my gaming PCs. And Far Cry 2 doesn't look half as good.
[QUOTE=''simardbrad'']no, no it is not![/QUOTE] I think you took my quote there way out of context :?
EDIT: oh, i didn't see that you said close rangestuff popped out on me, but only near the end of my immediate view. i wouldn't say it popped out ''close'' to me
what the hell no! the game is optimized just right. your system is pretty up to date but i an it on an almost 3 year old system and it runs perfectly with everything on high with smooth framerates and no problems.don't pass on the game go out and buy it..get Warhead as well.
maybe its your cpui have mine at 3.1 ghz and i don't really get much popping, and it doesn't occur close by
Ok if you have the demo, open it and ull see what i meanGo to the first part after youland and duck through the small cave like place.You shoot the dude on the hill, and 2 more up ahead.Watch the rocks closely on the beach, and they just pop up!
[QUOTE=''REforever101'']maybe its your cpui have mine at 3.1 ghz and i don't really get much popping, and it doesn't occur close by [/QUOTE]
he has a i7 with ddr3 ram
they arnt big rocks, and they are further up the beach to the left.
does not happen to me.Turn your Object detail up.
i'm sure there are mods to fix the pop in issue but i can't imagine they wouldn't hurt performance a bit.
[QUOTE=''Crypt_mx'']hmph wow. Thats sad considering that Far Cry 2 looks just as good..... and it runs perfectly. Oh well ill pass.[/QUOTE]Far Cry 2 doesn't even compare to Crysis, gameplay or graphics...
is it really worth getting a GPU
well i am running on board graphics card using a 24 incg lg screen 1900x1200 is irt really worth me buying a top of the range graphics card if so i was lookngi at the hd 4780 also can u sell them on for a gd price after you buy so you dont loose too much money when the newer cards come outis it really worth getting a GPU
Absolutely. I've been ''gaming'' with on board graphics for years (another words haven't been doing a whole lot of gaming on my PC), and just recently finally had the urge to drop a bunch of cash on a new setup. Simply going with an Nvidia 9800 GT was a difference of night and day. Frame rates are amazing, textures look even better than my 360. Just make sure your current computer can handle one. If you still have a stock power supply (300-420watts) you'll definitely need to upgrade that.Edit: I should mention that the Nvidia 9800GT only set me back $129.99 AND it came with COD4 for free! (from www.newegg.com) So if your computer is already fairly up to date, you won't have to drop a lot of cash onthis.is it really worth getting a GPU
yes it is worth itwhen you sell your old card when new cards come out it depends how long its been out to see what price you will get for selling it
you see a big difference if you have a poor/old card to -> mid/high end card.
ok thanks alot guys i think i might buy the hd 4850 because i dont really want to play super high end games ( crysis ) i want to play games like oblivion, you think i should get the 4850 or you think i should go all out an get the 4870 thanks agen or even the gtx 260 216. or is there a different card alltogether u guys recommend?
YES!Integrated Graphics -> Dedicated Graphics will blow you away.
[QUOTE=''wii60own'']ok thanks alot guys i think i might buy the hd 4850 because i dont really want to play super high end games ( crysis ) i want to play games like oblivion, you think i should get the 4850 or you think i should go all out an get the 4870 thanks agen or even the gtx 260 216. or is there a different card alltogether u guys recommend? [/QUOTE]
4870 is a better bet (or nvidia equiv) if your playing at 1900x1200 resolution. I think the gtx 260 core 216 would be better than 4870 and around the same price but im not really sure, this is a better question on the hardware board. But you should also post the rest of your specs, because the rest of your specs are important too.
I have an Nvidia 8600M GT, yes the laptop version, and I can run Crysis on it. I can't turn up the settings very high but still.
Any hardware discussion belongs in the PC Hardware board thanks.
But for the question, if you plan to do any serious PC Gaming with recent games, you'll almost certainly need a dedicated video card, as integrated won't cut it at that resolution for the majority of recent games.
Absolutely. I've been ''gaming'' with on board graphics for years (another words haven't been doing a whole lot of gaming on my PC), and just recently finally had the urge to drop a bunch of cash on a new setup. Simply going with an Nvidia 9800 GT was a difference of night and day. Frame rates are amazing, textures look even better than my 360. Just make sure your current computer can handle one. If you still have a stock power supply (300-420watts) you'll definitely need to upgrade that.Edit: I should mention that the Nvidia 9800GT only set me back $129.99 AND it came with COD4 for free! (from www.newegg.com) So if your computer is already fairly up to date, you won't have to drop a lot of cash onthis.is it really worth getting a GPU
yes it is worth itwhen you sell your old card when new cards come out it depends how long its been out to see what price you will get for selling it
you see a big difference if you have a poor/old card to -> mid/high end card.
ok thanks alot guys i think i might buy the hd 4850 because i dont really want to play super high end games ( crysis ) i want to play games like oblivion, you think i should get the 4850 or you think i should go all out an get the 4870 thanks agen or even the gtx 260 216. or is there a different card alltogether u guys recommend?
YES!Integrated Graphics -> Dedicated Graphics will blow you away.
[QUOTE=''wii60own'']ok thanks alot guys i think i might buy the hd 4850 because i dont really want to play super high end games ( crysis ) i want to play games like oblivion, you think i should get the 4850 or you think i should go all out an get the 4870 thanks agen or even the gtx 260 216. or is there a different card alltogether u guys recommend? [/QUOTE]
4870 is a better bet (or nvidia equiv) if your playing at 1900x1200 resolution. I think the gtx 260 core 216 would be better than 4870 and around the same price but im not really sure, this is a better question on the hardware board. But you should also post the rest of your specs, because the rest of your specs are important too.
I have an Nvidia 8600M GT, yes the laptop version, and I can run Crysis on it. I can't turn up the settings very high but still.
Any hardware discussion belongs in the PC Hardware board thanks.
But for the question, if you plan to do any serious PC Gaming with recent games, you'll almost certainly need a dedicated video card, as integrated won't cut it at that resolution for the majority of recent games.
360 games on PC
Sorry but im kind of a newbie towards this thing but could I run 360 games on PC. I dont got a 360 yet but I really wanted to play Halo 3 (just for campaign). I know ill need a USB cable for the controller but I dont know if the game would work or not. Does anyone know or has anyone tried?360 games on PC
no.360 games on PC
If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...
[QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]Heh, I kinda meant all console games. not just the 360...But I do see your point I didn't think before I wrote it... It would kind of defeat the purpose of console gaming.
[QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]Microsoft doesnt make money off of the console. They actually make money off of games and licenses from third party publishers. I really dont see anything wrong with emulate programs on the PC so x360 games could run.If 50,000 peoplehad emulate programs on their computer and rushed off to buy Halo 3. Microsoft would have made $1.5 million and retailers would get $3 million.
[QUOTE=''Jd1680a''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]Microsoft doesnt make money off of the console. They actually make money off of games and licenses from third party publishers. I really dont see anything wrong with emulate programs on the PC so x360 games could run.If 50,000 peoplehad emulate programs on their computer and rushed off to buy Halo 3. Microsoft would have made $1.5 million and retailers would get $3 million.[/QUOTE]That's true. Consoles are always sold at a ''discount'' so to speak. Emulation is pretty neat when it runs games decently, but it violates the EULA for console games and so it's illegal to do that. MS making more money if all their games came out on PC and 360 is something I can't say will be a sure thing, should it happen, since I am not well-versed in development costs and the like. Sounds nice, but I'm sure there's a reason why it isn't happening.
I suppose it would be possible but would require some extensive reprogramming to be done and would have to be done by someone who has the knowledge well above your average-gamer.
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $900 on a gaming PC, especially if all you wanted to do was run them at console details...
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps''][QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $900 on a gaming PC, especially if all you wanted to do was run them at console details...[/QUOTE]
yea it would probably be around 4 or $500 and even then it's slightly better than a consol and it does more stuff.. It's a Win Win...
the 360 is only $199.99 right now for the arcade version, which is quite fine for playing games and stuff. Or you can spend $249.99 and get the 60GB Pro Version (my brother just got it for christmas, but mine is the old 20GB Pro)
360 is a powerpc core, pc's are x86. No.
[QUOTE=''simardbrad'']the 360 is only $199.99 right now for the arcade version, which is quite fine for playing games and stuff. Or you can spend $249.99 and get the 60GB Pro Version (my brother just got it for christmas, but mine is the old 20GB Pro)[/QUOTE]
True, but you get what you pay for usually, and i'm not even talking about the sub par graphics. (compared to a mid range pc)
Please don't bump very old threads.black heads
no.360 games on PC
If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...
[QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]Heh, I kinda meant all console games. not just the 360...But I do see your point I didn't think before I wrote it... It would kind of defeat the purpose of console gaming.
[QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]Microsoft doesnt make money off of the console. They actually make money off of games and licenses from third party publishers. I really dont see anything wrong with emulate programs on the PC so x360 games could run.If 50,000 peoplehad emulate programs on their computer and rushed off to buy Halo 3. Microsoft would have made $1.5 million and retailers would get $3 million.
[QUOTE=''Jd1680a''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]Microsoft doesnt make money off of the console. They actually make money off of games and licenses from third party publishers. I really dont see anything wrong with emulate programs on the PC so x360 games could run.If 50,000 peoplehad emulate programs on their computer and rushed off to buy Halo 3. Microsoft would have made $1.5 million and retailers would get $3 million.[/QUOTE]That's true. Consoles are always sold at a ''discount'' so to speak. Emulation is pretty neat when it runs games decently, but it violates the EULA for console games and so it's illegal to do that. MS making more money if all their games came out on PC and 360 is something I can't say will be a sure thing, should it happen, since I am not well-versed in development costs and the like. Sounds nice, but I'm sure there's a reason why it isn't happening.
I suppose it would be possible but would require some extensive reprogramming to be done and would have to be done by someone who has the knowledge well above your average-gamer.
[QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $900 on a gaming PC, especially if all you wanted to do was run them at console details...
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps''][QUOTE=''mfsa''][QUOTE=''scottahuch'']If console games ran on PC (without emulation/cracking) than no one would buy a console...[/QUOTE]yeah, what kind of idiot would pay $350 for an xbox 360 when they could just pay $900 for a gaming pc and then play 360 games on it insteadnot everyone owns a gaming pc capable of running 360 games (assuming they would run anyway), and afairly low number of people (of the console demographic)would even know where to begin if they did happen to own such a pci don't mean to be callous, though - you are right to an extent... console sales would be much lower if gaming pc owners could run 360 games on their pcs[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $900 on a gaming PC, especially if all you wanted to do was run them at console details...[/QUOTE]
yea it would probably be around 4 or $500 and even then it's slightly better than a consol and it does more stuff.. It's a Win Win...
the 360 is only $199.99 right now for the arcade version, which is quite fine for playing games and stuff. Or you can spend $249.99 and get the 60GB Pro Version (my brother just got it for christmas, but mine is the old 20GB Pro)
360 is a powerpc core, pc's are x86. No.
[QUOTE=''simardbrad'']the 360 is only $199.99 right now for the arcade version, which is quite fine for playing games and stuff. Or you can spend $249.99 and get the 60GB Pro Version (my brother just got it for christmas, but mine is the old 20GB Pro)[/QUOTE]
True, but you get what you pay for usually, and i'm not even talking about the sub par graphics. (compared to a mid range pc)
Please don't bump very old threads.
Far Cry 2 weapons question
SO, will we PC gamers be getting those 3 new weapons?Also a bit offtopic, are there many mods made so far for Far cry 2?Far Cry 2 weapons question
i checked for mods but couldnt find anyall i want though is a mod to increase the time it takes for enemies to respawn at checkpoint areas Far Cry 2 weapons question
If you're talking about ''Fortune's Pack'', then:[quote]Ubisoft has filled in the price point for the upcoming Far Cry 2 ''Fortune's Pack'' downloadable content. The collection of multiplayer maps, weapons and vehicles will sell for 800 Microsoft Points ($10). The pack is expected to be released before December on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, with tomorrow's PSN update marking the last opportunity to meet that deadline. There is still no word yet on whether the content will see a PC release.[quote]Source: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56070The new weapons would be great, can't say the same about the vehicles, i would probably die a lot with these:[quote]To refresh your memory, the Fortune's Pack DLC will contain the followingThree brand-new weaponsSilenced shotgunSawed-off shotgun CrossbowTwo New Vehicles:UnimogQuad [quote]
REforever...Thanks for the reply about the mods, but you didnt answer my first question. Is there a patch or something for the 3 new wepons? (silenced shotty, sawn-off, and one more I cant remember off the top of my head)?
[QUOTE=''teh_werry_man'']REforever...Thanks for the reply about the mods, but you didnt answer my first question. Is there a patch or something for the 3 new wepons? (silenced shotty, sawn-off, and one more I cant remember off the top of my head)?[/QUOTE]
Dude, have you read my post?
rmfd341...
LOL, I posted and saw that your post beat me. I have read it, and I guess all we can do now is wait. The concept of a silenced shotgun is COOL.
Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists?
I dunno, but its cool nonetheless
bad weapons i dont care
[QUOTE=''rmfd341'']Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists? [/QUOTE] Go watch No Country for Old Men. xD
i would actually like to see some new assault rifles instead of shotguns, which i never use. and i don;t think there's such thing as silenced shotgun in reality. but of coz, that's not the point.
[QUOTE=''rcignoni''][QUOTE=''rmfd341'']Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists? [/QUOTE] Go watch No Country for Old Men. xD[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA66lVM5ofA%26feature=related
i checked for mods but couldnt find anyall i want though is a mod to increase the time it takes for enemies to respawn at checkpoint areas Far Cry 2 weapons question
If you're talking about ''Fortune's Pack'', then:[quote]Ubisoft has filled in the price point for the upcoming Far Cry 2 ''Fortune's Pack'' downloadable content. The collection of multiplayer maps, weapons and vehicles will sell for 800 Microsoft Points ($10). The pack is expected to be released before December on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, with tomorrow's PSN update marking the last opportunity to meet that deadline. There is still no word yet on whether the content will see a PC release.[quote]Source: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56070The new weapons would be great, can't say the same about the vehicles, i would probably die a lot with these:[quote]To refresh your memory, the Fortune's Pack DLC will contain the followingThree brand-new weaponsSilenced shotgunSawed-off shotgun CrossbowTwo New Vehicles:UnimogQuad [quote]
REforever...Thanks for the reply about the mods, but you didnt answer my first question. Is there a patch or something for the 3 new wepons? (silenced shotty, sawn-off, and one more I cant remember off the top of my head)?
[QUOTE=''teh_werry_man'']REforever...Thanks for the reply about the mods, but you didnt answer my first question. Is there a patch or something for the 3 new wepons? (silenced shotty, sawn-off, and one more I cant remember off the top of my head)?[/QUOTE]
Dude, have you read my post?
rmfd341...
LOL, I posted and saw that your post beat me. I have read it, and I guess all we can do now is wait. The concept of a silenced shotgun is COOL.
Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists?
I dunno, but its cool nonetheless
bad weapons i dont care
[QUOTE=''rmfd341'']Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists? [/QUOTE] Go watch No Country for Old Men. xD
i would actually like to see some new assault rifles instead of shotguns, which i never use. and i don;t think there's such thing as silenced shotgun in reality. but of coz, that's not the point.
[QUOTE=''rcignoni''][QUOTE=''rmfd341'']Nope, i'm sorry, i didn't bother to check the post time. A silenced shotgun actually exists? [/QUOTE] Go watch No Country for Old Men. xD[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA66lVM5ofA%26feature=related
What is ani aliasing?
I know it's something to do with graphics but what is it?What is ani aliasing?
It's like sharpening the edges of... stuff... in games. You can think of it as coloring between the lines.What is ani aliasing?
It doesn't make a big difference to the visual, but half the time, it causes the game to lag. When I turned off AA in Crysis, it made a huge difference.
Actually it makes a bigger difference for lower game resolutions, in other words if you have a high-end PC and play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing even though you PC can handle it better than older, slower PCs....
[QUOTE=''wigginender'']Actually it makes a bigger difference for lower game resolutions, in other words if you have a high-end PC and play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing even though you PC can handle it better than older, slower PCs.... [/QUOTE]Yea, that's true, I run my games in high resolution but AA does tend to lag the game alot.
o kk ty
Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.
[QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.
[QUOTE=''wigginender'']... play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing[/QUOTE]
eh? I have a 24'' monitor and play all of my games at 1920x1200 _all_ of them look better with AA enabled. Just because I play games at 1920x1200 doesn't mean I can't see the jaggies! Sucks that some games lag like all hell with it enabled, but if they don't God they look good!
Anti-aliasing is way of sharpening the jagged edges of a screen. It chews up quite a bit of video memory while do it, however.
Itll smooth out the edges and lines and whatnot but usually drops your framerate drastically.
[QUOTE=''CellAnimation'']eh? I have a 24'' monitor and play all of my games at 1920x1200 _all_ of them look better with AA enabled. Just because I play games at 1920x1200 doesn't mean I can't see the jaggies! Sucks that some games lag like all hell with it enabled, but if they don't God they look good![/QUOTE]I didn't mean to say that you won't see a difference, but only that the differences will be much less pronounced at higher resolutions. It makes sense that you would not see as much of an improvement for x8 AA at 1920x1200 than at 1280x1024...
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.[/QUOTE]This is proof Jesus is evil.
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.[/QUOTE]
LMAO.
why do people ask these questions ????why is it so hard to look for your self just turn option on and open your eyes :P
When in doubt, use Google. :P
Google dat joint cuz!!,lol
Yea, Google Jesus and his forces of lag
It's an essential graphical feature, and hurts to play without.
Anti Aliasing helps you to see the farest picture/view in a clear mode , as you see far ahead the vision gets blurred AA helps there by improving the image.
It's like sharpening the edges of... stuff... in games. You can think of it as coloring between the lines.What is ani aliasing?
It doesn't make a big difference to the visual, but half the time, it causes the game to lag. When I turned off AA in Crysis, it made a huge difference.
Actually it makes a bigger difference for lower game resolutions, in other words if you have a high-end PC and play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing even though you PC can handle it better than older, slower PCs....
[QUOTE=''wigginender'']Actually it makes a bigger difference for lower game resolutions, in other words if you have a high-end PC and play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing even though you PC can handle it better than older, slower PCs.... [/QUOTE]Yea, that's true, I run my games in high resolution but AA does tend to lag the game alot.
o kk ty
Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.
[QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.
[QUOTE=''wigginender'']... play your games at resolutions much higher than 1280x1024, then you DON'T need to enable anti-aliasing[/QUOTE]
eh? I have a 24'' monitor and play all of my games at 1920x1200 _all_ of them look better with AA enabled. Just because I play games at 1920x1200 doesn't mean I can't see the jaggies! Sucks that some games lag like all hell with it enabled, but if they don't God they look good!
Anti-aliasing is way of sharpening the jagged edges of a screen. It chews up quite a bit of video memory while do it, however.
Itll smooth out the edges and lines and whatnot but usually drops your framerate drastically.
[QUOTE=''CellAnimation'']eh? I have a 24'' monitor and play all of my games at 1920x1200 _all_ of them look better with AA enabled. Just because I play games at 1920x1200 doesn't mean I can't see the jaggies! Sucks that some games lag like all hell with it enabled, but if they don't God they look good![/QUOTE]I didn't mean to say that you won't see a difference, but only that the differences will be much less pronounced at higher resolutions. It makes sense that you would not see as much of an improvement for x8 AA at 1920x1200 than at 1280x1024...
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.[/QUOTE]This is proof Jesus is evil.
[QUOTE=''mhofever''][QUOTE=''Astaroth2k'']Its jesus in technological form.He always said he would come back.[/QUOTE] lol, then jesus makes my game lag.[/QUOTE]
LMAO.
why do people ask these questions ????why is it so hard to look for your self just turn option on and open your eyes :P
When in doubt, use Google. :P
Google dat joint cuz!!,lol
Yea, Google Jesus and his forces of lag
It's an essential graphical feature, and hurts to play without.
Anti Aliasing helps you to see the farest picture/view in a clear mode , as you see far ahead the vision gets blurred AA helps there by improving the image.
Red Alert 3 WorldBuilder - Self Made Missions
Hi, i want to ask, i made a mission in Red Alert 3, then, it's ready to test, but i can't find it.
Where can i find the mission then?
Thank you! ^^
Red Alert 3 WorldBuilder - Self Made Missions
I mean i can't find it in RA3,Red Alert 3 WorldBuilder - Self Made Missions
Ask this question here:http://forums.commandandconquer.com/
Where can i find the mission then?
Thank you! ^^
Red Alert 3 WorldBuilder - Self Made Missions
I mean i can't find it in RA3,Red Alert 3 WorldBuilder - Self Made Missions
Ask this question here:http://forums.commandandconquer.com/
Dear MMO Gamers,
First of all (this part is not only MMO gamers) I wanted to say Happy Holidays to everyone, I hope they are filled with memories and joy.Now for the reason this topic has been posted. I am in need of an MMO. The problem is, I have yet to find an MMO to satisfy me and keep me with it. I have tried just about all the old mmo games [Everquest, Everquest 2, SWG, Vanguard, World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, RuneScape, and so on] I have been with Vanguard since the deveolpers first started producing it, and im known as a originial vanguard poster. I was in the second beta until realese, and obviously bought it right away when it came out. However during Beta, I could hardly play the game due to my gaming rig. So before the game came out I saved up my money and got myself a very very nice custom PC in which now it runs everything, Far Cry 2, Vanguard, Crysis, all that on max settings. I retried Vanguard, got to about level 17 and then I stopped playing. I cannot stand doing the same things, I cannot stand grinding unless if it is fun. A game that I did stay with for over a year and loved it (of course I played it on and off during that year) was SWG. Im a big fan of housing, as well as mounts. I love PVP, more then I do PVE. I always play tank classes, im thinking that thats one of the problems why I always quit these games. Im just always into having that golden armor you know haha! I want to switch it up. Other games like, WoW (I played up to level 27 then quit for good, to repetitive), D%26D (Same thing, to repitive, to limited. You stay in a friggen town the whole time), EQ%26EQ2 was fun but just not for me once again. And RuneScape was my favorite, honestly it was im not going to lie. Although it was dreadfully hard to level up things and very repetitive, I loved it for some odd reason. Until my account got stolen.. Damn you! I cannot stand the start of a new character, you are so left out. You have to stay in one town, and this is where those two words i hate come in ''grinding repitivley''!!Anyway, I've done my research and found 3 games that im intreseted in. One i was actually in beta for and if I do remember, liked it a lot but did feel reptitivness. Not good! These games are,Warhammer!Lord Of The Rings: Online! (This is the one I played beta for)Age of Conan!So now I need you! Please help me in choosing this game, I want to spend my money wisley! I've read reviews for all the games, but I need you to really guide me in the path that is right for me. Thank you SO much.PS: If there is any new, or upcomming, MMO that I have not considered please reccomend! Sincerely,John Dear MMO Gamers,
You want an MMO with no repetitive game play? Good luck with that...I personally love the RPG level-up ''carrot on a stick'' type of game play. Yes, it can be repetitive, but it's just my style. Perhaps you need to try looking into some sci-fi shooter MMOs. They may have the different feel you are looking for. Dear MMO Gamers,
Well out of those three, what one would you reccomend?
This is now the final battle :PWarhammer vrs LOTRO
Considering your love of PVP, I would think Warhammer Online would be the proper choice.
EVE Onlineif five fantasy-based MMOs havent done it for you yet, none will.EVE is very cool, has awesome PvP, and is plain fun once you get past the learning curve
You should try out Eve. It is without a doubt the the hardest MMO to learn, but if you're patient enough it may be what you're looking for. It's still the only truly open-ended MMO in existence and is constantly getting upgrades to it's engine.(First launched in 2003 and because of the upgrades it's still a great looking game) They have a 10 day trial on their website, which will give you enough time to understand the bare bone basics in gameplay. There is no traditional grinding or leveling up and you don't have to worry about being outmatched by somebody who has time to play 24/7 when you can only throw in a couple hours a day. So If we both signed up right now, I put in 10min a day and you put in 15hrs a day....I would still have a similar skill level as you (provided we both chose the same skills to upgrade, which is highly unlikely). It's been about a year since I played and it's pretty hard to explain.....just give it a try.
Warhammer is okay... its really PVP based and has horrible PVE except some quests and stuff that are great fun. LOTRO is supposedly like WoW but LOTR themed, Im thinking about getting it. Age of Conan is riddled with bugs and has some extremely boring quests and areas but the combat can be bloody fun and the graphics are top notch.
Id go with LOTRO.
Try LOTRO if you are a Tolkien fan. Otherwise go with EVE.
okay guys here it is, im on ebay right now, i have the warhammer open and the lord of the rings (i cant buy both) ugh im so confused on what to choose, this is pretty much it right? can anyone make me a good bullet list?
LOTRO:
+Graphics
-Repitive Gameplay
-PVP
-''suposibly'' boring quests
Warhammer:
-Graphics
+PVP
[QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']okay guys here it is, im on ebay right now, i have the warhammer open and the lord of the rings (i cant buy both) ugh im so confused on what to choose, this is pretty much it right? can anyone make me a good bullet list? LOTRO: +Graphics -Repitive Gameplay -PVP -''suposibly'' boring quests Warhammer: -Graphics +PVP[/QUOTE]you can get EVE for like 20 bucks right now on Steam.That includes the 14 day trial, plus 30 days included with purchase.+good PvP
+good solo content
+a whole ton of depth and variety
+awesome community
+pretty good, stable server
-steep learning curveIm telling you man, youve tried all the MMOs with goblins, elves, dragons, etc and you didnt like them too much, so its time for something different. At least play the game for free for 10 days to see it out. Go join a pirate of PvP-centric corporation when you try it out.You said you like PvP a lot so that essentially takes LOTRO off your list.
Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship
You have to try out Eve Online. It has a hard/steep learning curve, but has some great features. Steam offers a 21day trial, go play it.
[QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship[/QUOTE]
I say just give it a try, there is no risk and sounds like exactly the kind of game you're looking for (besides not being into space thing).
[QUOTE=''SuperBeast''][QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship[/QUOTE] I say just give it a try, there is no risk and sounds like exactly the kind of game you're looking for (besides not being into space thing). [/QUOTE]Ya give it a try.And it sounds like youre thinking about WAR, but it seems 95% of MMO players that give WAR a try say ''meh, its OK but got old after a month'' and go back to their old game.
i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...
Eve is great but learning the game takes a bit of time.
[QUOTE=''SamiRDuran'']i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...[/QUOTE]Concering EVE, there are only three things you need to do to learn it1. Do the tutorial2. Do the tutorial completely3. Do the tutorial in its entiretyOh, and remember! When in doubt, right click on empty space!
warhammer gets boring when you realise theres alot of space and things to do but noone to help you out. The ui need s bit of work too. in theory its great though but the population just isnt there. Im still waiting for the right game too (after quiting wow after a few years)....could be a very long wait.
[QUOTE=''mrbojangles25''][QUOTE=''SamiRDuran'']i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...[/QUOTE]Concering EVE, there are only three things you need to do to learn it1. Do the tutorial2. Do the tutorial completely3. Do the tutorial in its entiretyOh, and remember! When in doubt, right click on empty space![/QUOTE]
4. Do the tutorial again.
You want an MMO with no repetitive game play? Good luck with that...I personally love the RPG level-up ''carrot on a stick'' type of game play. Yes, it can be repetitive, but it's just my style. Perhaps you need to try looking into some sci-fi shooter MMOs. They may have the different feel you are looking for. Dear MMO Gamers,
Well out of those three, what one would you reccomend?
This is now the final battle :PWarhammer vrs LOTRO
Considering your love of PVP, I would think Warhammer Online would be the proper choice.
EVE Onlineif five fantasy-based MMOs havent done it for you yet, none will.EVE is very cool, has awesome PvP, and is plain fun once you get past the learning curve
You should try out Eve. It is without a doubt the the hardest MMO to learn, but if you're patient enough it may be what you're looking for. It's still the only truly open-ended MMO in existence and is constantly getting upgrades to it's engine.(First launched in 2003 and because of the upgrades it's still a great looking game) They have a 10 day trial on their website, which will give you enough time to understand the bare bone basics in gameplay. There is no traditional grinding or leveling up and you don't have to worry about being outmatched by somebody who has time to play 24/7 when you can only throw in a couple hours a day. So If we both signed up right now, I put in 10min a day and you put in 15hrs a day....I would still have a similar skill level as you (provided we both chose the same skills to upgrade, which is highly unlikely). It's been about a year since I played and it's pretty hard to explain.....just give it a try.
Warhammer is okay... its really PVP based and has horrible PVE except some quests and stuff that are great fun. LOTRO is supposedly like WoW but LOTR themed, Im thinking about getting it. Age of Conan is riddled with bugs and has some extremely boring quests and areas but the combat can be bloody fun and the graphics are top notch.
Id go with LOTRO.
Try LOTRO if you are a Tolkien fan. Otherwise go with EVE.
okay guys here it is, im on ebay right now, i have the warhammer open and the lord of the rings (i cant buy both) ugh im so confused on what to choose, this is pretty much it right? can anyone make me a good bullet list?
LOTRO:
+Graphics
-Repitive Gameplay
-PVP
-''suposibly'' boring quests
Warhammer:
-Graphics
+PVP
[QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']okay guys here it is, im on ebay right now, i have the warhammer open and the lord of the rings (i cant buy both) ugh im so confused on what to choose, this is pretty much it right? can anyone make me a good bullet list? LOTRO: +Graphics -Repitive Gameplay -PVP -''suposibly'' boring quests Warhammer: -Graphics +PVP[/QUOTE]you can get EVE for like 20 bucks right now on Steam.That includes the 14 day trial, plus 30 days included with purchase.+good PvP
+good solo content
+a whole ton of depth and variety
+awesome community
+pretty good, stable server
-steep learning curveIm telling you man, youve tried all the MMOs with goblins, elves, dragons, etc and you didnt like them too much, so its time for something different. At least play the game for free for 10 days to see it out. Go join a pirate of PvP-centric corporation when you try it out.You said you like PvP a lot so that essentially takes LOTRO off your list.
Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship
You have to try out Eve Online. It has a hard/steep learning curve, but has some great features. Steam offers a 21day trial, go play it.
[QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship[/QUOTE]
I say just give it a try, there is no risk and sounds like exactly the kind of game you're looking for (besides not being into space thing).
[QUOTE=''SuperBeast''][QUOTE=''-rukah_bear'']Idk man, im not really into the whole space ship thing. That was only in SWG, but you could PvP in places other then a ship[/QUOTE] I say just give it a try, there is no risk and sounds like exactly the kind of game you're looking for (besides not being into space thing). [/QUOTE]Ya give it a try.And it sounds like youre thinking about WAR, but it seems 95% of MMO players that give WAR a try say ''meh, its OK but got old after a month'' and go back to their old game.
i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...
Eve is great but learning the game takes a bit of time.
[QUOTE=''SamiRDuran'']i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...[/QUOTE]Concering EVE, there are only three things you need to do to learn it1. Do the tutorial2. Do the tutorial completely3. Do the tutorial in its entiretyOh, and remember! When in doubt, right click on empty space!
warhammer gets boring when you realise theres alot of space and things to do but noone to help you out. The ui need s bit of work too. in theory its great though but the population just isnt there. Im still waiting for the right game too (after quiting wow after a few years)....could be a very long wait.
[QUOTE=''mrbojangles25''][QUOTE=''SamiRDuran'']i'm reading about eve online and it seems like the most interesting and deep game in existance. i really want to try it but the info is a bit overwhelming...[/QUOTE]Concering EVE, there are only three things you need to do to learn it1. Do the tutorial2. Do the tutorial completely3. Do the tutorial in its entiretyOh, and remember! When in doubt, right click on empty space![/QUOTE]
4. Do the tutorial again.
GTA IV PC Bowling How to ?
Can anyone out there show me how to click the control to bowl in the game. I dont understand what it means by pull the mouse backwards in one motion. It feels like holding a Wii Mote to move the mouse as if the computer has motion sensor or something.
Crusaders of the Dark Savant
who played this awesome game? i played it when i was in 5th grade or something. kinda just screwed around in it. never got far. but i want to play it again! anyone know how i can run it/find it?Crusaders of the Dark Savant
You can get it off abandonia and run it in dosbox. Crusaders of the Dark Savant
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']You can get it off abandonia and run it in dosbox. [/QUOTE]Nice. Too bad they don't have the earlier games.black heads
You can get it off abandonia and run it in dosbox. Crusaders of the Dark Savant
[QUOTE=''Captain__Tripps'']You can get it off abandonia and run it in dosbox. [/QUOTE]Nice. Too bad they don't have the earlier games.
Games for Windows LIVE DLC DRM?
I know there are no add-ons for any GFW-L game yet, but does anyone know if it will pull a 360?What I mean is this: When I download something to the 360, anyone can use it. When I download that same something (or move the storage device) to another 360, I (my gamertag) have to be signed in to LIVE. I am asking if the PC will behave in a similar manner.The reason I'm asking is because my bro and I each have our own computers, and only one copy of Fallout 3 (currently installed to my computer). The LIVE key is already being used on my account, so he'll probably have to make one for offline use. How would he be able to access the DLC in this case?Also, since I already used the LIVE key on my account, can I use it again on my bro's gamertag?
Fallout 3 black screen
Hey i just bought fallout 3 and i installed it but when i click play after i launched the game i get a black screen. If you could help me with this problem it would be very much appreciated.Thank you Fallout 3 black screen
Whats the specs of your comp?Fallout 3 black screen
What do you mean by specs?? If you mean my videocard i have a radeon 9800, 32bit
There is a thread on the beth forums about getting the game running on such old hardware. You might get it running, but its not going to be pretty. Im guessing your CPU is of similar vintage... ?
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']What do you mean by specs?? If you mean my videocard i have a radeon 9800, 32bit [/QUOTE]
Yeah the Radeon 9800 is really outdated. That is defeantly your problem. Sorry pal but I think you will need a new computer to get it up and running.
nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments[/QUOTE]
Where did you read that? I don't think the 9800 is in the supported list of cards, although that list is not a complete list of cards that can work with it, its just not offically supported.
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments[/QUOTE]
I dont believe it is.
Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?
[QUOTE=''TWuD'']Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?[/QUOTE]
this. You really need to go to a fallout specific forum because you're going to have to tweak a few things. To help a little though... First download the latest drivers for your graphic card. Download the latest game patch too. Often they support more graphic cards in the patch. Third shut every program down that you can. Don't run virus protection, or anything that might soak up resources in the background.
[QUOTE=''TWuD'']Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?[/QUOTE]
Nvidia 9800 XXX and ATI Radeon 9800 are different cards. But yeah you can try tweaking it to run it
Whats the specs of your comp?Fallout 3 black screen
What do you mean by specs?? If you mean my videocard i have a radeon 9800, 32bit
There is a thread on the beth forums about getting the game running on such old hardware. You might get it running, but its not going to be pretty. Im guessing your CPU is of similar vintage... ?
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']What do you mean by specs?? If you mean my videocard i have a radeon 9800, 32bit [/QUOTE]
Yeah the Radeon 9800 is really outdated. That is defeantly your problem. Sorry pal but I think you will need a new computer to get it up and running.
nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments[/QUOTE]
Where did you read that? I don't think the 9800 is in the supported list of cards, although that list is not a complete list of cards that can work with it, its just not offically supported.
[QUOTE=''sebastien108'']nah it says i should be able to play even with radeon 9800, i read it in the requierments[/QUOTE]
I dont believe it is.
Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?
[QUOTE=''TWuD'']Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?[/QUOTE]
this. You really need to go to a fallout specific forum because you're going to have to tweak a few things. To help a little though... First download the latest drivers for your graphic card. Download the latest game patch too. Often they support more graphic cards in the patch. Third shut every program down that you can. Don't run virus protection, or anything that might soak up resources in the background.
[QUOTE=''TWuD'']Are you sure it doesn't say: Nvidia 9800? in the requirements?[/QUOTE]
Nvidia 9800 XXX and ATI Radeon 9800 are different cards. But yeah you can try tweaking it to run it
A Choice of Games
I have a choice and that is to get either one of these games, they are: STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, Titan Quest (And the expansion) or The Witcher. I added a poll also!A Choice of Games
The Witcher.A Choice of Games
S.T.A.L.K.E.R, however I've never played The Witcher although I've heard it's very good.
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE]
Specific reason? :P
[QUOTE=''aaronmullan''][QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE] Specific reason? :P[/QUOTE]I haven't actually played it (in fact, I've only played STALKER out of all of those and I did like it) but from what I hear most people who've played the game enjoyed it to some degree. With STALKER it's like 50 percent hate, 50 percent like.
The Witcher is a really good, deep, and amazing rpg, its violent enough (but not so much it is tasteless) It has a good mature story without a good or wrong, just shades of grey.It is amazing just about any way you see it. If that is not in your taste, the Stalker games, are awesome, they are... quirky... but has amazing gunplay and kickass atmosphere. Ironisly Id say you should get CS, if you intent on an open world game, if its a game you wish to finish for the story go for Soc.Stalker is a hit or miss, for people, it is not run and gun, and if you think youre superman youre gonna end up dead REALLY fast.but Especially in CS you get an attatchment to your weapon, your armor, and the guys you help, since they might just return the favor. (Cs is less scary tho)
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007''][QUOTE=''aaronmullan''][QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE] Specific reason? :P[/QUOTE]I haven't actually played it (in fact, I've only played STALKER out of all of those and I did like it) but from what I hear most people who've played the game enjoyed it to some degree. With STALKER it's like 50 percent hate, 50 percent like. [/QUOTE]
Alright then, good to hear.
STALKER and Witcher are both very good, but IMO STALKER is still a lot better. In fact it's one of the best games ever made, among the likes of Thief, Deus Ex and System Shock 2. But - if you can, you should definitely get both STALKER and The Witcher, I recommend them both highly.
STALKERS head bobbing makes me sick..
The Withcher, it has great story.
The Witcher.A Choice of Games
S.T.A.L.K.E.R, however I've never played The Witcher although I've heard it's very good.
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE]
Specific reason? :P
[QUOTE=''aaronmullan''][QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE] Specific reason? :P[/QUOTE]I haven't actually played it (in fact, I've only played STALKER out of all of those and I did like it) but from what I hear most people who've played the game enjoyed it to some degree. With STALKER it's like 50 percent hate, 50 percent like.
The Witcher is a really good, deep, and amazing rpg, its violent enough (but not so much it is tasteless) It has a good mature story without a good or wrong, just shades of grey.It is amazing just about any way you see it. If that is not in your taste, the Stalker games, are awesome, they are... quirky... but has amazing gunplay and kickass atmosphere. Ironisly Id say you should get CS, if you intent on an open world game, if its a game you wish to finish for the story go for Soc.Stalker is a hit or miss, for people, it is not run and gun, and if you think youre superman youre gonna end up dead REALLY fast.but Especially in CS you get an attatchment to your weapon, your armor, and the guys you help, since they might just return the favor. (Cs is less scary tho)
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007''][QUOTE=''aaronmullan''][QUOTE=''aliblabla2007'']The Witcher.[/QUOTE] Specific reason? :P[/QUOTE]I haven't actually played it (in fact, I've only played STALKER out of all of those and I did like it) but from what I hear most people who've played the game enjoyed it to some degree. With STALKER it's like 50 percent hate, 50 percent like. [/QUOTE]
Alright then, good to hear.
STALKER and Witcher are both very good, but IMO STALKER is still a lot better. In fact it's one of the best games ever made, among the likes of Thief, Deus Ex and System Shock 2. But - if you can, you should definitely get both STALKER and The Witcher, I recommend them both highly.
STALKERS head bobbing makes me sick..
The Withcher, it has great story.
Your Annual (2008) Expenditure on Games
Mine is 969,65 US$ (Covers only game purchases, hardware exp. is excluded).Your Annual (2008) Expenditure on Games
This year was an expensive one, contrary to what I generally spent in years prior. About a year ago my Gamespot collection was hovering around 100 titles... it is now at 176. Not including all the consoles I bought and averaging a cost of about $20 a game, that is $1500 in one year. And that is an incredibly conservative estimate. If I were to guess more accurately, the average cost for the games I've bought this year is probably closer to $30-35, which would put it up around $2600... which is somewhat disheartening considering that I've bought several consoles this year as well (Dreamcast, Saturn, 360, SNES, NES and Genesis).
What is unfortunate is that I still need to get a new computer for myself. I've been meaning to do it ever since Crysis came out.
Your Annual (2008) Expenditure on Games
Talking about how much money you spend on stuff makes you look like a prat IMHO. I'll just say I've spent a hell of a lot on games this year, it has been a lot of fun!
Id say around $500ish maybe more or less.
[QUOTE=''CellAnimation'']Talking about how much money you spend on stuff makes you look like a prat IMHO. I'll just say I've spent a hell of a lot on games this year, it has been a lot of fun![/QUOTE]
True, does sound a bit like that. Cant say i spent much. Only got a few select games i knew i would enjoy. I never splurge.
[QUOTE=''retro82'']Mine is 969,65 US$ (Covers only game purchases, hardware exp. is excluded).[/QUOTE] I really hope that's $969.65 and not $969 thousand...
probably no less than 500 for the year.
i bought about 30 2008 games, i think, including xbox 360 games, most of them priced reasonably. so $1000? not sure.
For PC games? Not much.I only bought Sins of a Solar Empire and Left 4 Dead. So around $90 total. The only other game I would have bought was Mass Effect, but EA decided to infest it with DRM. I still played it, I just didn't buy it if you know what I mean...I didn't buy much for the consoles either, mostly just rented. I bought GTA4 and Gears 2, both of which were rather meh IMHO, and I ended up selling them. I thought this was a rather weak year for gaming in general.
I don't even want to count.
[QUOTE=''The_PC_Gamer''][QUOTE=''retro82'']Mine is 969,65 US$ (Covers only game purchases, hardware exp. is excluded).[/QUOTE] I really hope that's $969.65 and not $969 thousand... [/QUOTE] Yeah, yeah. It's 969.95$
I probably spend about $1000 a year.. I don't buy a whole lot of games, and I do ask for games as gifts on Birthday and Christmas.
In USD about $900
Dunno. I lived in Thailand until June of this year and the average game price there is about $12 US. Moved back to Canada in June, but I've only bought 6-7 games at $35-50 since then.
$200-$300 range I think.
Only $120. I've only bought BIA:HH and COD5 this year. Nothing else was really worth my money IMO
$250. Relatively cheap year for me. Call of Duty 4 (360) - $60 (My 360 ended up getting stolen.
Call of Duty 4 (PC) - $50
Call of Duty: World At War (PC) - $50
Fallout 3 (PC) - $50
Sim City 4 (PC) - $20
Battlefield 2142 (PC) - $20
A LOT! pc, ps3, 360 and tonnes of games. All in all i shudder at the total estimate of over 1700 pounds ($3400)
Let's see, counting only games released this year...Sins of A Solar Empire - Got it for 40 %26euro;Penumbra: Black Plague - 30 %26euro;Assassin's Creed - 50 %26euro; :(STALKER: Clear Sky - 50 %26euro;Crysis Warhead - 30 %26euro;Mount %26 Blade - 30 %26euro;Fallout 3 - 50 %26euro;GTA 4 - 50 %26euro;= 330 %26euro;PLUS I spent A LOT of money on older games, 220 %26euro; in December alone.So damn, it's gotta be a lot of money. :cry:
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']I don't even want to count.[/QUOTE]Same here.
This year was an expensive one, contrary to what I generally spent in years prior. About a year ago my Gamespot collection was hovering around 100 titles... it is now at 176. Not including all the consoles I bought and averaging a cost of about $20 a game, that is $1500 in one year. And that is an incredibly conservative estimate. If I were to guess more accurately, the average cost for the games I've bought this year is probably closer to $30-35, which would put it up around $2600... which is somewhat disheartening considering that I've bought several consoles this year as well (Dreamcast, Saturn, 360, SNES, NES and Genesis).
What is unfortunate is that I still need to get a new computer for myself. I've been meaning to do it ever since Crysis came out.
Your Annual (2008) Expenditure on Games
Talking about how much money you spend on stuff makes you look like a prat IMHO. I'll just say I've spent a hell of a lot on games this year, it has been a lot of fun!
Id say around $500ish maybe more or less.
[QUOTE=''CellAnimation'']Talking about how much money you spend on stuff makes you look like a prat IMHO. I'll just say I've spent a hell of a lot on games this year, it has been a lot of fun![/QUOTE]
True, does sound a bit like that. Cant say i spent much. Only got a few select games i knew i would enjoy. I never splurge.
[QUOTE=''retro82'']Mine is 969,65 US$ (Covers only game purchases, hardware exp. is excluded).[/QUOTE] I really hope that's $969.65 and not $969 thousand...
probably no less than 500 for the year.
i bought about 30 2008 games, i think, including xbox 360 games, most of them priced reasonably. so $1000? not sure.
For PC games? Not much.I only bought Sins of a Solar Empire and Left 4 Dead. So around $90 total. The only other game I would have bought was Mass Effect, but EA decided to infest it with DRM. I still played it, I just didn't buy it if you know what I mean...I didn't buy much for the consoles either, mostly just rented. I bought GTA4 and Gears 2, both of which were rather meh IMHO, and I ended up selling them. I thought this was a rather weak year for gaming in general.
I don't even want to count.
[QUOTE=''The_PC_Gamer''][QUOTE=''retro82'']Mine is 969,65 US$ (Covers only game purchases, hardware exp. is excluded).[/QUOTE] I really hope that's $969.65 and not $969 thousand... [/QUOTE] Yeah, yeah. It's 969.95$
I probably spend about $1000 a year.. I don't buy a whole lot of games, and I do ask for games as gifts on Birthday and Christmas.
In USD about $900
Dunno. I lived in Thailand until June of this year and the average game price there is about $12 US. Moved back to Canada in June, but I've only bought 6-7 games at $35-50 since then.
$200-$300 range I think.
Only $120. I've only bought BIA:HH and COD5 this year. Nothing else was really worth my money IMO
$250. Relatively cheap year for me. Call of Duty 4 (360) - $60 (My 360 ended up getting stolen.
Call of Duty 4 (PC) - $50
Call of Duty: World At War (PC) - $50
Fallout 3 (PC) - $50
Sim City 4 (PC) - $20
Battlefield 2142 (PC) - $20
A LOT! pc, ps3, 360 and tonnes of games. All in all i shudder at the total estimate of over 1700 pounds ($3400)
Let's see, counting only games released this year...Sins of A Solar Empire - Got it for 40 %26euro;Penumbra: Black Plague - 30 %26euro;Assassin's Creed - 50 %26euro; :(STALKER: Clear Sky - 50 %26euro;Crysis Warhead - 30 %26euro;Mount %26 Blade - 30 %26euro;Fallout 3 - 50 %26euro;GTA 4 - 50 %26euro;= 330 %26euro;PLUS I spent A LOT of money on older games, 220 %26euro; in December alone.So damn, it's gotta be a lot of money. :cry:
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']I don't even want to count.[/QUOTE]Same here.
Are there any good mech pc games?
something like armored coreAre there any good mech pc games?
Not on PC... I feel your pain. Mechwarrior is about as close as you will get, but it's kinda old. Are there any good mech pc games?
Not lately. All that comes to mind is MechWarrior and Heavy Gear. I think there was a Gundam MMO released last year but it is only available in like Korea or something.
Shogo: Mobile Armor Division is also a really good mech/action game (although, it is more anime-esque in the art and mecha designs). Also, check out Slave Zero.EDIT - oh...would Lost Planet also count as a mech game?
**** Shogo was awesome can't believe I forgot about that. Probably because it's more of a linear shooter rather than a mech-sim. Get the patches.
I forgot about Exteel, but it looked kinda childish (colors and robot designs) to me... so I never tried it.
There's actually a mech MMORPG, it's called Exsteel, look it up :)
There is also another mecha MMORPG its called Age Of Armor
Heavy Gear II, it's a great game but really old.
FEAR 2 will have mech combat and lost planet has some mech combat
Last great mech game I played wasnt even on PC(*sigh*), it was Chromehounds on 360. Awesome, tactical game.
Not on PC... I feel your pain. Mechwarrior is about as close as you will get, but it's kinda old. Are there any good mech pc games?
Not lately. All that comes to mind is MechWarrior and Heavy Gear. I think there was a Gundam MMO released last year but it is only available in like Korea or something.
Shogo: Mobile Armor Division is also a really good mech/action game (although, it is more anime-esque in the art and mecha designs). Also, check out Slave Zero.EDIT - oh...would Lost Planet also count as a mech game?
**** Shogo was awesome can't believe I forgot about that. Probably because it's more of a linear shooter rather than a mech-sim. Get the patches.
I forgot about Exteel, but it looked kinda childish (colors and robot designs) to me... so I never tried it.
There's actually a mech MMORPG, it's called Exsteel, look it up :)
There is also another mecha MMORPG its called Age Of Armor
Heavy Gear II, it's a great game but really old.
FEAR 2 will have mech combat and lost planet has some mech combat
Last great mech game I played wasnt even on PC(*sigh*), it was Chromehounds on 360. Awesome, tactical game.
best place to buy PC games in Canada?`
hey guys i live in mississauga, Ontario and I was wondering if you guys knew any places where they have a large assortment of PC games to buy. EB games just aint cutting it anymore they have like 5 games on the shelf lolbest place to buy PC games in Canada?`
Bestbuy, Futureshop, Circuit city, Walmart, Zellers, Steam, etc. best place to buy PC games in Canada?`
which one has the largest library of PC games
[QUOTE=''gordongraydon'']which one has the largest library of PC games[/QUOTE]Steam or Bestbuy.black heads
Bestbuy, Futureshop, Circuit city, Walmart, Zellers, Steam, etc. best place to buy PC games in Canada?`
which one has the largest library of PC games
[QUOTE=''gordongraydon'']which one has the largest library of PC games[/QUOTE]Steam or Bestbuy.
Video Cards?
I have an older desktop, and was wondering what kind of graphics card(if any), would let me play some of the more high detailed games. Here's what I have.HP Pavilion 753nPentium 4Running Windows XP2.53GHz Intel Penium 4 processor512MB SDRAM memory80GB Ultra DMA Hard drive64MB DDR SDRAMCW-RW hp cd-writer 40x10x40x max speedDVD-ROM Drive 16x max speedWhatever video card came stock with it. Like I said, I'm wanting to play more high detailed games(like Fallout 3), if possible. If you need more information just let me know.Video Cards?
1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?Video Cards?
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?[/QUOTE]Sorry. For future reference, where should I post something like this?
[QUOTE=''TheKillGuy''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?[/QUOTE]Sorry. Where should I post it?[/QUOTE]Pc Hardware forum.
Should've looked more I suppose. Thanks for the help anyways.
Fallout 3 will kill that computer, plain and simple. If you give us the mobo model we can help you with possible video card upgrades. I had nearly the same computer until I got my new one so I have a good idea of what runs if you don't put anything in it you can go up to 2004. My recomendation is ask around the boards for a list of ''vintage'' games or check out the website GoG. You don't need the latest and greatest as the sheer amount of games over the 20+ year catalogue can keep you busy way longer than new games will. I will throw some recommendations for older games.FPS;Half-LifeDoomDoom IIHereticHexenDuke Nukem 3dShadow WarriorBloodHalf-Life ExpansionsDay of DefeatCounterstrikeTeam Fortress ClassicHalo Combat Evolved RPGDiabloDiablo IIBaldurs GateIcewind DaleNeverwinter NightsRTSWarcraft IIStarcraftCommand and Conquer 10 year collection (it comes with about 10-12 games, they all ran fine)Dawn of War (probally gonna have to go low on this one)Warcraft 3 (maybe but Blizzard is great at optimizing) MMOEverquestWorld of WarcraftGuild Wars Hope this helps. Good luck and have fun :).
Damn, guess I'll have to staop being cheap and just buy a new one alltogeter. Thanks for the list of games, those can tide me over untill I decide to buy something else.
You will end up playing the old games more than you ever would the new ones anyway.. lots of classics games you can run that will keep you busy for long time.
1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?Video Cards?
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?[/QUOTE]Sorry. For future reference, where should I post something like this?
[QUOTE=''TheKillGuy''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']1. Wrong Forum2. I would recommend more RAM3. A better CPU4. Could you post you PSU?[/QUOTE]Sorry. Where should I post it?[/QUOTE]Pc Hardware forum.
Should've looked more I suppose. Thanks for the help anyways.
Fallout 3 will kill that computer, plain and simple. If you give us the mobo model we can help you with possible video card upgrades. I had nearly the same computer until I got my new one so I have a good idea of what runs if you don't put anything in it you can go up to 2004. My recomendation is ask around the boards for a list of ''vintage'' games or check out the website GoG. You don't need the latest and greatest as the sheer amount of games over the 20+ year catalogue can keep you busy way longer than new games will. I will throw some recommendations for older games.FPS;Half-LifeDoomDoom IIHereticHexenDuke Nukem 3dShadow WarriorBloodHalf-Life ExpansionsDay of DefeatCounterstrikeTeam Fortress ClassicHalo Combat Evolved RPGDiabloDiablo IIBaldurs GateIcewind DaleNeverwinter NightsRTSWarcraft IIStarcraftCommand and Conquer 10 year collection (it comes with about 10-12 games, they all ran fine)Dawn of War (probally gonna have to go low on this one)Warcraft 3 (maybe but Blizzard is great at optimizing) MMOEverquestWorld of WarcraftGuild Wars Hope this helps. Good luck and have fun :).
Damn, guess I'll have to staop being cheap and just buy a new one alltogeter. Thanks for the list of games, those can tide me over untill I decide to buy something else.
You will end up playing the old games more than you ever would the new ones anyway.. lots of classics games you can run that will keep you busy for long time.
Do you like X3 Terran Conflict?
I do, it's really a unique game, all substance no flash, something really rare these days. I like it's complexity, diversity, as well as the fact that you can play for months and months without end and still find it exciting.What do you think? Do you like X3 Terran Conflict?
I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?Do you like X3 Terran Conflict?
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.
[QUOTE=''LTZH''][QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.[/QUOTE]
But I like me the boxies...:P
I am having some problem to jump into the game. The learning curve is like banging your head into a brick wall and the flying tutorial is pretty poor :\. I will read the 60 pages pdf lol
I've played well over a few hundred hours in X3: Reunion, and The move to TC was Great, Egosoft made the Mouse Gameplay a lot better.X3: TC is more of an expansion pack then a whole new game though. X3:TC is mainly X3: reunion with the X-tended Mod/GUI/updated Mouse Controls and a few more things. But it's still a great game.-I'm staying with Reunion though at the moment, there's a few mods I like that haven't made a jump to TC (Mainly the ship editor).:cry: for some Mods/Scripts go to X Universe Forums, And X-Tended Mod - for X3:Reunion. - And yes the Learning Curve is pretty Steep on this game, but then again its what makes this game great.:lol::P I love the complexity of it.;)
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420''][QUOTE=''LTZH''][QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.[/QUOTE] But I like me the boxies...:P[/QUOTE]From my understanding ( I could be wrong and most likely am) Is that they didn't do a full out retail thing with X3: TC, its either DD, or Places like Amazon.com or Egosoft website for a Retail box.
I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?Do you like X3 Terran Conflict?
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.
[QUOTE=''LTZH''][QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.[/QUOTE]
But I like me the boxies...:P
I am having some problem to jump into the game. The learning curve is like banging your head into a brick wall and the flying tutorial is pretty poor :\. I will read the 60 pages pdf lol
I've played well over a few hundred hours in X3: Reunion, and The move to TC was Great, Egosoft made the Mouse Gameplay a lot better.X3: TC is more of an expansion pack then a whole new game though. X3:TC is mainly X3: reunion with the X-tended Mod/GUI/updated Mouse Controls and a few more things. But it's still a great game.-I'm staying with Reunion though at the moment, there's a few mods I like that haven't made a jump to TC (Mainly the ship editor).:cry: for some Mods/Scripts go to X Universe Forums, And X-Tended Mod - for X3:Reunion. - And yes the Learning Curve is pretty Steep on this game, but then again its what makes this game great.:lol::P I love the complexity of it.;)
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420''][QUOTE=''LTZH''][QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']I cant find this game anywhere. I loved X3, is it a significant jump from that? Or more of an expansion pack?[/QUOTE] steam has it cheap right now.[/QUOTE] But I like me the boxies...:P[/QUOTE]From my understanding ( I could be wrong and most likely am) Is that they didn't do a full out retail thing with X3: TC, its either DD, or Places like Amazon.com or Egosoft website for a Retail box.
program for Programming video games
What is a great program for programming video games, or start creating them, im looking to get into that kind of stuff, Any recommendations would be nice, program for Programming video games
C++, Dark Basic Pro. I can think of a few others though those are the best. BTW Realmcrafter has its own programing language and you can create your own game easy, you just have to make everything except the game engine. program for Programming video games
Microsoft XNA
use greenfoot and learn java.
Maya or XSI and C++
Might want to go out and pick up a beginner's guide to C++. You won't be making a game any time soon without knowing the basics of programming, structuring your code, and after getting a grasp on that, learning how to interact with libraries so you can use others' works so you don't have to reinvent the wheel by programming your own game and graphics engine.
start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free.
I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older
How about a College program?
[QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE]
This. Another good engine to start on is the Aurora engine (neverwinter nights) Scripting in that engine is a good start for basic programming. Seriousely, unless take some advanced programming classes or read through thousands upon thousands of pages in programming books and know algebra, geometry, trig, and calc.
[QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE] where can i get the tools for that? im looking specifically for tools for half life (steam version), quake, quake 2 or quake 3.
Game Maker is one that requires no previous programming experience but also contains a built-in programming language for extra functionality. It's incredibly easy to learn and they even have lots of tutorials on the website. You can check it out here: http://www.yoyogames.com/makeAnd just as an example, here is a custom platformer game I made a couple years ago for a school project: http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/435![]()
This game was fully developed in a time span of only about 3 1/2 to 4 months and shows what you can do in a fairly short amount of time. It's primarily for developing 2D games, even though it does have minor 3D support for simple 3D games. (Just don't expect to create the next big 3D shooter.) If you're aiming for creating games similar to Super Mario Brothers, Tetris, or even The Legend of Zelda, though, you should definitely be able to pull it off with enough practice. You'd be surprised at what's possible with enough time.
C++.
C++ is a programming language not a program itself. Just pointing that out since it's mentioned so much. So it would take a lot of training in the language, and also mathmatics, physics, databases, etc.
[QUOTE=''Xeros606''][QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE] where can i get the tools for that? im looking specifically for tools for half life (steam version), quake, quake 2 or quake 3.[/QUOTE]
Go to steam, open it up and click on the Tools tab. For Half Life 2 you want the Source SDK. Install it. Wiki it and there is excellent tuturial on building your first level.
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Getting_Started
C++ or perl is your best bet.Darkbasic is bleh if your serious about computer game programming.
C++, Dark Basic Pro. I can think of a few others though those are the best. BTW Realmcrafter has its own programing language and you can create your own game easy, you just have to make everything except the game engine. program for Programming video games
Microsoft XNA
use greenfoot and learn java.
Maya or XSI and C++
Might want to go out and pick up a beginner's guide to C++. You won't be making a game any time soon without knowing the basics of programming, structuring your code, and after getting a grasp on that, learning how to interact with libraries so you can use others' works so you don't have to reinvent the wheel by programming your own game and graphics engine.
start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free.
I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older
How about a College program?
[QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE]
This. Another good engine to start on is the Aurora engine (neverwinter nights) Scripting in that engine is a good start for basic programming. Seriousely, unless take some advanced programming classes or read through thousands upon thousands of pages in programming books and know algebra, geometry, trig, and calc.
[QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE] where can i get the tools for that? im looking specifically for tools for half life (steam version), quake, quake 2 or quake 3.
Game Maker is one that requires no previous programming experience but also contains a built-in programming language for extra functionality. It's incredibly easy to learn and they even have lots of tutorials on the website. You can check it out here: http://www.yoyogames.com/makeAnd just as an example, here is a custom platformer game I made a couple years ago for a school project: http://www.yoyogames.com/games/show/435
C++.
C++ is a programming language not a program itself. Just pointing that out since it's mentioned so much. So it would take a lot of training in the language, and also mathmatics, physics, databases, etc.
[QUOTE=''Xeros606''][QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']start with modding games, much easier, gets you doing things and up and running faster, and if you get interested enough you can then share your work for free. I recommend the Source engine (half-life 2 etc) or Quake 3/ Half-Life /UT for something a bit older[/QUOTE] where can i get the tools for that? im looking specifically for tools for half life (steam version), quake, quake 2 or quake 3.[/QUOTE]
Go to steam, open it up and click on the Tools tab. For Half Life 2 you want the Source SDK. Install it. Wiki it and there is excellent tuturial on building your first level.
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Getting_Started
C++ or perl is your best bet.Darkbasic is bleh if your serious about computer game programming.
New PC game - FPS or MMO
Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. New PC game - FPS or MMO
[QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]
Call Of Duty 4 if you love modern weapons, Call Of Duty 5 if you love new perks.New PC game - FPS or MMO
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Planetside. Its not new. But its awesome. Its a mixture of FPS and MMO too ;)
Call of duty 4 and Guild Wars
[QUOTE=''VinnoT'']Planetside. Its not new. But its awesome. Its a mixture of FPS and MMO too ;)[/QUOTE]
I used to love this game! You should get COD 4.
I highly recommend trying Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It's similar to WoW but more pvp based. You can level up by pvping if you want. It's very fun so far and all the classes are diverse and useful.
FPS: Call of Duty 4, The Orange Box
MMO: I've heard Guild Wars is good, and it has no subscription fee ;).
[QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]Enemy Territory: Quake Wars ! Its like BF2 in the Quake universe, awesome game.:D
[QUOTE=''OkuLaris''][QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]Enemy Territory: Quake Wars ! Its like BF2 in the Quake universe, awesome game.:D [/QUOTE] Too bad theres no community for it....
haha on the last post i agree... well i can only say that there are shooters like cod4 even free ones.. but id say that cod 4 will do it or age of connan.... but again there is a singleplayer mix of what you ask....
FPS..MMO's are the worst thing this century,excluding the british and american funded nazi's.
[QUOTE=''Nunamaker'']Call of duty 4 and Guild Wars[/QUOTE]Have both of these but thanks for the suggestion. :)
You could try Combat Arms. It's a FPS and a MMO, but it's not like World Of Warcraft.
[QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]
Call Of Duty 4 if you love modern weapons, Call Of Duty 5 if you love new perks.New PC game - FPS or MMO
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Planetside. Its not new. But its awesome. Its a mixture of FPS and MMO too ;)
Call of duty 4 and Guild Wars
[QUOTE=''VinnoT'']Planetside. Its not new. But its awesome. Its a mixture of FPS and MMO too ;)[/QUOTE]
I used to love this game! You should get COD 4.
I highly recommend trying Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It's similar to WoW but more pvp based. You can level up by pvping if you want. It's very fun so far and all the classes are diverse and useful.
FPS: Call of Duty 4, The Orange Box
MMO: I've heard Guild Wars is good, and it has no subscription fee ;).
[QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]Enemy Territory: Quake Wars ! Its like BF2 in the Quake universe, awesome game.:D
[QUOTE=''OkuLaris''][QUOTE=''khonex''] Looking for a PC game that's either: - A FPS similar to Battlefield where you can unlock weapons %26 things. - An MMO like WoW, one of the new ones. [/QUOTE]Enemy Territory: Quake Wars ! Its like BF2 in the Quake universe, awesome game.:D [/QUOTE] Too bad theres no community for it....
haha on the last post i agree... well i can only say that there are shooters like cod4 even free ones.. but id say that cod 4 will do it or age of connan.... but again there is a singleplayer mix of what you ask....
FPS..MMO's are the worst thing this century,excluding the british and american funded nazi's.
[QUOTE=''Nunamaker'']Call of duty 4 and Guild Wars[/QUOTE]Have both of these but thanks for the suggestion. :)
You could try Combat Arms. It's a FPS and a MMO, but it's not like World Of Warcraft.
WoW+Patches+Burning Crusade+Lich King size =?
im wondering how much WoW and it's two expansions and it's latest patch will take on my hard drive? im going to buy the WoW battle chest + lich king and i only have 13-19 gigs of free space , is it enough? how much the total size is? oh and off topic i know but does the game lag? i had the Pal version which is said to have much less lag and i didn't face any so i dunno. WoW+Patches+Burning Crusade+Lich King size =?
I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.WoW+Patches+Burning Crusade+Lich King size =?
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it.
Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...
[QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt''][QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.[/QUOTE]thanks a lot dude :) , now ill defiantly be buying WoW and it's expansions for sure :D.
[QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt''][QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest'']with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.[/QUOTE]thanks a lot dude :) , now ill defiantly be buying WoW and it's expansions for sure :D. [/QUOTE]have fun pwning them noobs!
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]Really. I felt the same way about Crysis and NWN. Some games are way too repetitive.
11.7 GB. Btw, the Lich King install dvd actually has the complete install on it so you don't need to install the original,bc, or any of the patches prior to installing LK.
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE]
My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato''][QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE] My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..[/QUOTE]Haha, yeah..I know the feeling..after awhile I give it a nice break.. I'm patiently awaiting Blizz's New MMO probably until I fully invest myself in another..I play wow here and there but nothing serious..I'm thinking about getting Eve have you ever thought about that?
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato''][QUOTE=''crazymaghie123'']As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE] My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..[/QUOTE]Haha, yeah..I know the feeling..after awhile I give it a nice break.. I'm patiently awaiting Blizz's New MMO probably until I fully invest myself in another..I play wow here and there but nothing serious..I'm thinking about getting Eve have you ever thought about that?[/QUOTE] I played about 3 14 day trials. I wasn't a fan of the waiting. Waiting for skills, waiting to warp, waiting to mine. It was kinda boring.
aw, well I still may check it out..
I dont play WoW anymore but i still have it on my computer. I dont have WotLK and my size is 10.2 gigs. Not too bad a size if you ask me...unlike AoC which takes 30gigs :x
You should just wait to buy Lich King, there's really no point unless you're level 56 and know for sure you want to keep playing.
11.97gb on my system
[QUOTE=''stele29'']11.7 GB. Btw, the Lich King install dvd actually has the complete install on it so you don't need to install the original,bc, or any of the patches prior to installing LK.[/QUOTE]
Finally! It was annoying having to go through the whole patching process....
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]
the game, or your trolling?
[QUOTE=''Hewkii''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE] the game, or your trolling?[/QUOTE]Nice. 10/10
I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.WoW+Patches+Burning Crusade+Lich King size =?
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it.
Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...
[QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.
[QUOTE=''Steameffekt''][QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt'']I don't play WoW anymore but still have it on my PC. For me, it says 14.4 GB's. There could be another patch avalible now.[/QUOTE]with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.[/QUOTE]thanks a lot dude :) , now ill defiantly be buying WoW and it's expansions for sure :D.
[QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest''][QUOTE=''Steameffekt''][QUOTE=''ThWorldGreatest'']with both expansions? cause WoW alone cost me 10 gigs of space last time i had it. [/QUOTE]Yeah with both expansions.[/QUOTE]thanks a lot dude :) , now ill defiantly be buying WoW and it's expansions for sure :D. [/QUOTE]have fun pwning them noobs!
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]Really. I felt the same way about Crysis and NWN. Some games are way too repetitive.
11.7 GB. Btw, the Lich King install dvd actually has the complete install on it so you don't need to install the original,bc, or any of the patches prior to installing LK.
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE]
My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato''][QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE] My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..[/QUOTE]Haha, yeah..I know the feeling..after awhile I give it a nice break.. I'm patiently awaiting Blizz's New MMO probably until I fully invest myself in another..I play wow here and there but nothing serious..I'm thinking about getting Eve have you ever thought about that?
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato''][QUOTE=''crazymaghie123'']As with many things in life they get repetitive and old. It sounds like you're burned out with the game :)[/QUOTE] My main had 200 days /played... so yeah, lol I quit after clearing 25 man naxx..[/QUOTE]Haha, yeah..I know the feeling..after awhile I give it a nice break.. I'm patiently awaiting Blizz's New MMO probably until I fully invest myself in another..I play wow here and there but nothing serious..I'm thinking about getting Eve have you ever thought about that?[/QUOTE] I played about 3 14 day trials. I wasn't a fan of the waiting. Waiting for skills, waiting to warp, waiting to mine. It was kinda boring.
aw, well I still may check it out..
I dont play WoW anymore but i still have it on my computer. I dont have WotLK and my size is 10.2 gigs. Not too bad a size if you ask me...unlike AoC which takes 30gigs :x
You should just wait to buy Lich King, there's really no point unless you're level 56 and know for sure you want to keep playing.
11.97gb on my system
[QUOTE=''stele29'']11.7 GB. Btw, the Lich King install dvd actually has the complete install on it so you don't need to install the original,bc, or any of the patches prior to installing LK.[/QUOTE]
Finally! It was annoying having to go through the whole patching process....
[QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE]
the game, or your trolling?
[QUOTE=''Hewkii''][QUOTE=''SinfulPotato'']Way to much space for doing the same activity over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... breath... and over...[/QUOTE] the game, or your trolling?[/QUOTE]Nice. 10/10
RTS: Who is better? Ensemble or Blizzard?
Yes, I know there are other RTS developers out there, but im curious between the 2 mentioned above, which one do you think is the better dev? I personally believe that Ensemble is better than Blizzard when it comes to RTS games. Look guys, I love Warcraft and StarCraft as much as the next guy, but I recently dug up my old copy of Age of Mythologies, and to be honest, that game is way better than WC3. In fact its better than all of Blizzard's RTS games. It just feels a lot better. The units are perfect, the graphics are magnificent, the heroes are perfect. I don't like the over-emphasis on heroes in WC3. In AoM Heroes are better than your regular units but they arent the Uber ZOMG characters like in WC3. What do you guys think? Which dev company is better in your eyes when it comes to RTSes?RTS: Who is better? Ensemble or Blizzard?
Blizzard for SURE. I still pop in Starcraft and Warcraft 3 and play them to this day. The perfect symmetry between all the races, the unending amount of customization, the engaging plot and cinematics, NOBODY can beat Blizzard.RTS: Who is better? Ensemble or Blizzard?
Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...
[QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x
i find Ensemble's titles to be deeper. Age of Mythology was fantastic, yea.
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever.
Although I probably like Ensemble better personally I feel that blizzard is a better developer of RTS due to the great map editors/pro scene that has come with their RTS games
[QUOTE=''Toriko42''][QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever. [/QUOTE]
I don't even understand how you can like WC3 more than AoM. WC3 heroes play too large a role. AoM Heroes suppliment an army, WC3 heroes overshadow an army. Plus god powers are so freaking awesome and tactical! And I like how the camera is zoomed out more in AoM so the battles have a greater sense of scale than in WC3. AoM has so much more versitility. You have 4 races to chose from which all play differently. Each of the races has a choice of 3 major gods, and each major god has a choice 6 minor gods (you can only pick 3 while playing). This adds great depth to the game and can drastically change the way a person plays mid game. And then there are the Titans who just WTFPWN everything in WC3 :D
Blizzard is the greatest game producer ever... No RTS will ever come close to the awesomeness of WC3.
[QUOTE=''Helbrec'']Blizzard is the greatest game producer ever... No RTS will ever come close to the awesomeness of WC3.[/QUOTE]
im afraid to play WC3 online. Im afraid I'll get murdered and be called a noob :x I need to practice some more offline before I can get online.
Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
Blizzard.
[QUOTE=''Gozuroo'']Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
[/QUOTE] Exactly. I foud AoM easier to play (i.e. to get into,not game difficulty)
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE] Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE]Age of mythology is the only RTS I've ever liked! Btw I saw some Koreans in person play Starcraft, they tap like 1000 buttons.
[QUOTE=''Gozuroo'']Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
[/QUOTE] The ignorance is overwhelming. Any game if taken seriously enough can become number crunchers. And AoE is not any harder or more complex than SC.
Blizzard. I enjoyed AoE2 and AoM, but Blizzard are my 3rd favourite developer of all time, behind Relic and CA.
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42''][QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''] Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever. [/QUOTE] I don't even understand how you can like WC3 more than AoM. WC3 heroes play too large a role. AoM Heroes suppliment an army, WC3 heroes overshadow an army. Plus god powers are so freaking awesome and tactical! And I like how the camera is zoomed out more in AoM so the battles have a greater sense of scale than in WC3. AoM has so much more versitility. You have 4 races to chose from which all play differently. Each of the races has a choice of 3 major gods, and each major god has a choice 6 minor gods (you can only pick 3 while playing). This adds great depth to the game and can drastically change the way a person plays mid game. And then there are the Titans who just WTFPWN everything in WC3 :D[/QUOTE]If you are going to dispute everyone that disagrees with you, why even bother having the poll. This should have been kept as a blog instead.... Sheesh.
Blizzard all the way:DLove Warcraft and Starcraft!
Blizzard is good with RTS but i can't help but think of diablo whenever i think of blizzard. I was never able to get into starcraft even though i tried multiple times but really enjoyed WC3. On the other hand i played AOE 1 and 2 to death when i was younger and then later down the line AOM. Simply because i had more fun and felt like the Age of Series were alot more epic in scale and felt a bigger progression when building a base. With WC3 and SC i never felt there was a chance for a defensive option. This is one of the reasons i probably havent been able to get into Company of Heroes although i think it is a fantastic game and will evetually try to play it is not the RTS i grew up with.
Wow, i thought for sure someone would have said this already, so let me be the first....
Neither. Relic owns them both.black heads
Blizzard for SURE. I still pop in Starcraft and Warcraft 3 and play them to this day. The perfect symmetry between all the races, the unending amount of customization, the engaging plot and cinematics, NOBODY can beat Blizzard.RTS: Who is better? Ensemble or Blizzard?
Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...
[QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x
i find Ensemble's titles to be deeper. Age of Mythology was fantastic, yea.
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever.
Although I probably like Ensemble better personally I feel that blizzard is a better developer of RTS due to the great map editors/pro scene that has come with their RTS games
[QUOTE=''Toriko42''][QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft
Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE]
Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever. [/QUOTE]
I don't even understand how you can like WC3 more than AoM. WC3 heroes play too large a role. AoM Heroes suppliment an army, WC3 heroes overshadow an army. Plus god powers are so freaking awesome and tactical! And I like how the camera is zoomed out more in AoM so the battles have a greater sense of scale than in WC3. AoM has so much more versitility. You have 4 races to chose from which all play differently. Each of the races has a choice of 3 major gods, and each major god has a choice 6 minor gods (you can only pick 3 while playing). This adds great depth to the game and can drastically change the way a person plays mid game. And then there are the Titans who just WTFPWN everything in WC3 :D
Blizzard is the greatest game producer ever... No RTS will ever come close to the awesomeness of WC3.
[QUOTE=''Helbrec'']Blizzard is the greatest game producer ever... No RTS will ever come close to the awesomeness of WC3.[/QUOTE]
im afraid to play WC3 online. Im afraid I'll get murdered and be called a noob :x I need to practice some more offline before I can get online.
Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
Blizzard.
[QUOTE=''Gozuroo'']Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
[/QUOTE] Exactly. I foud AoM easier to play (i.e. to get into,not game difficulty)
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42'']Why do you compare the creators of Age of Empires to Starcraft and Warcraft Two awesome games, one is a lot better though...[/QUOTE] Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE]Age of mythology is the only RTS I've ever liked! Btw I saw some Koreans in person play Starcraft, they tap like 1000 buttons.
[QUOTE=''Gozuroo'']Like most blizzard games, wc3 and starcraft are number crunchers - get the build orders, counters and numbers into your head you are fine. Not too complex a game either of them.
Age of empires of the other hand required alot more effeort to pull a good battleplan together.
[/QUOTE] The ignorance is overwhelming. Any game if taken seriously enough can become number crunchers. And AoE is not any harder or more complex than SC.
Blizzard. I enjoyed AoE2 and AoM, but Blizzard are my 3rd favourite developer of all time, behind Relic and CA.
[QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''][QUOTE=''Toriko42''][QUOTE=''II_Seraphim_II''] Age of Mythology > Every RTS by blizzard! :x[/QUOTE] No weii, Warcraft 3 is the best RTS ever. [/QUOTE] I don't even understand how you can like WC3 more than AoM. WC3 heroes play too large a role. AoM Heroes suppliment an army, WC3 heroes overshadow an army. Plus god powers are so freaking awesome and tactical! And I like how the camera is zoomed out more in AoM so the battles have a greater sense of scale than in WC3. AoM has so much more versitility. You have 4 races to chose from which all play differently. Each of the races has a choice of 3 major gods, and each major god has a choice 6 minor gods (you can only pick 3 while playing). This adds great depth to the game and can drastically change the way a person plays mid game. And then there are the Titans who just WTFPWN everything in WC3 :D[/QUOTE]If you are going to dispute everyone that disagrees with you, why even bother having the poll. This should have been kept as a blog instead.... Sheesh.
Blizzard all the way:DLove Warcraft and Starcraft!
Blizzard is good with RTS but i can't help but think of diablo whenever i think of blizzard. I was never able to get into starcraft even though i tried multiple times but really enjoyed WC3. On the other hand i played AOE 1 and 2 to death when i was younger and then later down the line AOM. Simply because i had more fun and felt like the Age of Series were alot more epic in scale and felt a bigger progression when building a base. With WC3 and SC i never felt there was a chance for a defensive option. This is one of the reasons i probably havent been able to get into Company of Heroes although i think it is a fantastic game and will evetually try to play it is not the RTS i grew up with.
Wow, i thought for sure someone would have said this already, so let me be the first....
Neither. Relic owns them both.
Got Morrowind Today
it's not a bad game but just started. big game but lol i can see why it gives you heaps of game play hoursGot Morrowind Today
It is humongous! I never really got into it because i went to Morrowind from Oblivion (Big mistake BTW). Real eyesore compared to oblivion, and i miss the ''If you see it hit the monster, it did hit the monster'' combat system. Morrowind's world though is WAY better than Oblivion. Got Morrowind Today
[QUOTE=''iki080'']it's not a bad game but just started. big game but lol i can see why it gives you heaps of game play hours[/QUOTE]It can take a while to get into.Its fun becoming powerful enough to slaughter whole cities.I remember doing that well, but sadly my bounty was so high that I couldn't go into cities anymore :P
Just get over the huge learning curve and overwhelming sense of ''too much'', and youll be hooked. Best RPG ever imo.
One of my all-time favorite RPG's.
Oh man I love Morrowind. Me and my buddys use to sit up until like 2 or 3 in the morning seeing who could slaughter Seyda Neen the quickest or who could steal all the glass armor and get away from the city.I love that game.Dwemer runes are the best :D
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Morrowind is a great game, Im into Oblivion though at the moment.
[QUOTE=''iki080'']it's not a bad game but just started. big game but lol i can see why it gives you heaps of game play hours[/QUOTE]
I estimated the map size compared to Oblivion and I think Morrowind is more the 4x the sizeof Oblivion.
PLUS....although the graphics technically are better in Oblivion, the creativity of the graphics are better in Morrowind. In Oblivion every region looks exactly the same.
Great game, and there are several mods that make it look a LOT better.
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']Just get over the huge learning curve and overwhelming sense of ''too much'', and youll be hooked. Best RPG ever imo.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. Morrowind is a very easy game to get lost in, in terms of immersion that is. Exploring in that game is so much fun. One of the few RPGs I've put 100+ hours in, and I'm afraid to go into half of the game's dungeons. Sadly, I haven't touched Tribunal or Blood Moon yet either.
It is humongous! I never really got into it because i went to Morrowind from Oblivion (Big mistake BTW). Real eyesore compared to oblivion, and i miss the ''If you see it hit the monster, it did hit the monster'' combat system. Morrowind's world though is WAY better than Oblivion. Got Morrowind Today
[QUOTE=''iki080'']it's not a bad game but just started. big game but lol i can see why it gives you heaps of game play hours[/QUOTE]It can take a while to get into.Its fun becoming powerful enough to slaughter whole cities.I remember doing that well, but sadly my bounty was so high that I couldn't go into cities anymore :P
Just get over the huge learning curve and overwhelming sense of ''too much'', and youll be hooked. Best RPG ever imo.
One of my all-time favorite RPG's.
Oh man I love Morrowind. Me and my buddys use to sit up until like 2 or 3 in the morning seeing who could slaughter Seyda Neen the quickest or who could steal all the glass armor and get away from the city.I love that game.Dwemer runes are the best :D
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Morrowind is a great game, Im into Oblivion though at the moment.
[QUOTE=''iki080'']it's not a bad game but just started. big game but lol i can see why it gives you heaps of game play hours[/QUOTE]
I estimated the map size compared to Oblivion and I think Morrowind is more the 4x the sizeof Oblivion.
PLUS....although the graphics technically are better in Oblivion, the creativity of the graphics are better in Morrowind. In Oblivion every region looks exactly the same.
Great game, and there are several mods that make it look a LOT better.
[QUOTE=''TheCrazed420'']Just get over the huge learning curve and overwhelming sense of ''too much'', and youll be hooked. Best RPG ever imo.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. Morrowind is a very easy game to get lost in, in terms of immersion that is. Exploring in that game is so much fun. One of the few RPGs I've put 100+ hours in, and I'm afraid to go into half of the game's dungeons. Sadly, I haven't touched Tribunal or Blood Moon yet either.
What can you tell me about Jade Empire?
Topic , is it any good whats ur opinion of it?What can you tell me about Jade Empire?
i wasnt a big fan if it to be honest. it wasnt terrible...it was just a bit meh. not up to biowares usual high standards imho.
the idea was great but the execution was just lacking imho. when i think of it, it feels like the guys at bioware did loads and loads of research into chinese culture, history and mythology for years and then 6 months before release...they realised they actually had to make a game.
if ure a fan of bioware games and have all there other ones then pick it up. but id recommend picking up KOTOR, ME and their older games like baldurs gate if u dont have them before id pick up jade empire.What can you tell me about Jade Empire?
Same as above...not as good as other Bioware games....but still a must play
The game bases its combat around an arcade punch-as-quickly-as-possible until-enemy-health-is-naught system which is not appealing for an RPG...if anything it's one of those DREADED hybrids (in this case an action fighter roleplayer). The world is quite bland, with invisible walls or just walls in quite a lot of places. I couldn't take the game seriously and stopped playing quite early on (I roast myself for stopping to play RPGs after only a few hours in because almost 99% of RPGs are late starters where the story and nuts really kick in half way through) but this game is just beyond my patience. There is a hint and perhaps great scope for an expansive story so that might be a drive, but anything in between (the action, gritty stuff) is lacking. Having completed both Kotors numerous times and beat the Witcher...numerous times, I sometimes try to bring myself back to try the game again, but sadly after a mere couple of minutes of play I'm bored sadly. My honest opinion would be yes, take it (not necessarily buying it because it could prove to be a waste of money). If you find it in a bargain bin for mere pennies then absolutely. I just cannot bring myself to recommend it, it lacks the spark that Kotor and The Witcher (modernish RPGs) have.
[QUOTE=''xAngels_Assasin'']Topic , is it any good whats ur opinion of it?[/QUOTE]Unlike others that have posted, I loved it. If you enjoy a good story, kung-fu and a magical, ancient Chinese setting, I definitely recommend Jade Empire. I agree that the combat is kind of silly. It's fun to watch. And it's fun to whip out crazy martial-arts/magic moves on opponents to a point...but honestly, there's not really much strategy in the game's combat. You pretty much just end up clicking frantically to eliminate the bad people (and spirits). Still, if you can live with the combat and if you have played and enjoyed KotoR, then you should enjoy Jade Empire.
A quick breakdown as I saw the game.The plus:
Quite good.
I enjoyed the music, story, writing, and art a lot. But like with every single Bioware game, the gameplay itself was very shallow. In KOTOR, you can beat the game by just mashing Flurry over and over (I'm not kidding, I did this). In Jade Empire, enemies are all fodder, there's no challenge. This is why I think Bioware needs to get out of the game industry and start writing books or making movies. They don't make good games.
i couldnt like it... its just boring imo...i started 2-3 times and couldnt even pass 1/10 part of the game... and its not something like rpg, its really not
I enjoyed the game alot. Try it out, after all it's a bioware game what can go wrong?
Story - Ok, Characters - Ok, World/Exploration/locations - above average
What made the game a tad bit unenjoyable was the fact that the combat was very simple and repetitive - just block and attack
I found the game to be pretty enjoyable. Not as good as IGN says (9.9), but it's definitely great.
lol ign says 9.9?
anyway unlike kotor games its not that good and the map? what map you can go between a city and a village... there some other paths there that lead the story overall apart form character creation everything else is linear, mass effect is much more.
What i liked in the game was the action gameplay control the chi and the moves.. and some characters you could creat... there are some magic fighting styles, very cool such as stone arms and legs, or throwing fireballs from your hands... epic music
the bad? short linear.. not much of replay.. linear..ehmm linear( you get the point) id say about an 8 max... but if you gave fable a 9 i think this game will get either an 8.5 a 9 or a 10 from you :)
i wasnt a big fan if it to be honest. it wasnt terrible...it was just a bit meh. not up to biowares usual high standards imho.
the idea was great but the execution was just lacking imho. when i think of it, it feels like the guys at bioware did loads and loads of research into chinese culture, history and mythology for years and then 6 months before release...they realised they actually had to make a game.
if ure a fan of bioware games and have all there other ones then pick it up. but id recommend picking up KOTOR, ME and their older games like baldurs gate if u dont have them before id pick up jade empire.What can you tell me about Jade Empire?
Same as above...not as good as other Bioware games....but still a must play
The game bases its combat around an arcade punch-as-quickly-as-possible until-enemy-health-is-naught system which is not appealing for an RPG...if anything it's one of those DREADED hybrids (in this case an action fighter roleplayer). The world is quite bland, with invisible walls or just walls in quite a lot of places. I couldn't take the game seriously and stopped playing quite early on (I roast myself for stopping to play RPGs after only a few hours in because almost 99% of RPGs are late starters where the story and nuts really kick in half way through) but this game is just beyond my patience. There is a hint and perhaps great scope for an expansive story so that might be a drive, but anything in between (the action, gritty stuff) is lacking. Having completed both Kotors numerous times and beat the Witcher...numerous times, I sometimes try to bring myself back to try the game again, but sadly after a mere couple of minutes of play I'm bored sadly. My honest opinion would be yes, take it (not necessarily buying it because it could prove to be a waste of money). If you find it in a bargain bin for mere pennies then absolutely. I just cannot bring myself to recommend it, it lacks the spark that Kotor and The Witcher (modernish RPGs) have.
[QUOTE=''xAngels_Assasin'']Topic , is it any good whats ur opinion of it?[/QUOTE]Unlike others that have posted, I loved it. If you enjoy a good story, kung-fu and a magical, ancient Chinese setting, I definitely recommend Jade Empire. I agree that the combat is kind of silly. It's fun to watch. And it's fun to whip out crazy martial-arts/magic moves on opponents to a point...but honestly, there's not really much strategy in the game's combat. You pretty much just end up clicking frantically to eliminate the bad people (and spirits). Still, if you can live with the combat and if you have played and enjoyed KotoR, then you should enjoy Jade Empire.
A quick breakdown as I saw the game.The plus:
- Graphics are solid enough to help create a believable world.
- Chinese lore and setting are a great change of pace from the usual western RPG.
- Martial arts combat is right out the the movies.
- 3 romance possiblities
- Decent story
- There is a reason those martial arts movies are not combat from beginning to end. It gets boring after awhile.
- 2 of the romance characters are stereotypes and shallow.
- The game's console roots are showing.
- The whole experience feels shallow.
Quite good.
I enjoyed the music, story, writing, and art a lot. But like with every single Bioware game, the gameplay itself was very shallow. In KOTOR, you can beat the game by just mashing Flurry over and over (I'm not kidding, I did this). In Jade Empire, enemies are all fodder, there's no challenge. This is why I think Bioware needs to get out of the game industry and start writing books or making movies. They don't make good games.
i couldnt like it... its just boring imo...i started 2-3 times and couldnt even pass 1/10 part of the game... and its not something like rpg, its really not
I enjoyed the game alot. Try it out, after all it's a bioware game what can go wrong?
Story - Ok, Characters - Ok, World/Exploration/locations - above average
What made the game a tad bit unenjoyable was the fact that the combat was very simple and repetitive - just block and attack
I found the game to be pretty enjoyable. Not as good as IGN says (9.9), but it's definitely great.
lol ign says 9.9?
anyway unlike kotor games its not that good and the map? what map you can go between a city and a village... there some other paths there that lead the story overall apart form character creation everything else is linear, mass effect is much more.
What i liked in the game was the action gameplay control the chi and the moves.. and some characters you could creat... there are some magic fighting styles, very cool such as stone arms and legs, or throwing fireballs from your hands... epic music
the bad? short linear.. not much of replay.. linear..ehmm linear( you get the point) id say about an 8 max... but if you gave fable a 9 i think this game will get either an 8.5 a 9 or a 10 from you :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)