Jump to content

echo1

Member
  • Content Count

    4291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by echo1


  1. I'm not completely up to date with Intel's latest i3/i5 chips, last I checked for a cheap decent CPU was AMD's Athlon II X4 620 - a cheap yet fast quad core, lacking only the cache of the more expensive Phenom IIs.

    Graphics card - I think the HD5770 is the one to get if you want something decent on a budget.

    EDIT: Looking briefly at the Core i3s. There's some quite fast dual core variants in the same price region as the '620 mentioned above. Most games will probably benefit from a chip with higher clockspeed and less cache over two extra cores.


  2. The process varies depending on the motherboard. Your best bet is to find the manual for the motherboard (or for the system if it's a big brand computer) and find where the option is made.

    It is possible, although unlikely, that if you have a brand name system, that it could be impossible to turn it off. Some of the big companies impose rather retarded restrictions on what you can do with the BIOS. I doubt that this is the case though.


  3. Game stores over here enforce game ages. I agree that young children shouldn't be allowed near these games, but I don't think that it's necessary to leave it till 18... 16? 14? Chances are that if you can't play a video game by the age of 14 without turning into a psycho, you never will.


  4. Regardless of his pre-succeptability (meaning that anything could have conditioned and triggered him) it still gives a good arguement for anti-violent games activists. Fact is that the kid wouldn't have killed if he wasn't A) addicted to the video games (games as a drug) and B) Sleep deprived due to this addiction.

    The kid most likely would have found something later in life that lead him to trigger but the fact that it was game related gives the activists fuel.

    Yeah, but ultimately it's bullshit because he was likely to have killed his father for interrupting his stamp collecting...


  5. There is mostly no hatred in jokes, as you can talk jokes about Jews without hate towards them. Friend of mine dated black French girl. They use to mock each other all the time. He calls her a monkey and she calls him a chicken, white boy and they where always sharing racist jokes. But there is nothing more than hatred in “this who made this picture should be dead and his family should sufferâ€. And I like how you compare tragic accident in which 100 people died to Nazi death camps, or slaughtering of 200 children...

    This. This is the age of 4chan... you either grow a thick neck, or pull the ethernet cable out of the back of your computer asap...


  6. Publishers invest the millions into the franchise needed to develop the product.

    Publishers know how to make billions out of the franchise.

    Publishers are not interested in good games, but in products they can sell to as many people as possible. If that happens to be a turd of a game, then so be it.

    Without initial investors, these products for the masses wouldn't be made no matter how hard a developer tries, or how brilliant their ideas are. Developers need investors, not the other way around. If you have the money, you can always rent a different monkey to do the work for you if one doesn't do what you want. Investors make the industry possible, not the game developers, that hasn't worked for many years.

    A lot of the money that finances games comes from investment funds and groups that have no interest in games, but do have an interest in max profits.

    Right now, a game that sells well over a million copies (OFP) wouldn't be possible for a new developer without a major sugardaddy publisher (investment group). If it's a complicated game that costs millions of dollars to develop like the CoD franchise, it doesn't matter who the developers are, even if they were the most renowned developers in the world. Even if they managed to produce the best game ever, the David of gaming history, it would fail, simply because it would get lost in the swamp due to lack of funds for marketing.

    No publisher = no financing for development, no worldwide marketing on all types of media, no game.

    Or to put it the simplest way possible:

    No publisher, no game.

    These two developers have left a major publisher because they couldn't accept that whoever pays gets to decide what happens, and returned to the major publisher that they left because they couldn't accept that whoever pays gets to decide what happens. They should accept how the industry juggernauts work and stop whining, or go do something else, something that no one will interfere with, like woodcarving, painting or another form of art if they want to impress people with their artistic abilities that badly.

    I cite a certain "unofficial" sequel to our mutually beloved gaming franchise as a fine example of the good publishers do the development of games.

    It's like the record industry. They existed in the day when the distribution and marketing of their respective product cost too much and involved specialized equipment that made it simple impossible for an individual to put their stuff out there into the market. These days the internet has destroyed this. Look at OFP/ArmA. How much marketing was sunk into it? Are there gajillions of copies of it in every store? No, yet here we all are...

    The simple fact is that when a game sells for $50 in a store, the developer gets about $1-2 of that. You can do the math here - If someone self-publishes and sells only 1/20 of the copies that he would have under a publisher, he still makes an awful lot more money... Software publishers, like record companies are a malignancy that live off both the producer and the consumer. The producer gets most of their potential revenue whisked away, and the consumer ends up with a product that is often vastly inferior because some douchebag with an MBA calls the shots on things he knows nothing about.

    I don't buy into the need for huge quantities of initial investment... look at the open source market. Granted that there has been huge investment into it recently, but there were definitely times before that... It goes to show what a determined individual with the right tools can knock up either by themselves or with their friends. Hell, just look at what people did to OFP when we were waiting for ArmA. I'm pretty much convinced that if the community had access to OFP's guts, we could have made ArmA ourselves.

    Besides, what is the point of all the millions that go into the games? Most of it seems to go into marketing, or making glitzy graphics, or hiring in Hollywood actors to do voice-overs. Really in the scheme of things it doesn't make the intrinsic game play any better, forces people to upgrade their hardware every year and creates a cycle whereby this is perpetuated. What's the point? It serves no-one but the publisher where the illusion is created that they are needed for success.


  7. our literature says about moral rules, about moral choices "how to be good human"

    2pack, 50cents are saying "fuck all, money is my god, kill cop, deal drugs"

    from my point of view such shit should be banned cause it gives wrong moral values to people,

    I can listen to 50c all day long without feeling the urge to kill cops or deal drugs, and so can 99% of people.

    If people identify with that sort of message, then it's already too late. Same with violent video games, films, porn whatever... You're either giving someone harmless fun, or you're preaching to the choir. No decent honest person ever played GTA and thought "Hey! I should kill someone!" People are a bit more sophisticated than that.

    Criminal behavior happens for many reasons that are long and complicated. Long and complicated is hard to market to the masses, so politicians create nice little rally points for people to get all angsty and proactive, but ultimately accomplish nothing. People singing about killing cops is the symptom, not the problem. When governments spend time and money trying to save people from 'immoral' media, they're kinda like the doctor who gives painkillers to their patient for the headaches caused by the fact they have a brain tumor, if you get me.

    Besides, all these folks tend to have all sorts of vested interests. Republicans protesting against that evil 'communist' health system? Surely that couldn't be to do with their financial backers being big insurance companies, right? Religious types? Sure they act like they are upholders of morality virtue, but really they want to have people live in fear of them like the good old days so that they can extort money and fuck little boys. Sometimes the good old days weren't really the good old days.


  8. Probably not, I expect it to be a 360 port.

    I don't see it coming to DS (best selling console platform) or even Wii (2nd best selling console platform).

    As far as I'm aware the Cryengine 3 is the PS3/X360 version of the engine, so while it will be available on PC, it is the console version.

    Much like Far Cry 2 or FEAR 2 was.

    If you see what I mean... a console game (based on a successful PC franchise) ported to the PC, rather than a PC game.

    Given that Far Cry and Crysis were both technology titles on the PC I don't feel that a console port can hold a lot of the attraction for me.

    And here I was hoping that they'd finally have something new to benchmark graphics cards with.


  9. It's too much freedom of information and not enough classified. Prior to everyone seeing on TV what was happening, prior to everyone learning about the effects of casualties of war, friendly fire, innocent bistanders, war was considered heroic.

    I've always stood against collateral damage. That's why I was happy when the Australian Airforce told the US forces during Afgan/Iraq that if there was any chance of civilian casulties that our hornets would not bomb the targets. Each pilot had a standing order to pull out if there was any chance of collateral damage to cilvilian life, and that pissed off the American commanders but they couldn't argue against it.

    But I'm going a little off topic, my point is that there is too much collateral damage and too much publicized collateral damage which as a result brought on outrage by the general public, and as such the media circus thought, "hooray, people are getting really pissed off, let's use that to smear the name of every person who serves and gain public approval, 'cause public approval sells papers"

    And it just keeps getting worse. One of my friends is a reporter who knows my stance on the military and he and I got into a heavy arguement one night about the merits of conflicts. In the end his stand was that no one should ever go to war for any reason and that the US and NATO forces should leave countries alone to their own merits.

    I said that if Australia was run by a dictator who constantly focused on greed and personal gains, if my friends family was killed in front of him, if he was put in jail and tortured, and if the US offered him assistance would he tell them to stay in their own country where they belong?

    He never did give me a straight answer.

    I think the publicizing wars probably does more good than harm - do you think that WW1 would have happened like it did if it was covered live on CNN? That's what happens when people get caught up in 'hero frenzy' - they think that their army is invisible and stand by, detached from reality, and send the boys off into messes like the Somme or Galipoli. Dulce et decorum, the old lie...

    War is ultimately a political matter. Politicians are elected by us, the ignorant masses, to make certain decisions on our behalf. We have a right to know what mess our votes have landed us. Obviously there's times when journalists get too eager and they damage the success of military operations, but that is something that has to be dealt with by itself.


  10. Before anyone goes praising Google for this PR stunt, the previous big news about Google and China was that Google agreed to censor its own search results for the Chinese government. Now Google is back at square one, not having done anything good but having done something morally questionable for 4 years.

    Realizing that you've done wrong and stopping is generally considered to be a good thing in Western civilization... Like what MadDogX said, you sound like the kind of guy who'd tell an alcoholic to drink himself to death for the sake of consistency.

×