Thursday, April 15, 2010
18 wheels of steel american haul
i cant seem to get the consolt to come up i edited the config. file but nothing happens
Somebody help me, fallout 3 wont work.
after installer it I got this ''xlive.dll was not found message'' so i downloaded ''xlive.dll'' and now I am getting this error message saying ''xlive.dll is not a valid windows image''. Does anyone know how i can fix this? or maybe were i can download the ''xlive.dll'' from fallout 3? i think the one i downloaded was for halo 2 or somethingSomebody help me, fallout 3 wont work.
According to Bethesda's PC FAQ you need to download this.makeup 2009
According to Bethesda's PC FAQ you need to download this.
Bully for PC has......
really high minimum specs?I expected it to be pretty low, I knew it was improved from the PS2 version but.... It just seems like too far of a jump. The graphics don't even match the specs. I could run much better looking ''Open Ended'' games on specs less than Bully's.Bully for PC has......
Ah, the usual lazy port. Even if they're busy preparing GTA IV for the pc doesn't mean they can just slap us with half assed port.Bully for PC has......
Is this game any good? I have been thinking about purchasing it but of course never do.
What are the specs? Post them.
Hi,I'm not sure about the specs but dude, this game is not even worth the 30$$ their asking for it. The game is terrible port, the controls are twitchy, the camera movement is clunky, graphics are really poor(to be expected), but the most annoying thing about the game is the same 3 or 4 sound effects looped over and over and over again where ever you go.
Think of it having PS2 graphics with horrible optimization, 360 bugs, and tacked on controls.
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Special Controllers : Xbox 360 controller compatible Hard Drive Space : 4.7 GB of hard drive disc space Operating System : Windows XP/Windows Vista Processor : Intel Pentium 4 (3+ GHZ) %26bull; AMD Athlon 3000 RAM : 1 GB RAM Video Card : DirectX 9.0c Shader 3.0 supported %26bull; Nvidia 6800 or 7300 or better %26bull; ATI Radeon X1 300 or better
I think they ported the 360 version (worst of the bunch) to PC.
Ah, the usual lazy port. Even if they're busy preparing GTA IV for the pc doesn't mean they can just slap us with half assed port.Bully for PC has......
Is this game any good? I have been thinking about purchasing it but of course never do.
What are the specs? Post them.
Hi,I'm not sure about the specs but dude, this game is not even worth the 30$$ their asking for it. The game is terrible port, the controls are twitchy, the camera movement is clunky, graphics are really poor(to be expected), but the most annoying thing about the game is the same 3 or 4 sound effects looped over and over and over again where ever you go.
Think of it having PS2 graphics with horrible optimization, 360 bugs, and tacked on controls.
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Special Controllers : Xbox 360 controller compatible Hard Drive Space : 4.7 GB of hard drive disc space Operating System : Windows XP/Windows Vista Processor : Intel Pentium 4 (3+ GHZ) %26bull; AMD Athlon 3000 RAM : 1 GB RAM Video Card : DirectX 9.0c Shader 3.0 supported %26bull; Nvidia 6800 or 7300 or better %26bull; ATI Radeon X1 300 or better
I think they ported the 360 version (worst of the bunch) to PC.
Fallout 2 need help.
I am currently on the 3rd floor in the sirrea army depot.I need Clifton's eye to reach floor 4 but I can not find the eye. I heard it was somewhere in the NE cornor but still cannot find it. Can someone help me out a little?
Kickin' It Old Skool
Hey Guys, here's a quick question that no one can seem to answer for me yet.How do I get Nickelodeon 3D Movie Maker running on Windows XP?I've been trying to relive the old days by reinstalling Nick 3D, but it seems to be having troubles running on my laptop.I've tried a few of the compatibility settings, but it still crashes whenever I try to load a new movie. Says I'm low on memory or HDD space, which can't be right since my laptop far exceeds the system requirements.Is there a patch which I need to download, or do I just admit defeat to technology and forget reliving those good ol movie making days....Any help would be super....
Fallout 1 vs. Fallout 2
Having never played either of these games yet, i'm wondering which one is better, and which one i should get?Its odd that i havent played them yet since i've played all the other old school black isle RPG's. and since i dont think my PC can handle fallout 3, any reccomendations on which one of the originals is better would be sweet! Fallout 1 vs. Fallout 2
Get both, but Fallout 2 is IMO better. Crap first level though, don't judge the game based on it!Fallout 1 vs. Fallout 2
Yeah its interesting how brutally hard the oldschool rpgs were like fallout 1+2 and baldur's Gate 1+2 compared to today's rpgs.
Just have in mind that is a turn based combat system on both.I enjoyed both, but the 2nd one is pretty impressive
I prefer the first one. They're both extremely good, but the second one starts incredibly slow.
Fallout 1 is currently free on GameTap, so definately just give it a try.
Fallout 2 is the better of the two games. The original Fallout was great, but they stuck a pretty severe time constraint on you which really prevented you from going off the main storyline and exploring too much.
[QUOTE=''bogaty'']Fallout 2 is the better of the two games. The original Fallout was great, but they stuck a pretty severe time constraint on you which really prevented you from going off the main storyline and exploring too much. [/QUOTE] This was fixed really.And their really wasen't much to explore if you ask me. The game gave you 500 days which was more then enough. the patch buffed it to 13 years.
Free on gametap? Nice to know. Ima go try it out now. Thanks
You should get both and play them in order.
And I'd definitely get the GOG version of Fallout 1 even though it's free on GameTap.
I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked....
I love both. They are great.
[QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE]
But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem.
Both great games...but choosing...i say FO2
fallout 2
[QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem. [/QUOTE]
A simple resolution fix can do wonders to Fallout.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem. [/QUOTE] A simple resolution fix can do wonders to Fallout.[/QUOTE] I never cared for the res. patch I play the game it was sussposed to be played. I only think about mods after I beat a game.
Are Fallout 1 and 2 connected? Like plot-wise? Would it be neccessary to play the first one before the second one?
Get both, but Fallout 2 is IMO better. Crap first level though, don't judge the game based on it!Fallout 1 vs. Fallout 2
Yeah its interesting how brutally hard the oldschool rpgs were like fallout 1+2 and baldur's Gate 1+2 compared to today's rpgs.
Just have in mind that is a turn based combat system on both.I enjoyed both, but the 2nd one is pretty impressive
I prefer the first one. They're both extremely good, but the second one starts incredibly slow.
Fallout 1 is currently free on GameTap, so definately just give it a try.
Fallout 2 is the better of the two games. The original Fallout was great, but they stuck a pretty severe time constraint on you which really prevented you from going off the main storyline and exploring too much.
[QUOTE=''bogaty'']Fallout 2 is the better of the two games. The original Fallout was great, but they stuck a pretty severe time constraint on you which really prevented you from going off the main storyline and exploring too much. [/QUOTE] This was fixed really.And their really wasen't much to explore if you ask me. The game gave you 500 days which was more then enough. the patch buffed it to 13 years.
Free on gametap? Nice to know. Ima go try it out now. Thanks
You should get both and play them in order.
And I'd definitely get the GOG version of Fallout 1 even though it's free on GameTap.
I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2
[QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked....
I love both. They are great.
[QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE]
But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem.
Both great games...but choosing...i say FO2
fallout 2
[QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem. [/QUOTE]
A simple resolution fix can do wonders to Fallout.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''JangoWuzHere''][QUOTE=''Darth_Kane'']I think they're BOTH free on gametap, so get them both, but I prefered Fallout 2[/QUOTE] only the first one is free I have checked.... [/QUOTE] But GameTap has two major issues: it doesn't support 64-bit Vista and it doesn't allow mods.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with anything? I know it dosen't allow mods but I never really played Fallout for the mods to begin with. Also the I think theirs a fix for the 64 bit problem. [/QUOTE] A simple resolution fix can do wonders to Fallout.[/QUOTE] I never cared for the res. patch I play the game it was sussposed to be played. I only think about mods after I beat a game.
Are Fallout 1 and 2 connected? Like plot-wise? Would it be neccessary to play the first one before the second one?
Fallout 3 Or Far Cry 2 ?
which game should i get first Fallout 3 Or Far Cry 2 ?
fallout 3. far cry 2 is great but F3 i hear is better. there's also about a hundred of these threads.Fallout 3 Or Far Cry 2 ?
id get fallout 3 far cry 2 is just another shooter imo
Far Cry 2. Incredible game.
I have both, and for me Fallout 3 has been more enjoyable, but that's mostly because of it's RPG nature and the ability to address missions in ways other than shooting. However, the gunplay in Far Cry 2 is much better and it is certainly an excellent game as well. Basically, get Fallout 3 if you want an RPG with light shooter elements and Far Cry 2 if you want a shooter with light RPG elements. Both are good choices.
[QUOTE=''NSR34GTR'']id get fallout 3 far cry 2 is just another shooter imo[/QUOTE]Exactly my thoughts.
Both are good games but if i had to choose between the two it would be FC2..
As others have said, it depends on what type of games you like. Fallout 3 is an outstanding RPG, if you like RPG's it's a must. If you prefer shooters, Far cry 2 is probably more to your taste.Personally I think F3 is a much better game, but I did play and enjoy FC2 a lot.
Fallout 3 has more to offer in my opinion, but Far Cry 2 is never the less a really good game.I'd go for Fallout 3; assuming you like RPG elements as well as FPS.
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']Far Cry 2. Incredible game.[/QUOTE]samefallout 3 must be good but i cant get enough of far cry 2freaking awesome
I'm a FPS junkie, but fallout 3 is still much better.
I have both and fallout 3 is awsome. Farcry is alright but the travel time really gurts the game. Its hard to ever get in to. I really suggest fallout 3.
I got both. My vote goes to Fallout 3.
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Both are good games but if i had to choose between the two it would be FC2..[/QUOTE]ditto
i stopped p[laying far cry 2 as soon as i started up fallout 3...go visit the wasteland.
Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 IMO, ive played a few hours of Far Cry 2 and I just cant get into it. I pick it up but just dont play. :
|Far Cry 2 is disappointingly shallow. Definitely go for Fallout 3.
I'm surprised so many people have played both for long enough to say which one's better, they've only been out for about a week :O
[QUOTE=''F1_2004'']I'm surprised so many people have played both for long enough to say which one's better, they've only been out for about a week :O[/QUOTE] An hour or two is long enough to see how shallow Far Cry 2 is.
fallout 3. far cry 2 is great but F3 i hear is better. there's also about a hundred of these threads.Fallout 3 Or Far Cry 2 ?
id get fallout 3 far cry 2 is just another shooter imo
Far Cry 2. Incredible game.
I have both, and for me Fallout 3 has been more enjoyable, but that's mostly because of it's RPG nature and the ability to address missions in ways other than shooting. However, the gunplay in Far Cry 2 is much better and it is certainly an excellent game as well. Basically, get Fallout 3 if you want an RPG with light shooter elements and Far Cry 2 if you want a shooter with light RPG elements. Both are good choices.
[QUOTE=''NSR34GTR'']id get fallout 3 far cry 2 is just another shooter imo[/QUOTE]Exactly my thoughts.
Both are good games but if i had to choose between the two it would be FC2..
As others have said, it depends on what type of games you like. Fallout 3 is an outstanding RPG, if you like RPG's it's a must. If you prefer shooters, Far cry 2 is probably more to your taste.Personally I think F3 is a much better game, but I did play and enjoy FC2 a lot.
Fallout 3 has more to offer in my opinion, but Far Cry 2 is never the less a really good game.I'd go for Fallout 3; assuming you like RPG elements as well as FPS.
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']Far Cry 2. Incredible game.[/QUOTE]samefallout 3 must be good but i cant get enough of far cry 2freaking awesome
I'm a FPS junkie, but fallout 3 is still much better.
I have both and fallout 3 is awsome. Farcry is alright but the travel time really gurts the game. Its hard to ever get in to. I really suggest fallout 3.
I got both. My vote goes to Fallout 3.
[QUOTE=''Tapout_076'']Both are good games but if i had to choose between the two it would be FC2..[/QUOTE]ditto
i stopped p[laying far cry 2 as soon as i started up fallout 3...go visit the wasteland.
Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 IMO, ive played a few hours of Far Cry 2 and I just cant get into it. I pick it up but just dont play. :
|Far Cry 2 is disappointingly shallow. Definitely go for Fallout 3.
I'm surprised so many people have played both for long enough to say which one's better, they've only been out for about a week :O
[QUOTE=''F1_2004'']I'm surprised so many people have played both for long enough to say which one's better, they've only been out for about a week :O[/QUOTE] An hour or two is long enough to see how shallow Far Cry 2 is.
Tombraider underworld demo
http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/underworld/demo.htmlTombraider underworld demo
[QUOTE=''sandeep410'']http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/underworld/demo.html[/QUOTE] What did you think of the demo? I was discussing it with people in the Official Tomb Raider Underworld Thread. Tombraider underworld demo
graphics got improved but the gameplay is same like previous
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser''][QUOTE=''sandeep410'']http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/underworld/demo.html[/QUOTE] What did you think of the demo? I was discussing it with people in the Official Tomb Raider Underworld Thread. [/QUOTE]Just started downloading itmakeup 2009
[QUOTE=''sandeep410'']http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/underworld/demo.html[/QUOTE] What did you think of the demo? I was discussing it with people in the Official Tomb Raider Underworld Thread. Tombraider underworld demo
graphics got improved but the gameplay is same like previous
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser''][QUOTE=''sandeep410'']http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/underworld/demo.html[/QUOTE] What did you think of the demo? I was discussing it with people in the Official Tomb Raider Underworld Thread. [/QUOTE]Just started downloading it
Company of Heroes ?
i was thinking of getting this game. should i get the expansion or the original? you don't need the original to run the expansion is that right?Company of Heroes ?
Yes is stand alone . Expansion gives you Panzer Elite and Brits , original Wermaht and USA.Company of Heroes ?
Opposing Fronts is standalone.However, you can get them both (in one package) with the Company of Heroes: Gold Edition.
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007''] Opposing Fronts is standalone.However, you can get them both (in one package) with the Company of Heroes: Gold Edition. [/QUOTE]Buy this.
so i guess you guys reccomend it then :)
Oh, definately; it's brilliant.
get both... awesome game
Ya its a good game..it was a little rough on my system but it was still fun. I am planning on playing the expansion soon.
Great game, especially online.
If you get the Exspansion and the Original would you have to download all them patches including the Mammoth 1.7Gb patch?
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Just install the Opposing Fronts disc and go from there...less patches. than you make an account then enter the original COH games serial in account settings to use all armies.
Hmmmm ok ill see if i can find it btw for Online you just standard broandband right to play online?
Yes mate. Oh and i recommend at least 3GB ram to run it...seriously.
^I have 2gb and vista and I get minimum 30FPS in 8 player games and never stutter..
great game mate i have it too
Best RTS imo (In addition to Warcraft/starcraft series)
Yes is stand alone . Expansion gives you Panzer Elite and Brits , original Wermaht and USA.Company of Heroes ?
Opposing Fronts is standalone.However, you can get them both (in one package) with the Company of Heroes: Gold Edition.
[QUOTE=''aliblabla2007''] Opposing Fronts is standalone.However, you can get them both (in one package) with the Company of Heroes: Gold Edition. [/QUOTE]Buy this.
so i guess you guys reccomend it then :)
Oh, definately; it's brilliant.
get both... awesome game
Ya its a good game..it was a little rough on my system but it was still fun. I am planning on playing the expansion soon.
Great game, especially online.
If you get the Exspansion and the Original would you have to download all them patches including the Mammoth 1.7Gb patch?
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Just install the Opposing Fronts disc and go from there...less patches. than you make an account then enter the original COH games serial in account settings to use all armies.
Hmmmm ok ill see if i can find it btw for Online you just standard broandband right to play online?
Yes mate. Oh and i recommend at least 3GB ram to run it...seriously.
^I have 2gb and vista and I get minimum 30FPS in 8 player games and never stutter..
great game mate i have it too
Best RTS imo (In addition to Warcraft/starcraft series)
euro 2008!!!!!
i have no dvd player for my pc,i copied euro 2008 pc game in pendriveand installed it fully...but while running the game after cracking ,my pc is prompting to put dvd and play the game.how can i overcome this problem?????euro 2008!!!!!
the problem is that games from EA request a CD/DVD in your drive, try to copy the entier game to your HDD and try again, if not, go to the shop and buy a DVD driver, they don0t really cost that mucheuro 2008!!!!!
are u sure u cracked it properly?
the problem is that games from EA request a CD/DVD in your drive, try to copy the entier game to your HDD and try again, if not, go to the shop and buy a DVD driver, they don0t really cost that mucheuro 2008!!!!!
are u sure u cracked it properly?
Games for Windows-Live 2.0
What do you think about the new fall update coming to Games for Windows-Live?
In case you don't know, back when LIVE went free they annouced they were going to redo the interface. They are also going to make it so you can start up LIVE outside the game and add a marketplace. Personally I think they should of done all this from the start. Here is what the fall update looks like so far:![]()
Your thoughts? Games for Windows-Live 2.0
It looks alot nicer than the current one and it suits windows more, its gunna be handy having a client outside of the game to use as well as the marketplace. Games for Windows-Live 2.0
Good ol' Microsoft, needing a bunch of updates to get the basics right since 1999.
Maybe they are starting to learn what works on consoles won't necessarily work on PC, maybe.
In case you don't know, back when LIVE went free they annouced they were going to redo the interface. They are also going to make it so you can start up LIVE outside the game and add a marketplace. Personally I think they should of done all this from the start. Here is what the fall update looks like so far:
Your thoughts? Games for Windows-Live 2.0
It looks alot nicer than the current one and it suits windows more, its gunna be handy having a client outside of the game to use as well as the marketplace. Games for Windows-Live 2.0
Good ol' Microsoft, needing a bunch of updates to get the basics right since 1999.
Maybe they are starting to learn what works on consoles won't necessarily work on PC, maybe.
mmorpg...see and help me =D!
Hi all!I'm bored :/...I love play, pricipally MMORPG's and RPG's but now im getting bored...I already have played Cabal Online 2 years(great game ,now is getting bored...), Flyff, Drift City(not a MMORPG i think), 2Moons, Perfect World,WoW(private),Silkroad Online, Wonderland, Gunz, Exteel, WarRock...I need a very good RPG or MMORPG but ..... What is the funiest or not boring MMO???I need something to not be bored, to make me happy playing...Plz Help me! Give your opinion:D!:arrow:Thanks to all! mmorpg...see and help me =D!
I've never played it but what about World of Warcraft...mmorpg...see and help me =D!
RPG - PLANESCAPE TORMENT!MMO - WOW (original) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (pirate)
[QUOTE=''Mond25'']Hi all!I'm bored :/...I love play, pricipally MMORPG's and RPG's but now im getting bored...I already have played Cabal Online 2 years(great game ,now is getting bored...), Flyff, Drift City(not a MMORPG i think), 2Moons, Perfect World,WoW(private),Silkroad Online, Wonderland, Gunz, Exteel, WarRock...I need a very good RPG or MMORPG but ..... What is the funiest or not boring MMO???I need something to not be bored, to make me happy playing...Plz Help me! Give your opinion:D!:arrow:Thanks to all! [/QUOTE]One of the funniest games that I played has to be Dungeon Exploerers. This game is made by NCsoft who also made Guild Wars. And along with the other games that you have listed it is also free. Though you can go and buy it at the store for around $10 and get some extra edditions to the game (dont really know what they are since i didn't buy it). It is a fun game that I think will soot you well.
[QUOTE=''Lidve'']RPG - PLANESCAPE TORMENT!MMO - WOW (original) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (pirate) [/QUOTE]agreed.
I'l go see some videos about dungeon explorer's...About WoW... i already tried....Guild Wars... I hae, i was lvl 16 and i stoped play.Thanks for all can continue posting...
Look....I think you dnt wan't mean Dungeon Explorers but Dungeon Runners....
Dream of Mirror Online since you have played Flyff.
I already have played DOMO and its more bored than flyff...
I've never played it but what about World of Warcraft...mmorpg...see and help me =D!
RPG - PLANESCAPE TORMENT!MMO - WOW (original) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (pirate)
[QUOTE=''Mond25'']Hi all!I'm bored :/...I love play, pricipally MMORPG's and RPG's but now im getting bored...I already have played Cabal Online 2 years(great game ,now is getting bored...), Flyff, Drift City(not a MMORPG i think), 2Moons, Perfect World,WoW(private),Silkroad Online, Wonderland, Gunz, Exteel, WarRock...I need a very good RPG or MMORPG but ..... What is the funiest or not boring MMO???I need something to not be bored, to make me happy playing...Plz Help me! Give your opinion:D!:arrow:Thanks to all! [/QUOTE]One of the funniest games that I played has to be Dungeon Exploerers. This game is made by NCsoft who also made Guild Wars. And along with the other games that you have listed it is also free. Though you can go and buy it at the store for around $10 and get some extra edditions to the game (dont really know what they are since i didn't buy it). It is a fun game that I think will soot you well.
[QUOTE=''Lidve'']RPG - PLANESCAPE TORMENT!MMO - WOW (original) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (pirate) [/QUOTE]agreed.
I'l go see some videos about dungeon explorer's...About WoW... i already tried....Guild Wars... I hae, i was lvl 16 and i stoped play.Thanks for all can continue posting...
Look....I think you dnt wan't mean Dungeon Explorers but Dungeon Runners....
Dream of Mirror Online since you have played Flyff.
I already have played DOMO and its more bored than flyff...
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Issues (Please Help)
Alright so I recently bought a copy of Stalker. Great! I thought; can't wait to play it. So I set it up, set lighting to Full Dynamic and graphics settings to high and started a new game. It runs fine throughout Sidorovich's little speech and even in the shanty town you start off in, but as soon as I go boar-hunting for Wolf, the game lags out big style and nigh-on crashes!I have no idea what is wrong. I'm running Vista 64-bit with a Radeon 3850 HD, Athlon Dual Core 4400+ (2.3Ghz), 2GB of DDR2 RAM and I've tried reinstalling the game and patching it. I've already tried setting graphics settings to the lowest they can be, but while that's not the best rig in the world it shouldn't suffer settings as poor as that!Any advice? All will be appreciated!Cheers,Total_DefectS.T.A.L.K.E.R. Issues (Please Help)
Stalker has a bunch of patches....you must install them all........then try it out......make sure you have the latest video drivers as well...
Stalker has a bunch of patches....you must install them all........then try it out......make sure you have the latest video drivers as well...
Can my comp run Left 4 dead?
Im not really handy with comp specs so forgive me if i forget something specs are:Intel (r) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU T5550 @1.83 GHZ 4GB64 bit operatingi tried system requirements lab and it says i can run it pretty good but i heard it was inaccurate. ( btw i run tf2 and CS:S, and dod:s just fine as well)Any help is apperciatedCan my comp run Left 4 dead?
Do you think you should have maybe included your graphics card?
Anywho you seem to be able to play other source games without issue. So I'm going to say sure it can.Can my comp run Left 4 dead?
[QUOTE=''Icefreshe1763'']Im not really handy with comp specs so forgive me if i forget something specs are:Intel (r) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU T5550 @1.83 GHZ 4GB64 bit operatingi tried system requirements lab and it says i can run it pretty good but i heard it was inaccurate. ( btw i run tf2 and CS:S, and dod:s just fine as well)Any help is apperciated[/QUOTE]what is ur graphics card?it is need to know that can u play it?
I think ur pc has potential
It's a laptop, might struggle... wait for demo..
ya laptops are generally wurse fer gaming. And the graphics card is probly the most important part of any gaming rig. To check wut u've got:right click ''my computer'' and choose properties, then go to the hardware tab, open up ''device manager'' and click on the little tab for ''display adapter(s)'' The PC looks pretty fine for running Left 4 Dead, and if the card is any good then u should be able to run pretty much anything else.makeup 2009
Do you think you should have maybe included your graphics card?
Anywho you seem to be able to play other source games without issue. So I'm going to say sure it can.Can my comp run Left 4 dead?
[QUOTE=''Icefreshe1763'']Im not really handy with comp specs so forgive me if i forget something specs are:Intel (r) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU T5550 @1.83 GHZ 4GB64 bit operatingi tried system requirements lab and it says i can run it pretty good but i heard it was inaccurate. ( btw i run tf2 and CS:S, and dod:s just fine as well)Any help is apperciated[/QUOTE]what is ur graphics card?it is need to know that can u play it?
I think ur pc has potential
It's a laptop, might struggle... wait for demo..
ya laptops are generally wurse fer gaming. And the graphics card is probly the most important part of any gaming rig. To check wut u've got:right click ''my computer'' and choose properties, then go to the hardware tab, open up ''device manager'' and click on the little tab for ''display adapter(s)'' The PC looks pretty fine for running Left 4 Dead, and if the card is any good then u should be able to run pretty much anything else.
wic problems
iv installed wic but every time i go to play it, it just gives me a black screen and then gose back to me desktop if got the laests gpu drivers and i got the new patch and it stil wont playHEEEELLLLPPPP!!!!! PLEASE wic problems
try reinstalling it.
try reinstalling it.
FM 2009 demo is out
For those interested the Football Manager 2009 demo is out. Get it from here.http://www.footballmanager.com/FM 2009 demo is out
I used to love the FM games, but I don't play them anymore.
I used to love the FM games, but I don't play them anymore.
What games are you looking foward too?
I am just trying to keep up with whats what,So good upcoming games are,WolfensteinMafia 2Left 4 DeadGTA IVCOD5Splinter Cell: ConvictionWhat else is there?What games are you looking foward too?
StarCraft 2 and Dawn of War 2.What games are you looking foward too?
1. GTA IV2. Diablo III3. Dragon Age OriginsThat's it.
Empire total war....i WAS looking forward to final fantasy but i dont have a ps3 and ive been a bit leniant in supporting squareenix after ff12....
Empire: Total War. I have high hopes it will be the best game ever.
At the very top of my wish-list - Empire: Total War and Warhammer 40, 000: Dawn of War II. Can't decide which places at #1. Next 3 from my top 5 would be Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, Company of Heroes: Tales of Valour and Diablo III.
Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.
[QUOTE=''kalossimitar'']Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.[/QUOTE] I shall think about this quote in the night times...the bed times... etc
Rage, The Sims 3, Alan Wake, Half-Life Episode 3, Street Fighter IV, Call of Duty WAW
Fable 2 is the only console game I've got any interest in right now. Hopefully it will show up on the PC just like Fable 1.There is a Fable style game called Venetica coming up. The Gothic 3 expansion called Forgotten Gods is another title that has my interest.
A Vampyre Story, Gish 2, Crayon Physics Deluxe are my most anticipated games right now.
Empire Total WarBattlefield 3Dead Space 2A Mechwarrior game (Please!!!)Stargate WorldsCoH:Tales of Valor
Mirror's EdgeGhostbustersPrototypeCryostasisDead Space 2Bioshock 2Portal 2
star craft 2, diablo 2, COD 5, Elder Scrolls V
Call of Duty: World at War. I can't wait :D.
[QUOTE=''purpleRz'']I am just trying to keep up with whats what,So good upcoming games are,WolfensteinMafia 2Left 4 DeadGTA IVCOD5Splinter Cell: ConvictionWhat else is there?[/QUOTE]1. Left4Dead2. DIablo 33. New Wolfienstien4. Starcraft 2 5. Gothic 4 and the new Divinity game 6. Alan Wake*In no order*
2008 : NWN 2 : Storm of Zehir, Vampyre Story, Rise of Argonauts, Prince of Persia 42009 : tarcraft 2, Dow 2, Empire Total War, CoH : Tales of Valor, Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age, Demi God,Chronicles of Riddick : Assault on Dark Athena, Divnity 2, Mata Hari,Gray Matter, King's Bounty : The Legend's expansion,Risen, Disciples 3, Project Origin, Fantasy Wars : Elven Legacy, Majesty 2Far Away/Unannounced : Diablo 3, Othe Starcraft 2 parts, HL 2 : Episode 3, Battlefield 3, Kotor MMO, ALan Wake
Empire Total War, Dragon Age Origins, Mafia 2, Left 4 Dead, Alan Wake, Alpha Protocol, GTA 4, COD 5 - games that i am waiting forward.
D3, COD5, Dragon Age, The Agency
[QUOTE=''kalossimitar'']Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.[/QUOTE] Where?
StarCraft 2 and Dawn of War 2.What games are you looking foward too?
1. GTA IV2. Diablo III3. Dragon Age OriginsThat's it.
Empire total war....i WAS looking forward to final fantasy but i dont have a ps3 and ive been a bit leniant in supporting squareenix after ff12....
Empire: Total War. I have high hopes it will be the best game ever.
At the very top of my wish-list - Empire: Total War and Warhammer 40, 000: Dawn of War II. Can't decide which places at #1. Next 3 from my top 5 would be Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, Company of Heroes: Tales of Valour and Diablo III.
Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.
[QUOTE=''kalossimitar'']Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.[/QUOTE] I shall think about this quote in the night times...the bed times... etc
Rage, The Sims 3, Alan Wake, Half-Life Episode 3, Street Fighter IV, Call of Duty WAW
Fable 2 is the only console game I've got any interest in right now. Hopefully it will show up on the PC just like Fable 1.There is a Fable style game called Venetica coming up. The Gothic 3 expansion called Forgotten Gods is another title that has my interest.
A Vampyre Story, Gish 2, Crayon Physics Deluxe are my most anticipated games right now.
Empire Total WarBattlefield 3Dead Space 2A Mechwarrior game (Please!!!)Stargate WorldsCoH:Tales of Valor
Mirror's EdgeGhostbustersPrototypeCryostasisDead Space 2Bioshock 2Portal 2
star craft 2, diablo 2, COD 5, Elder Scrolls V
Call of Duty: World at War. I can't wait :D.
[QUOTE=''purpleRz'']I am just trying to keep up with whats what,So good upcoming games are,WolfensteinMafia 2Left 4 DeadGTA IVCOD5Splinter Cell: ConvictionWhat else is there?[/QUOTE]1. Left4Dead2. DIablo 33. New Wolfienstien4. Starcraft 2 5. Gothic 4 and the new Divinity game 6. Alan Wake*In no order*
2008 : NWN 2 : Storm of Zehir, Vampyre Story, Rise of Argonauts, Prince of Persia 42009 : tarcraft 2, Dow 2, Empire Total War, CoH : Tales of Valor, Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age, Demi God,Chronicles of Riddick : Assault on Dark Athena, Divnity 2, Mata Hari,Gray Matter, King's Bounty : The Legend's expansion,Risen, Disciples 3, Project Origin, Fantasy Wars : Elven Legacy, Majesty 2Far Away/Unannounced : Diablo 3, Othe Starcraft 2 parts, HL 2 : Episode 3, Battlefield 3, Kotor MMO, ALan Wake
Empire Total War, Dragon Age Origins, Mafia 2, Left 4 Dead, Alan Wake, Alpha Protocol, GTA 4, COD 5 - games that i am waiting forward.
D3, COD5, Dragon Age, The Agency
[QUOTE=''kalossimitar'']Left4Dead. Did you see the new video??? I nearly came watching it.[/QUOTE] Where?
MU Server SeasoN 4 EvanG3LioN, Juego de Rol ONLINE, MMORPG
Gran juego de ROL ONLINE
Actualizado SEASON 4
http://www.evang3lion.net Mu SERVER EVANG3LION SEASON 4 *Nuevos items season 4
*nuevos skill season 4
*nuevos mapas season 4
* Exp: 2500
* Drop : 85%
* Reset :
- Los reset se hacen al llegar al nivel 390 en la web
- no se pierde la ropa
- no se pierde el skill
* Soul y Bless al 100%
- Summoner al 100%
- Exelentes Spot en todos los mapas
- Activada la creacion de alas evo3
- 3?era quest en barracks
- Funcionan los skill de todos los pj desde el nivel 1
- Mascotas en el Pet Trainer FENRIR ROJO, NEGRO AZUL Y DORADO
- Shop Configurados al 100%
- New Season 4 Maps
- New Season 4 Items
- New Season 4 Skills
- New Season 4 Mobs
- Posion SD para escudo
- Contiene los Nuevos Set para todos los Personajes
- El Dark Spirit y el Dark Horse del Dark Lord 100% operativo.
- War y Battlesoccer funcionando
- Alianza de Guilds funcionando.
Fenrir Azul, Negro, Rojo y DORADO EVENTOS DE PARTE DE EL STAFF EVANG3LION GMs
http://www.evang3lion.net Mu SERVER EVANG3LION SEASON 4 PJ = Nero
Actualizado SEASON 4
http://www.evang3lion.net Mu SERVER EVANG3LION SEASON 4 *Nuevos items season 4
*nuevos skill season 4
*nuevos mapas season 4
* Exp: 2500
* Drop : 85%
* Reset :
- Los reset se hacen al llegar al nivel 390 en la web
- no se pierde la ropa
- no se pierde el skill
* Soul y Bless al 100%
- Summoner al 100%
- Exelentes Spot en todos los mapas
- Activada la creacion de alas evo3
- 3?era quest en barracks
- Funcionan los skill de todos los pj desde el nivel 1
- Mascotas en el Pet Trainer FENRIR ROJO, NEGRO AZUL Y DORADO
- Shop Configurados al 100%
- New Season 4 Maps
- New Season 4 Items
- New Season 4 Skills
- New Season 4 Mobs
- Posion SD para escudo
- Contiene los Nuevos Set para todos los Personajes
- El Dark Spirit y el Dark Horse del Dark Lord 100% operativo.
- War y Battlesoccer funcionando
- Alianza de Guilds funcionando.
Fenrir Azul, Negro, Rojo y DORADO EVENTOS DE PARTE DE EL STAFF EVANG3LION GMs
http://www.evang3lion.net Mu SERVER EVANG3LION SEASON 4 PJ = Nero
choices choices...
Hi GSers, this is my first post in awhile as I haven't logged into my account since I don't know when.Anyways I'm in the process of deciding what games to get to celebrate the end of the semester in December. The thing is there's lots of games that look appealing and I need help narrowing the list down. Yes this is sort of a ''what game should I get'' thread though it will be more specific and hopefully I'm not violating any rules.Games I am considering:Crysis: Warhead
Far Cry 2
Dead Space(PC/360)
Bioshock(PC/360)
Fallout 3(PC/360)I'm likely getting the orange box and Gears 2 though those aren't up for consideration. Basically I'll probably pick 2 from the list above. Yes I've listed 360 games as possible options, though I'm not concerned as much with platform right now, I'll explain a little more below. Also in this day and age the DRM on these games will factor into my decision to get them unfortunately.With the exception of Bioshock I never really followed any of these games until recently. Warhead: Main reason to get it is because it's the sequel (sort of) to Crysis. Though to be honest I didn't really like the original that much. Also this is confirmed to have limited installs.Far Cry 2: Kind of what crysis was meant to be. This game seems cool though I've read that there isn't tons of mission variety and it gets repetitive. AI is also a bit wonky at times (supposedly). However I'm in the mood for shooters and this still looks decent, I'm also more focused on single player games.Dead Space: New IP. While I'm not a fan of horror games/movies/etc... I am in the mood for something that is really atmospheric and draws you in while also being fairly story driven and intense. The main issue here is replay value and I've read complaints about the mouse control on the PC. Unfortunately I don't have a wired 360 controller right now (though I might get 1). If I get this I'd probably rent Bioshock or vice versa, though both seem good. The main deciding factor between this and Bioshock is longevity.Bioshock: not much to say here, it's been out for awhile. I'd like to play it at least once so even if I don't get it I'll probably rent it for the 360. I've heard horror stories about the PC version's DRM. This game is appealing for the same reasons as dead space, both I hear are really good.Fallout 3: I'm not a huge RPG fan though I don't have any genre that I really like more than others, a good game is a good game as far as I'm concerned. I have mass effect and while I generally liked it there were things I had issues with, most significantly the bland side quests and relatively short story. If I end up getting Fallout 3 there's a good chance I'd get it on 360 since I may bring it to my dorm next semester and would like a good single player game to play on it. By the way I don't have Oblivion so I don't know what Bethesda games are like for comparisons, I hear fallout is better though.If this isn't the place to post this I apologize, please let me know and I'll move it there (unless it's my blog since no one will answer it). choices choices...
I would get Fallout 3. I just purchased the game myself and its one of the few games where I walk more than I run. I have a greater need for exploration in this game and it seems I have more of a purpose compared to other RPG's. I am not saying that this is the greatest RPG ever made but It is definitely up there in my book. I enjoyed the idea that nearly every action you make has consequence and I think bethesda approached this rather profoundly in Fallout 3choices choices...
Another thing I didn't like about ME was how the plt was pretty much outlined for you after you hit a certain point. (WARNING: slight spoilers follow). You had the beginning of the story, and then you were given the three ''missions'' all at once, after which the story reached its climax. The pacing just felt all wrong and there were not as many new developments as I'd hoped there'd be. Is fallout better in this regard?
From the list, BioShock.
warhead and dead space for 360.
I wouldn't get both Dead Space and Bioshock. I have played both, and, if you are going to get one, go for Dead Space.I can't give a recommendation between Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, and Crysis: Warhead. If you're not a huge RPG fan, go for Warhead or Far Cry 2. My advice would be to just get Warhead-that way, by the time you get around to Far Cry 2, it will hopefully be cheaper :). If I were you, though, I would get Call of Duty 4, if you don't already have it. If you do, preorder Call of Duty: World at War. I have tried the beta multiplayer, and it is extremely fun. It would definitely be worth your while.
Based on your comments I'll rule out Warhead since you didn't like Crysis much.Fallout 3 has a short main quest, the side quests might not be interesting enough for you. Dead Space and Bioshock is a hard one both are going to be about the same length. I'm enjoying Dead Space more than Bioshock I think, but I think bioshock would offer a tad more replay value. Any of those would be a good choice but if you want two I'll select.Dead SpaceFar Cry 2 Far Cry 2 is pretty fun, but it can be repetitive and long drives etc. MP is included though (which the others apart from warhead don't have)If you don't want to play MP, then Fallout 3 replaces Far Cry 2.
I would recommend farcry 2. It just simply looks awesome.
Thanks for the replies. Yes I have COD4, though I'm not planning on getting the next one. As I mentioned before, I probably wouldn't get both Bioshock AND Dead Space, if I happend to get either I would likely rent the other. The question is which of the two would last longer.As for the other 3. I'm shying away from warhead since it's so similar to Crysis, and while Crysis is definitely a good game I just didn't enhoy it as much, particularly the later half once the aliens were introduced (though the level in the ship was good). It seems like FC2 is closer to what a sandbox shooter is supposed to be, though it has some issues of its own. I wouldn't consider myself a big RPG fan though I've played and liked my share of them, most notably Baldur's Gate 2, WoW and Mass Effect plus some others. I'm more into sci fi stuff than fantasy, so fallout gets points there.
OK so I was just doing some ressearch into the DRM schemes employed on all of these games as that is factoring into my decision. Warhead, FC2, Dead Space, Bioshock and Fallout 3 all have SecuROM. Warhead, FC2 and Dead space have limited installs (according to wikipedia Bioshock's install limit was removed via a patch). On FC2 you can ''revoke'' an install by uninstalling the game. Does anyone know if dead space and warhead have any means of revoking the installs? This could be the deal breaker for me.
Nope, Warhead/Wars and Dead Space, have only 5 installs. EA is working on a revoke tool, for all their games, Spore, Mass Effect, RA 3, etc, but since it was just to please some fans and they don't care much about those that want their installs back, it could take a while before it's released.Anyway, 5 installs is more reasonable than 3, so imo get Warhead, it's better than Crysis and more fun, the 2nd would be Fallout 3, definitely GOTY for me, and it's from Bethesda, the dev that brought us Oblivion, the worst game I played, I myself can't believe how good the game is. Bad things about Fallout 3: there is a city with R that has only one type of guard and it's cloned a few times (like Oblivion), the animations suck (would have been better if they didn't include 3rd person), and it has some stability issues, you get low frames in places that are less complex than huge, detailed places in which you get a lot of frames. So, I would say, Warhead and Fallout 3. [QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']Fallout 3 has a short main quest, the side quests might not be interesting enough for you. [/QUOTE] It's a lot of fun, and the whole story is good, I don't even know which quests are from the main story :P the only way I know some missions are not that important to the one that gave me the quest is when I see ''optional'' but even those optional quests feel just as important and well made.It's definitely a lot better than Mass Effect (except for a few extremely emotional moments) for me and I don't even like the post-apocalyptic theme all the green, grey and brown, but somehow I love Fallout and it's art direction.
Yeah now that I (think) I've figured out the DRM I think I may get fallout and bioshock (and orange box and maybe gears 2). If EA cleans up their act then I may consider warhead, and I can just rent dead space for my 360. Plus bioshock is only $20 at retail vs $46 for dead space even though both are of similar length.
I'd go for Far Cry 2. It's an amazing game.
Yeah actually if I didn't get gears then FC2 would probably be my next pick.
Far Cry 2
Dead Space(PC/360)
Bioshock(PC/360)
Fallout 3(PC/360)I'm likely getting the orange box and Gears 2 though those aren't up for consideration. Basically I'll probably pick 2 from the list above. Yes I've listed 360 games as possible options, though I'm not concerned as much with platform right now, I'll explain a little more below. Also in this day and age the DRM on these games will factor into my decision to get them unfortunately.With the exception of Bioshock I never really followed any of these games until recently. Warhead: Main reason to get it is because it's the sequel (sort of) to Crysis. Though to be honest I didn't really like the original that much. Also this is confirmed to have limited installs.Far Cry 2: Kind of what crysis was meant to be. This game seems cool though I've read that there isn't tons of mission variety and it gets repetitive. AI is also a bit wonky at times (supposedly). However I'm in the mood for shooters and this still looks decent, I'm also more focused on single player games.Dead Space: New IP. While I'm not a fan of horror games/movies/etc... I am in the mood for something that is really atmospheric and draws you in while also being fairly story driven and intense. The main issue here is replay value and I've read complaints about the mouse control on the PC. Unfortunately I don't have a wired 360 controller right now (though I might get 1). If I get this I'd probably rent Bioshock or vice versa, though both seem good. The main deciding factor between this and Bioshock is longevity.Bioshock: not much to say here, it's been out for awhile. I'd like to play it at least once so even if I don't get it I'll probably rent it for the 360. I've heard horror stories about the PC version's DRM. This game is appealing for the same reasons as dead space, both I hear are really good.Fallout 3: I'm not a huge RPG fan though I don't have any genre that I really like more than others, a good game is a good game as far as I'm concerned. I have mass effect and while I generally liked it there were things I had issues with, most significantly the bland side quests and relatively short story. If I end up getting Fallout 3 there's a good chance I'd get it on 360 since I may bring it to my dorm next semester and would like a good single player game to play on it. By the way I don't have Oblivion so I don't know what Bethesda games are like for comparisons, I hear fallout is better though.If this isn't the place to post this I apologize, please let me know and I'll move it there (unless it's my blog since no one will answer it). choices choices...
I would get Fallout 3. I just purchased the game myself and its one of the few games where I walk more than I run. I have a greater need for exploration in this game and it seems I have more of a purpose compared to other RPG's. I am not saying that this is the greatest RPG ever made but It is definitely up there in my book. I enjoyed the idea that nearly every action you make has consequence and I think bethesda approached this rather profoundly in Fallout 3choices choices...
Another thing I didn't like about ME was how the plt was pretty much outlined for you after you hit a certain point. (WARNING: slight spoilers follow). You had the beginning of the story, and then you were given the three ''missions'' all at once, after which the story reached its climax. The pacing just felt all wrong and there were not as many new developments as I'd hoped there'd be. Is fallout better in this regard?
From the list, BioShock.
warhead and dead space for 360.
I wouldn't get both Dead Space and Bioshock. I have played both, and, if you are going to get one, go for Dead Space.I can't give a recommendation between Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, and Crysis: Warhead. If you're not a huge RPG fan, go for Warhead or Far Cry 2. My advice would be to just get Warhead-that way, by the time you get around to Far Cry 2, it will hopefully be cheaper :). If I were you, though, I would get Call of Duty 4, if you don't already have it. If you do, preorder Call of Duty: World at War. I have tried the beta multiplayer, and it is extremely fun. It would definitely be worth your while.
Based on your comments I'll rule out Warhead since you didn't like Crysis much.Fallout 3 has a short main quest, the side quests might not be interesting enough for you. Dead Space and Bioshock is a hard one both are going to be about the same length. I'm enjoying Dead Space more than Bioshock I think, but I think bioshock would offer a tad more replay value. Any of those would be a good choice but if you want two I'll select.Dead SpaceFar Cry 2 Far Cry 2 is pretty fun, but it can be repetitive and long drives etc. MP is included though (which the others apart from warhead don't have)If you don't want to play MP, then Fallout 3 replaces Far Cry 2.
I would recommend farcry 2. It just simply looks awesome.
Thanks for the replies. Yes I have COD4, though I'm not planning on getting the next one. As I mentioned before, I probably wouldn't get both Bioshock AND Dead Space, if I happend to get either I would likely rent the other. The question is which of the two would last longer.As for the other 3. I'm shying away from warhead since it's so similar to Crysis, and while Crysis is definitely a good game I just didn't enhoy it as much, particularly the later half once the aliens were introduced (though the level in the ship was good). It seems like FC2 is closer to what a sandbox shooter is supposed to be, though it has some issues of its own. I wouldn't consider myself a big RPG fan though I've played and liked my share of them, most notably Baldur's Gate 2, WoW and Mass Effect plus some others. I'm more into sci fi stuff than fantasy, so fallout gets points there.
OK so I was just doing some ressearch into the DRM schemes employed on all of these games as that is factoring into my decision. Warhead, FC2, Dead Space, Bioshock and Fallout 3 all have SecuROM. Warhead, FC2 and Dead space have limited installs (according to wikipedia Bioshock's install limit was removed via a patch). On FC2 you can ''revoke'' an install by uninstalling the game. Does anyone know if dead space and warhead have any means of revoking the installs? This could be the deal breaker for me.
Nope, Warhead/Wars and Dead Space, have only 5 installs. EA is working on a revoke tool, for all their games, Spore, Mass Effect, RA 3, etc, but since it was just to please some fans and they don't care much about those that want their installs back, it could take a while before it's released.Anyway, 5 installs is more reasonable than 3, so imo get Warhead, it's better than Crysis and more fun, the 2nd would be Fallout 3, definitely GOTY for me, and it's from Bethesda, the dev that brought us Oblivion, the worst game I played, I myself can't believe how good the game is. Bad things about Fallout 3: there is a city with R that has only one type of guard and it's cloned a few times (like Oblivion), the animations suck (would have been better if they didn't include 3rd person), and it has some stability issues, you get low frames in places that are less complex than huge, detailed places in which you get a lot of frames. So, I would say, Warhead and Fallout 3. [QUOTE=''nutcrackr'']Fallout 3 has a short main quest, the side quests might not be interesting enough for you. [/QUOTE] It's a lot of fun, and the whole story is good, I don't even know which quests are from the main story :P the only way I know some missions are not that important to the one that gave me the quest is when I see ''optional'' but even those optional quests feel just as important and well made.It's definitely a lot better than Mass Effect (except for a few extremely emotional moments) for me and I don't even like the post-apocalyptic theme all the green, grey and brown, but somehow I love Fallout and it's art direction.
Yeah now that I (think) I've figured out the DRM I think I may get fallout and bioshock (and orange box and maybe gears 2). If EA cleans up their act then I may consider warhead, and I can just rent dead space for my 360. Plus bioshock is only $20 at retail vs $46 for dead space even though both are of similar length.
I'd go for Far Cry 2. It's an amazing game.
Yeah actually if I didn't get gears then FC2 would probably be my next pick.
Your Top Games of Recent Past
Which PC games did you enjoy extensively in the recent past? (Games not older than a couple of years)Mine:1. GTA San Andreas2. Bioshock3. C%26C34. The Witcher5. X-Men Legends 2Your Top Games of Recent Past
need for speed underground 2Battlefield 1942Max payne 1 and 2Your Top Games of Recent Past
[QUOTE=''retro82'']Which PC games did you enjoy extensively in the recent past? (Games not older than a couple of years)Mine:1. GTA San Andreas2. Bioshock3. C%26C34. The Witcher5. X-Men Legends 2[/QUOTE]i enjoyed 1.GTA san andreas [currently have]2.X-Men official game3.FIFA 094.Far Cry 15.Battlefield 26.POP warrior withinand currently playing1.FAR CRY22.NFS Carbon3.Increadible Hulk
Medieval 2 Total War and Far Cry 2.
Top 5 1. CoH2. King's Bounty : The Legend3. NWN 2 : MoTB4. Crysis5. Galactic Civiliaztions 2 : TotA
Sins of A Solar Empire.
Me :1. Unreal Tournament 32. Gears of War3. Call of Duty 44. Assassin's Creed5. Crysis (Original and Warhead)makeup 2009
need for speed underground 2Battlefield 1942Max payne 1 and 2Your Top Games of Recent Past
[QUOTE=''retro82'']Which PC games did you enjoy extensively in the recent past? (Games not older than a couple of years)Mine:1. GTA San Andreas2. Bioshock3. C%26C34. The Witcher5. X-Men Legends 2[/QUOTE]i enjoyed 1.GTA san andreas [currently have]2.X-Men official game3.FIFA 094.Far Cry 15.Battlefield 26.POP warrior withinand currently playing1.FAR CRY22.NFS Carbon3.Increadible Hulk
Medieval 2 Total War and Far Cry 2.
Top 5 1. CoH2. King's Bounty : The Legend3. NWN 2 : MoTB4. Crysis5. Galactic Civiliaztions 2 : TotA
Sins of A Solar Empire.
Me :1. Unreal Tournament 32. Gears of War3. Call of Duty 44. Assassin's Creed5. Crysis (Original and Warhead)
Confused with fallout 3
So i did another run through the game but as a girl and decided i wanted good karma this time(I killed everyone i could in my first play through). I am doing the nuka cola challenge and the girls boy friend asked me to give him the nuka cola so he could do ''The horrizontal bump with her''. I said, if you get me the nuka cola we could have a three way and he ran off to do it. Does he ever come back? ThanksConfused with fallout 3
yes but your sopposed to put your controller vertical between your legs and wait for the rumble, otherwise it won't work :(Confused with fallout 3
Drat, no controller. After more free roming i found his dead carcass.
yes but your sopposed to put your controller vertical between your legs and wait for the rumble, otherwise it won't work :(Confused with fallout 3
Drat, no controller. After more free roming i found his dead carcass.
Quality Free Roaming Games Like GTA
Any high quality games of this genre?I already have Mafia and all GTA games.Thank you. Quality Free Roaming Games Like GTA
The Godfather is one that comes to mind. And you said high quality, so I think that crosses out True Crime LA and NY.Quality Free Roaming Games Like GTA
[QUOTE=''bedram793'']The Godfather is one that comes to mind. And you said high quality, so I think that crosses out True Crime LA and NY.[/QUOTE]ThatGun is also good tooScarface is ok
Yeah, haven't played Scarface. I didn't even know Gun was free roaming.
Far Cry 2.
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']Far Cry 2.[/QUOTE]Hahahhhaa, can't believe I forgot that.
Just Cause was pretty good.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Thanks a lot.I'd prefer action/adventure games rather than fps games like Far Cry series.
just cause is good for about half an hour, because of the sheer size of it. saints row 2 has been delayed again for pc and will be out on january 9th i think, im definitely getting it, it looks brilliant.obviously gta 4 this month. 18th for america i think.assassins creed, beautifal and amazing, but repetive, i have yet to get through it, im waiting for my new gpu.mercs 2, check out the demo, havent played it myselfthats all i can think of at the moment, they're all free roaming third person games
The Godfather is one that comes to mind. And you said high quality, so I think that crosses out True Crime LA and NY.Quality Free Roaming Games Like GTA
[QUOTE=''bedram793'']The Godfather is one that comes to mind. And you said high quality, so I think that crosses out True Crime LA and NY.[/QUOTE]ThatGun is also good tooScarface is ok
Yeah, haven't played Scarface. I didn't even know Gun was free roaming.
Far Cry 2.
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']Far Cry 2.[/QUOTE]Hahahhhaa, can't believe I forgot that.
Just Cause was pretty good.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Thanks a lot.I'd prefer action/adventure games rather than fps games like Far Cry series.
just cause is good for about half an hour, because of the sheer size of it. saints row 2 has been delayed again for pc and will be out on january 9th i think, im definitely getting it, it looks brilliant.obviously gta 4 this month. 18th for america i think.assassins creed, beautifal and amazing, but repetive, i have yet to get through it, im waiting for my new gpu.mercs 2, check out the demo, havent played it myselfthats all i can think of at the moment, they're all free roaming third person games
can i run gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead??-plz help
i want to get gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead.i have, 1. intel dual core CPU 2.0ghz 2. 2 gb memory ram 3. 8500gt 512mb super 4. 160 HDD 5. DVD rom 6. realtake sound cardcan i run those games and what setting can i run?can anyone help me.any information will be so helpful.gratiscan i run gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead??-plz help
Yes probably at medium at least, although left 4 dead I think has some pretty low requirements. I believe there is already a thread for this type of thing. Next time post there.can i run gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead??-plz help
For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.
[QUOTE=''sadisherpur0'']i want to get gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead.i have, 1. intel dual core CPU 2.0ghz 2. 2 gb memory ram 3. 8500gt 512mb super 4. 160 HDD 5. DVD rom 6. realtake sound cardcan i run those games and what setting can i run?can anyone help me.any information will be so helpful.gratis[/QUOTE]gears of war and probably left4dead you can run them at mix medium low settings dont know about brothers in arms.I would suggest buying though a 4670( is only 80 and can play all games at high settings except crysis)
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.[/QUOTE]i know i know sorrybut keep ur head cool!!! why u r talking such these words????talk friendly with any member in the forum....
[QUOTE=''sadisherpur0''][QUOTE=''bangell99''] For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.[/QUOTE]i know i know sorrybut keep ur head cool!!! why u r talking such these words????talk friendly with any member in the forum....[/QUOTE]Lol wut
Yes you can run it, but this is annoying since there's been a sticky thread about this for something like 95849 years
i have the SAME PC, same gpu, cpu, same hdd and RAM. And i can tell you that i run gears on medium, and in bia hh the shadow texture and shadow quality set to low, and the textures set to high. But i get about 12-17 FPS. It's very wierd, even when i put textures on low i still get almost the same FPS. But i think it's playable.P.S: i play at 1280x768
Yes probably at medium at least, although left 4 dead I think has some pretty low requirements. I believe there is already a thread for this type of thing. Next time post there.can i run gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead??-plz help
For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.
[QUOTE=''sadisherpur0'']i want to get gears of war,brother's in arms HH and left for dead.i have, 1. intel dual core CPU 2.0ghz 2. 2 gb memory ram 3. 8500gt 512mb super 4. 160 HDD 5. DVD rom 6. realtake sound cardcan i run those games and what setting can i run?can anyone help me.any information will be so helpful.gratis[/QUOTE]gears of war and probably left4dead you can run them at mix medium low settings dont know about brothers in arms.I would suggest buying though a 4670( is only 80 and can play all games at high settings except crysis)
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.[/QUOTE]i know i know sorrybut keep ur head cool!!! why u r talking such these words????talk friendly with any member in the forum....
[QUOTE=''sadisherpur0''][QUOTE=''bangell99''] For bloody hell's sake, there's a sticky thread for this.[/QUOTE]i know i know sorrybut keep ur head cool!!! why u r talking such these words????talk friendly with any member in the forum....[/QUOTE]Lol wut
Yes you can run it, but this is annoying since there's been a sticky thread about this for something like 95849 years
i have the SAME PC, same gpu, cpu, same hdd and RAM. And i can tell you that i run gears on medium, and in bia hh the shadow texture and shadow quality set to low, and the textures set to high. But i get about 12-17 FPS. It's very wierd, even when i put textures on low i still get almost the same FPS. But i think it's playable.P.S: i play at 1280x768
Possible Street Fighter IV system requirements
Hi!I'm going to buy a new notebook soon. My only criteria is a smooth running SF4 at high detail.Can anybody tell what the system requirements for SF4 will be?I find it hard to tell because there aren't any recent beat em ups on the pc. The last one I can remember is Last Bronx ;) .Possible Street Fighter IV system requirements
They haven't been released yet
They haven't been released yet
Alien Crossfire help
I have exhausted all of my Google abilities trying to fix the incapatabilities between Windoze XP and SMACX. Does anyone know of a super Kung Fu to fix this so my life can have meaning? Alien Crossfire help
There's a pc hardware discussion board. Maybe they can help you:http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_topics.php?board_id=314159272Alien Crossfire help
It's an expansion to the game Alpha Centauri, not one of the high end PCs. But thanks for the response anyway...
Last resort I guess. Dual boot with Win98.If that doesn't work then I think God just doesn't like you.
You should be glad to actually have Crossfire. I've been looking for it for nine years.
There's a pc hardware discussion board. Maybe they can help you:http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_topics.php?board_id=314159272Alien Crossfire help
It's an expansion to the game Alpha Centauri, not one of the high end PCs. But thanks for the response anyway...
Last resort I guess. Dual boot with Win98.If that doesn't work then I think God just doesn't like you.
You should be glad to actually have Crossfire. I've been looking for it for nine years.
What should i get??
GreetingsI've saved up money for a PC game, and I am a RPG and FPS lover, so i found Fallout 3... after seeing many reviews i thought i decided but I'm a TES fan and I don't have Oblivion yet.So what should I get? Oblivion or Fallout 3? What should i get??
Neither - buy Medieval 2 Total War or Far Cry 2.What should i get??
im not much a fan o Far Cry series...
If your a fan of TES, get Oblivion.
but Fallout have the same engine as Oblivion...and it is alway good to try new things (never played any fallout game)...
Fallout 3 is better, but Oblivion is probably cheaper
fallout 3
i have money for both of them...let me do the right question...Wich is longer, and the most fun...btw sorry about my english(not my mother language)
Haven't played fallout yet... but i can say for a fact that oblivion is longer... fallout dose end, oblivion dont.
i guess im going for Fallout 3...if i dont like i can trade on the store its the same price heremakeup 2009
Neither - buy Medieval 2 Total War or Far Cry 2.What should i get??
im not much a fan o Far Cry series...
If your a fan of TES, get Oblivion.
but Fallout have the same engine as Oblivion...and it is alway good to try new things (never played any fallout game)...
Fallout 3 is better, but Oblivion is probably cheaper
fallout 3
i have money for both of them...let me do the right question...Wich is longer, and the most fun...btw sorry about my english(not my mother language)
Haven't played fallout yet... but i can say for a fact that oblivion is longer... fallout dose end, oblivion dont.
i guess im going for Fallout 3...if i dont like i can trade on the store its the same price here
Star Wars: The Old Republic revealed
DiscussStar Wars: The Old Republic revealed
greatStar Wars: The Old Republic revealed
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/922/922115p1.htmlIn response to community pressure to scrap this game and just make Knights of the Old Republic 3, the team suggests that there's enough content in Star Wars: The Old Republic to call it ''Knights of the Old Republic 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.''Twelve full-time writers have been working on the content for this game for years already. The writing department was the first priority when it came to staffing so these writers have been working on the game longer than anyone.
The art direction looks considerably worse than Diablo 3's.
Didn't want it to be an MMO.
No interest in MMOs. I play solo games because the idiots I have to deal with day to day give me a headache. Why would I want to pay money for them to come and annoy me online as well?
So is EA involved?
This MMO will be AWSOME.
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser'']Didn't want it to be an MMO. [/QUOTE] ''Didn't want it to be an MMO.'' - that's all you could say? This news almost brings tears to my eyes. I.. I never really thought that some article about one MMO could make a man so sad.If this new Bioware project is bigger than all its previous games combined, then I'm at least ten times more disappointed about it than compared to playing Spore and Mass Effect, combined.I mean, who knows if we'll ever see another Knights of the Old Republic game; the second one left us with a very inconclusive ending. I'd rather have Kotor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, not another MMO. It's so... uh, please, someone hold me; I think I'm going to faint.
[QUOTE=''Baranga''] http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/922/922115p1.html In response to community pressure to scrap this game and just make Knights of the Old Republic 3, the team suggests that there's enough content in Star Wars: The Old Republic to call it ''Knights of the Old Republic 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.'' Twelve full-time writers have been working on the content for this game for years already. The writing department was the first priority when it came to staffing so these writers have been working on the game longer than anyone. [/QUOTE] How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO?
I feel your pain, mang :(
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123'']So is EA involved?[/QUOTE]
And LucasArts.
Another Star Wars game....Hope its Good...
[QUOTE=''vlin1108'']How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO? [/QUOTE] pay attention to the quests, for one. something most people in WoW seem to avoid.
[QUOTE=''Hewkii''][QUOTE=''vlin1108''] How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO? [/QUOTE] pay attention to the quests, for one. something most people in WoW seem to avoid. [/QUOTE] The trees have been corruped, the aimals have been tainted, the whole wilderness has gone mad!Go slay that dragon who can take on a human form and then kill some more corrupted villains.The whole fantasy setting of World of Warcraft and Blizzard's previous titles are average at best. They have been done and done and overdone; the mere thought of comparing them to the storylines of Kotor 1 %26 2 is absurd. Honestly, if Blizzard is renowned for something, then it's not the immersive stories they can create.
Looks and sounds amazing. After reading it, I think we could get something close and maybe even better, than a kotor sp experience, with their huge focus (14 writers alone) on storytelling. Which makes it also far from a WoW clone.
[QUOTE=''vlin1108'']''Didn't want it to be an MMO.'' - that's all you could say? This news almost brings tears to my eyes. I.. I never really thought that some article about one MMO could make a man so sad.If this new Bioware project is bigger than all its previous games combined, then I'm at least ten times more disappointed about it than compared to playing Spore and Mass Effect, combined.I mean, who knows if we'll ever see another Knights of the Old Republic game; the second one left us with a very inconclusive ending. I'd rather have Kotor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, not another MMO. It's so... uh, please, someone hold me; I think I'm going to faint.[/QUOTE]i agree with you, its not even going to finish the story, not only that but its set 300 years after kotor, so no revan, no exile, all the chars we came to love are gone...and instead of them we're gonna have to deal with the annoying mmo comunities..they should make it like diablo2 where if you want to play offline single play youre able to at least,gah theres no end to mmos now its just pretty much gonna be a game about a war...that never ends, oh you beat the last boss... heres an expansion, just to kill more bosses and get moregear..mmo can feel like jobs, if youre in a guild youre expected to show up for raids and such, and on a schedule, and if youre not in a guild you can't do raids, because if you do its with a pug group which is a horrible experience in itself...than grinding for currency to upgrade gear, mmo are sooooo gear driven its annoying, if you dont have good gear youre called a noob, and nobody will play with you, so you constantly have to upgrade gear, and than when you get good gear the game becomes stale and boring becuase theres nothing else to do...thats why mmo fail to deliver good story telling, they just base everything on grinding for better items, in a world of greedy players............................jfispdafo0sdf67yds9hjn look at wow, supposedly the best MMO, heres how the game goes, grind as fast as possible to get to 70, (there is never groups for any lower instances, even though they are alot more fun than any end game ones.) grind as fast as possible to get good gear, when you have good gear, sit in shat and do nothing, you might raid but theres no reason because youve done them all hundreds of times, and with expansions its rinse and repeat, the very same thing. oh you could do heroics, but so what, its the same thing just more hp and moredmg from the mobs, its sooooooooooooooo repetitive.
It looks like KOTOR in a candy factory. Why do developers think we need this pastel-colored hell? I wanted to like this, but having seen the kind of cartoon graphics they've used, my excitement level has bottomed out.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarstheoldrepublic/video/6199708/star-wars-the-old-republic-revealed?hd=1
well they said in the interview its gonna be basically kotor 3,4,5 and so on. Definantly gonna pick this one because I have faith in bioware and lucas but not so much in EA but Warhammer turned out to be decent.
greatStar Wars: The Old Republic revealed
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/922/922115p1.htmlIn response to community pressure to scrap this game and just make Knights of the Old Republic 3, the team suggests that there's enough content in Star Wars: The Old Republic to call it ''Knights of the Old Republic 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.''Twelve full-time writers have been working on the content for this game for years already. The writing department was the first priority when it came to staffing so these writers have been working on the game longer than anyone.
The art direction looks considerably worse than Diablo 3's.
Didn't want it to be an MMO.
No interest in MMOs. I play solo games because the idiots I have to deal with day to day give me a headache. Why would I want to pay money for them to come and annoy me online as well?
So is EA involved?
This MMO will be AWSOME.
[QUOTE=''biggest_loser'']Didn't want it to be an MMO. [/QUOTE] ''Didn't want it to be an MMO.'' - that's all you could say? This news almost brings tears to my eyes. I.. I never really thought that some article about one MMO could make a man so sad.If this new Bioware project is bigger than all its previous games combined, then I'm at least ten times more disappointed about it than compared to playing Spore and Mass Effect, combined.I mean, who knows if we'll ever see another Knights of the Old Republic game; the second one left us with a very inconclusive ending. I'd rather have Kotor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, not another MMO. It's so... uh, please, someone hold me; I think I'm going to faint.
[QUOTE=''Baranga''] http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/922/922115p1.html In response to community pressure to scrap this game and just make Knights of the Old Republic 3, the team suggests that there's enough content in Star Wars: The Old Republic to call it ''Knights of the Old Republic 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.'' Twelve full-time writers have been working on the content for this game for years already. The writing department was the first priority when it came to staffing so these writers have been working on the game longer than anyone. [/QUOTE] How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO?
I feel your pain, mang :(
[QUOTE=''crazymaghie123'']So is EA involved?[/QUOTE]
And LucasArts.
Another Star Wars game....Hope its Good...
[QUOTE=''vlin1108'']How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO? [/QUOTE] pay attention to the quests, for one. something most people in WoW seem to avoid.
[QUOTE=''Hewkii''][QUOTE=''vlin1108''] How can you keep a great on-going story for an MMO? [/QUOTE] pay attention to the quests, for one. something most people in WoW seem to avoid. [/QUOTE] The trees have been corruped, the aimals have been tainted, the whole wilderness has gone mad!Go slay that dragon who can take on a human form and then kill some more corrupted villains.The whole fantasy setting of World of Warcraft and Blizzard's previous titles are average at best. They have been done and done and overdone; the mere thought of comparing them to the storylines of Kotor 1 %26 2 is absurd. Honestly, if Blizzard is renowned for something, then it's not the immersive stories they can create.
Looks and sounds amazing. After reading it, I think we could get something close and maybe even better, than a kotor sp experience, with their huge focus (14 writers alone) on storytelling. Which makes it also far from a WoW clone.
[QUOTE=''vlin1108'']''Didn't want it to be an MMO.'' - that's all you could say? This news almost brings tears to my eyes. I.. I never really thought that some article about one MMO could make a man so sad.If this new Bioware project is bigger than all its previous games combined, then I'm at least ten times more disappointed about it than compared to playing Spore and Mass Effect, combined.I mean, who knows if we'll ever see another Knights of the Old Republic game; the second one left us with a very inconclusive ending. I'd rather have Kotor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, not another MMO. It's so... uh, please, someone hold me; I think I'm going to faint.[/QUOTE]i agree with you, its not even going to finish the story, not only that but its set 300 years after kotor, so no revan, no exile, all the chars we came to love are gone...and instead of them we're gonna have to deal with the annoying mmo comunities..they should make it like diablo2 where if you want to play offline single play youre able to at least,gah theres no end to mmos now its just pretty much gonna be a game about a war...that never ends, oh you beat the last boss... heres an expansion, just to kill more bosses and get moregear..mmo can feel like jobs, if youre in a guild youre expected to show up for raids and such, and on a schedule, and if youre not in a guild you can't do raids, because if you do its with a pug group which is a horrible experience in itself...than grinding for currency to upgrade gear, mmo are sooooo gear driven its annoying, if you dont have good gear youre called a noob, and nobody will play with you, so you constantly have to upgrade gear, and than when you get good gear the game becomes stale and boring becuase theres nothing else to do...thats why mmo fail to deliver good story telling, they just base everything on grinding for better items, in a world of greedy players............................jfispdafo0sdf67yds9hjn look at wow, supposedly the best MMO, heres how the game goes, grind as fast as possible to get to 70, (there is never groups for any lower instances, even though they are alot more fun than any end game ones.) grind as fast as possible to get good gear, when you have good gear, sit in shat and do nothing, you might raid but theres no reason because youve done them all hundreds of times, and with expansions its rinse and repeat, the very same thing. oh you could do heroics, but so what, its the same thing just more hp and moredmg from the mobs, its sooooooooooooooo repetitive.
It looks like KOTOR in a candy factory. Why do developers think we need this pastel-colored hell? I wanted to like this, but having seen the kind of cartoon graphics they've used, my excitement level has bottomed out.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarstheoldrepublic/video/6199708/star-wars-the-old-republic-revealed?hd=1
well they said in the interview its gonna be basically kotor 3,4,5 and so on. Definantly gonna pick this one because I have faith in bioware and lucas but not so much in EA but Warhammer turned out to be decent.
9600m gt
Anyone here can think of a list of games that can max out on the new 9600m GT?9600m gt
i have a 9600gt and i max NBA 2K9 :) far cry 2-most of the settings are on high
COD WAW-most settings on highest possible best gpu for gamers with a low budget9600m gt
the m is very important....id say games 2006 and below are a defo....most new games you will need to turn down graphics. Yak shi mash...
i max COD4 and oblivion with the ultra texture pack, OOO, and arthur's natural enviroment. crysis i run on med shadow/shaders and everything else on high and i get playable FPS.
Grid,UT 3,COD 4, FEAR,COH,OBLIVION enerything max
Pretty much any UE3 engine game can run on max @ 1024x768. Crysis can run pretty well at medium settings.
i have a 9600gt and i max NBA 2K9 :) far cry 2-most of the settings are on high
COD WAW-most settings on highest possible best gpu for gamers with a low budget9600m gt
the m is very important....id say games 2006 and below are a defo....most new games you will need to turn down graphics. Yak shi mash...
i max COD4 and oblivion with the ultra texture pack, OOO, and arthur's natural enviroment. crysis i run on med shadow/shaders and everything else on high and i get playable FPS.
Grid,UT 3,COD 4, FEAR,COH,OBLIVION enerything max
Pretty much any UE3 engine game can run on max @ 1024x768. Crysis can run pretty well at medium settings.
Hitman 5
where is it? anyone have any info to share about it?Hitman 5
i didn't even know they were making it lolHitman 5
yeah, they are making it, but as far as i know, and ive looked around a lot for news on it, not screenshots or anything has been released, just confirmation that they are working on it
blood money came out like over two years ago i think.im surprised there hasnt been any bit of news out about it yet.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=156193
They are making a Hitman sequal, i'm so excited! I just wished they released some news about it. A little teaser would suffice.
i didn't even know they were making it lolHitman 5
yeah, they are making it, but as far as i know, and ive looked around a lot for news on it, not screenshots or anything has been released, just confirmation that they are working on it
blood money came out like over two years ago i think.im surprised there hasnt been any bit of news out about it yet.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=156193
They are making a Hitman sequal, i'm so excited! I just wished they released some news about it. A little teaser would suffice.
Maple Story Error Gr2d
Gr2d really starting to piss me off! everytime i try to open maple story i get this error that says failed in finding proper screen mode for Gr2D.
1. I already downloaded the NVIDIA latest driver
2. I have the latest direct x. I tested the direct draw and the Direct 3D and they both worked fine.
3. I just reinstalled MS and I still get this stupid error.
4. How the hell do i fix this??
5. 60,70,72,75 and it shows the title screen on all of them. After I pick one it says restart MS. But it still says Gr2d. wtf!6. Yes I played this on my computer before. It worked fine.Any help would be appreciated. :)
1. I already downloaded the NVIDIA latest driver
2. I have the latest direct x. I tested the direct draw and the Direct 3D and they both worked fine.
3. I just reinstalled MS and I still get this stupid error.
4. How the hell do i fix this??
5. 60,70,72,75 and it shows the title screen on all of them. After I pick one it says restart MS. But it still says Gr2d. wtf!6. Yes I played this on my computer before. It worked fine.Any help would be appreciated. :)
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Unofficial Patches
Hi all. I've just re-bought V:TMB off Steam after initially playing it when it first came out. During that period, a huge number of unofficial fan-made patches have been released to address many of the game's bugs. I just wanted to know if I need to install all of them, or just the latest fan-made patch to best experience this great game. In other words, are all the patches cumulative, or do they only address certain bugs in each successive iteration? Thanks.Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Unofficial Patches
I went from v1.0 to v1.2 to v5.5.I think you need v1.2 to jump to v5.5. Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Unofficial Patches
The Steam version is already 1.2, though.
So, considering that the Steam version is already patched to 1.2, all I need to do is download the 5.5 patch (as it's cumulative) and then all the other patches up to 5.7 (the latest one), and I should be good to go? I'm going by what's on this download page, by the way.
[QUOTE=''nero5'']So, considering that the Steam version is already patched to 1.2, all I need to do is download the 5.5 patch (as it's cumulative) and then all the other patches up to 5.7 (the latest one), and I should be good to go? I'm going by what's on this download page, by the way.[/QUOTE] No. The 5.7 patch says its cummulative so you should be able to just install that.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Oh, I missed that; thank you for pointing it out. And thank you everyone else for your quick replies!
Is it possible to play this game in 1680*1050? I tried and best resolution i was able to get was 1024 x 768. I am playing on Vista btw.
Nice, I didn't know they had a newer one then 5.5.
Awesome game. I played it a year ago off Steam. I'd like to play it again with all of the patches and as a different character.
[QUOTE=''maingon2004'']Is it possible to play this game in 1680*1050? I tried and best resolution i was able to get was 1024 x 768. I am playing on Vista btw. [/QUOTE]the last time I replayed the game was in 1680*1050 (thanx to directions found here http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Master_Games_List_-_V ) with the latest official patch and unofficial patch 4.4 a or b, be sure to install 1.2 first (don't know if steam autopatches the game as I did buy it on the release date) or here: resolution patcher: http://www.fileplanet.com/156598/150000/fileinfo/Vampire-The-Masquerade:-Bloodlines---Resolution-Patcher
I went from v1.0 to v1.2 to v5.5.I think you need v1.2 to jump to v5.5. Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Unofficial Patches
The Steam version is already 1.2, though.
So, considering that the Steam version is already patched to 1.2, all I need to do is download the 5.5 patch (as it's cumulative) and then all the other patches up to 5.7 (the latest one), and I should be good to go? I'm going by what's on this download page, by the way.
[QUOTE=''nero5'']So, considering that the Steam version is already patched to 1.2, all I need to do is download the 5.5 patch (as it's cumulative) and then all the other patches up to 5.7 (the latest one), and I should be good to go? I'm going by what's on this download page, by the way.[/QUOTE] No. The 5.7 patch says its cummulative so you should be able to just install that.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Oh, I missed that; thank you for pointing it out. And thank you everyone else for your quick replies!
Is it possible to play this game in 1680*1050? I tried and best resolution i was able to get was 1024 x 768. I am playing on Vista btw.
Nice, I didn't know they had a newer one then 5.5.
Awesome game. I played it a year ago off Steam. I'd like to play it again with all of the patches and as a different character.
[QUOTE=''maingon2004'']Is it possible to play this game in 1680*1050? I tried and best resolution i was able to get was 1024 x 768. I am playing on Vista btw. [/QUOTE]the last time I replayed the game was in 1680*1050 (thanx to directions found here http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Master_Games_List_-_V ) with the latest official patch and unofficial patch 4.4 a or b, be sure to install 1.2 first (don't know if steam autopatches the game as I did buy it on the release date) or here: resolution patcher: http://www.fileplanet.com/156598/150000/fileinfo/Vampire-The-Masquerade:-Bloodlines---Resolution-Patcher
Which PC game should I get for my new tower?
Hi eveyone, I was wondering which video game I should get for my tower? My specs: e8500, 2gb 1066(8500), 9800gt, 320gb hdd. Also I like about any genre but my most favorite are FPS and RTS. Thanks!Which PC game should I get for my new tower?
Opps made two threads about this...Which PC game should I get for my new tower?
Aquaria, Wik and the Fable of Souls, Gish, World of Goomakeup 2009
Opps made two threads about this...Which PC game should I get for my new tower?
Aquaria, Wik and the Fable of Souls, Gish, World of Goo
call of duty 4 help me
I have call of duty 4 on my pc and it can no longer go online or save i think there may be a virus. What should I do ? uninstall then reinstall?call of duty 4 help me
Maybe try running a Virus Scan and see if you got a virus. If that dont work maybe a system restore back to before you had this problem, or just reinstall it.call of duty 4 help me
[QUOTE=''ptk4u'']Maybe try running a Virus Scan and see if you got a virus. If that dont work maybe a system restore back to before you had this problem, or just reinstall it.[/QUOTE]Run the virus scan, update your computer, then, if it still doesn't work, try reinstalling it. If that doesn't work, I guess try a system restore. If THAT doesn't work, reinstall your OS. If that doesn't work, *shrugs*.
Maybe try running a Virus Scan and see if you got a virus. If that dont work maybe a system restore back to before you had this problem, or just reinstall it.call of duty 4 help me
[QUOTE=''ptk4u'']Maybe try running a Virus Scan and see if you got a virus. If that dont work maybe a system restore back to before you had this problem, or just reinstall it.[/QUOTE]Run the virus scan, update your computer, then, if it still doesn't work, try reinstalling it. If that doesn't work, I guess try a system restore. If THAT doesn't work, reinstall your OS. If that doesn't work, *shrugs*.
Question's About World of Warcraft The Burning Crusade
i got a question do you install world of warcraft original then the burning crusade because soon im getting it or do you just install the burning crusade disk. or do you just install the burning crusade and that's it? Question 2: How many gigs is world of warcraft with the burning crusade installed i heard it was 16 gigs but i think its smaller.Please Answer As Soon As Possible:) Question's About World of Warcraft The Burning Crusade
You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. Question's About World of Warcraft The Burning Crusade
thanks :) im gonna wait for further answers about the space
[QUOTE=''jo59dan'']You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. [/QUOTE]was before latest patches now its like 11-12 i believe.
Mine takes up 8.17 gb without the latest patch.
[QUOTE=''Lach0121''][QUOTE=''jo59dan'']You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. [/QUOTE]was before latest patches now its like 11-12 i believe.[/QUOTE]How bout with patch 2.4.3?
Mine takes up 7.79 GB with the most recent patch installed (3.0.2). That's with original and TBC installed and only Omen and Recount as mods.
You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. Question's About World of Warcraft The Burning Crusade
thanks :) im gonna wait for further answers about the space
[QUOTE=''jo59dan'']You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. [/QUOTE]was before latest patches now its like 11-12 i believe.
Mine takes up 8.17 gb without the latest patch.
[QUOTE=''Lach0121''][QUOTE=''jo59dan'']You install the original wow first, then the burning crusade, then all of the patches.And I believe it's closer to 8 or 9. [/QUOTE]was before latest patches now its like 11-12 i believe.[/QUOTE]How bout with patch 2.4.3?
Mine takes up 7.79 GB with the most recent patch installed (3.0.2). That's with original and TBC installed and only Omen and Recount as mods.
My computer specs...
I'm kind of confused.... so, these are my computer specs: Intel Core 2 Duo @2.4GHz; 4GB RAM; 8400m GS 128mb.So, Dead Space says the minimum requirements include a 256mb video card. But, I can run Dead Space well on medium.Wtf....? My computer specs...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVidia-GeForce-8400M-GS.3709.0.html8400m GS has UP TO 256mb of vram, meaning it's probably taking your ram and using it as Vram. You must not be able to play this game at a decent FPS though.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVidia-GeForce-8400M-GS.3709.0.html8400m GS has UP TO 256mb of vram, meaning it's probably taking your ram and using it as Vram. You must not be able to play this game at a decent FPS though.
What settings can I run Farcry 2 on my PC? It meets minimum req. but plz help!
I want to know what settings I can run Farcry 2 on my PC, such as Resolution and Meddium graphic settings and what not. I know my comp meets the minumum settings but I still want to know what I can do and if it's worth buying on my comp or not.I have a Intel Pentium 4 Processor 3.0 GHz, with 2.5GB RAM, and a 9500 GT. What you guys think? What settings can I run Farcry 2 on my PC? It meets minimum req. but plz help!
Maybe medium-high settings with a resolution of 1024x768.What settings can I run Farcry 2 on my PC? It meets minimum req. but plz help!
Yes! That's better than I thought!! Anyone else?? What do you guys think? Should I go buy it today?
I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution.
[QUOTE=''Swiftstrike5'']I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution. [/QUOTE] Thats because most RTS are more cpu dependant than gpu.Anyway you are going to be able to play i,what exact settings unless someone has the same computers as you noone can be sure.But you can defo play so go buy!
I think you'll be alright. For some reason, my computer can always run games better than it should be able to. My graphics card is nooby :P.
Alot of the newer games are smart enough to automatically adjust the settings for you. You might not need to worry about setting it yourself, except manually turning off the shadows.
[QUOTE=''Astaroth2k''][QUOTE=''Swiftstrike5'']I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution. [/QUOTE] Thats because most RTS are more cpu dependant than gpu.Anyway you are going to be able to play i,what exact settings unless someone has the same computers as you noone can be sure.But you can defo play so go buy! [/QUOTE] It is CPU dependent, but my old single 8800GT setup couldn't max the game. I was impressed when his little old 8500GT played it on medium. I had a much better CPU.I was just saying that I've been impressed by the performance of the x500 nvidia cards. They're not great, but they get the job done for the budget price.
i have similiarish specs (8600gt, 2.0ghz dual core), and im running it at 600 by 800 with 4aa (i cant stand jaggies, hence the low resolution so i can put aa on) and all settings at high. i get perfectly playable fps, i would estimate about 30-40. you should get something similiar.
Maybe medium-high settings with a resolution of 1024x768.What settings can I run Farcry 2 on my PC? It meets minimum req. but plz help!
Yes! That's better than I thought!! Anyone else?? What do you guys think? Should I go buy it today?
I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution.
[QUOTE=''Swiftstrike5'']I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution. [/QUOTE] Thats because most RTS are more cpu dependant than gpu.Anyway you are going to be able to play i,what exact settings unless someone has the same computers as you noone can be sure.But you can defo play so go buy!
I think you'll be alright. For some reason, my computer can always run games better than it should be able to. My graphics card is nooby :P.
Alot of the newer games are smart enough to automatically adjust the settings for you. You might not need to worry about setting it yourself, except manually turning off the shadows.
[QUOTE=''Astaroth2k''][QUOTE=''Swiftstrike5'']I've been suprisied by the x500 nvidia series. I originally only thought they were good for movies, but my friend runs WiC on low/medium very well.I haven't played the game, but I'd saw mostly medium (some low) at a low resolution. [/QUOTE] Thats because most RTS are more cpu dependant than gpu.Anyway you are going to be able to play i,what exact settings unless someone has the same computers as you noone can be sure.But you can defo play so go buy! [/QUOTE] It is CPU dependent, but my old single 8800GT setup couldn't max the game. I was impressed when his little old 8500GT played it on medium. I had a much better CPU.I was just saying that I've been impressed by the performance of the x500 nvidia cards. They're not great, but they get the job done for the budget price.
i have similiarish specs (8600gt, 2.0ghz dual core), and im running it at 600 by 800 with 4aa (i cant stand jaggies, hence the low resolution so i can put aa on) and all settings at high. i get perfectly playable fps, i would estimate about 30-40. you should get something similiar.
How is the Clear Sky mulitplayer
Can you just give me a rating out of ten and how active the servers
this is for you all you vista haters, im calling you out!
allright all you vista haters explain once and for all why you hate vista, think of the improvements Microsoft has made for vista,take that in mind when you write on this board. I challenge you!this is for you all you vista haters, im calling you out!
I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
this is for you all you vista haters, im calling you out!
loleven i had problems with customer service of m$, its requirements are enough for me to hate new vista. and its fake visuals are nothing compared to Linux's XGL and Macwatch these videos if you wanthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kd42jIaHkits expensive, there is not enough games exclusive yet so why bother ?but sadly, to play pc games i need a windows os, so i'll continue to use xp for games.
Vista has nothing new, that's USEFUL and that couldn't have come to Windows XP (like DirectX 10, which will probably be cracked anyway). All the stupid protection-crap, Vista has is a big turn-off to. DRM, I think it's called, and other things. And who really needs some new animation for Minimize Window.The other thing is the requirements; why use over 1GB Ram to run Vista, when you can run run TinyXP with a silly 50MB Ram?Sorry, I am kinda tired.
[QUOTE=''ajc_176'']I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
[/QUOTE]Bingo. And with that stupid administrator access that makes sure you authorize EVERYTHING! I've uninstalled Vista and switched back to XP until they make it better for games and less annoying as mentioned above.
Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)
Won't work with common sound cards. What's up with that!
Won't work with common sound cards. What's up with that!
[QUOTE=''Misterhamper'']Vista has nothing new, that's USEFUL and that couldn't have come to Windows XP (like DirectX 10, which will probably be cracked anyway). All the stupid protection-crap, Vista has is a big turn-off to. DRM, I think it's called, and other things. And who really needs some new animation for Minimize Window.The other thing is the requirements; why use over 1GB Ram to run Vista, when you can run run TinyXP with a silly 50MB Ram?Sorry, I am kinda tired. [/QUOTE]It uses that much RAM? Wow, I never knew that. It will be a while until I get Vista then
I'm getting Vista with my new computer, I will probably try it out. And if I don't like it I will get XP again.
/\ /\ /\love her she is just perfecti wont bother with vista im just hoping they release xsos v3 by gen 2 dx 10 cards, its like win 95 with all the support to make 99.9% of win programs work that work with xp and vista
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.
[QUOTE=''iMuffins''][QUOTE=''ajc_176'']I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
[/QUOTE]Bingo. And with that stupid administrator access that makes sure you authorize EVERYTHING! I've uninstalled Vista and switched back to XP until they make it better for games and less annoying as mentioned above.[/QUOTE]I Agree Vista is an ok OS but very bad for games I cant run over half of my PC games luckily I can run my good ones but I'll be sticking to it for a bit longer
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.
Just wait for a service pack to come out. And then hopefully it will be much better :D
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810'']Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]But im guessing 98% of that 90 will not have actuly paied for it...
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.[/QUOTE] it will look differnt though ;)btw i do not have vista yet.
My games are barely effected at all, I dont see where that complaint is coming from? How long ago was this 3 months or more? >>
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.[/QUOTE]ERm wernt they having a seperate Multiplayer Mode for Dx 10 users, due to echances in Physics/gameplay? These 2 ''ROUMOURS'' contradict.makeup 2009
I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
this is for you all you vista haters, im calling you out!
loleven i had problems with customer service of m$, its requirements are enough for me to hate new vista. and its fake visuals are nothing compared to Linux's XGL and Macwatch these videos if you wanthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kd42jIaHkits expensive, there is not enough games exclusive yet so why bother ?but sadly, to play pc games i need a windows os, so i'll continue to use xp for games.
Vista has nothing new, that's USEFUL and that couldn't have come to Windows XP (like DirectX 10, which will probably be cracked anyway). All the stupid protection-crap, Vista has is a big turn-off to. DRM, I think it's called, and other things. And who really needs some new animation for Minimize Window.The other thing is the requirements; why use over 1GB Ram to run Vista, when you can run run TinyXP with a silly 50MB Ram?Sorry, I am kinda tired.
[QUOTE=''ajc_176'']I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
[/QUOTE]Bingo. And with that stupid administrator access that makes sure you authorize EVERYTHING! I've uninstalled Vista and switched back to XP until they make it better for games and less annoying as mentioned above.
Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)
Won't work with common sound cards. What's up with that!
Won't work with common sound cards. What's up with that!
[QUOTE=''Misterhamper'']Vista has nothing new, that's USEFUL and that couldn't have come to Windows XP (like DirectX 10, which will probably be cracked anyway). All the stupid protection-crap, Vista has is a big turn-off to. DRM, I think it's called, and other things. And who really needs some new animation for Minimize Window.The other thing is the requirements; why use over 1GB Ram to run Vista, when you can run run TinyXP with a silly 50MB Ram?Sorry, I am kinda tired. [/QUOTE]It uses that much RAM? Wow, I never knew that. It will be a while until I get Vista then
I'm getting Vista with my new computer, I will probably try it out. And if I don't like it I will get XP again.
/\ /\ /\love her she is just perfecti wont bother with vista im just hoping they release xsos v3 by gen 2 dx 10 cards, its like win 95 with all the support to make 99.9% of win programs work that work with xp and vista
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.
[QUOTE=''iMuffins''][QUOTE=''ajc_176'']I think vista looks good...
Its just terrible for games :(
[/QUOTE]Bingo. And with that stupid administrator access that makes sure you authorize EVERYTHING! I've uninstalled Vista and switched back to XP until they make it better for games and less annoying as mentioned above.[/QUOTE]I Agree Vista is an ok OS but very bad for games I cant run over half of my PC games luckily I can run my good ones but I'll be sticking to it for a bit longer
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.
Just wait for a service pack to come out. And then hopefully it will be much better :D
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810'']Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]But im guessing 98% of that 90 will not have actuly paied for it...
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.[/QUOTE] it will look differnt though ;)btw i do not have vista yet.
My games are barely effected at all, I dont see where that complaint is coming from? How long ago was this 3 months or more? >>
[QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''][QUOTE=''mimic-Denmark''][QUOTE=''gamerchris810''] Give it a year max and i bet 90% of vista haters will have vista.:)[/QUOTE]Dont be so sure. XP had problems too, but the deal with xp was that we needed a new great OS after the ME disaster. Now we have a great OS, and we dont need a new one. Therefor no need to change OS for a small improvement in direct x 10, which current consoles dont run and consoles are sadly where the money machine in gaming is now. So for a money perspective, it dosnt make sence to make a full blown dx 10 pc game now, when they properly wanna port most pc games to consoles.[/QUOTE]mmk no crysis for u then.[/QUOTE]Crysis is not a full blown dx 10 title, it has dx 10 effects, but will run great on xp too, and according to crytek if you have a great dx 9 rig then the game wont look that much different on an dx 10 rig.[/QUOTE]ERm wernt they having a seperate Multiplayer Mode for Dx 10 users, due to echances in Physics/gameplay? These 2 ''ROUMOURS'' contradict.
How would I like clear sky?
I come to ask this since there is no demo but some of my favorite fps games include crysis and warhead, fear, and hl2. I recently got far cry 2 but was severly disappointed. its a good game but theres so many flaws that arent really flaws but just stupid design decisions like no prone or lean, also no toggle iron sights sucks.Would I like a game like clear sky? Also how does it run on an 8800gt? How would I like clear sky?
Oh, god, here come the Clear Sky haters....(ducks)How would I like clear sky?
Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?
I think you would like it. It has some awesome firefights, inventory system, and a variety of weapon upgrades. The graphics are also a pretty big improvement over the first one. However, the Stalker series has always been known for it's bugs so make sure you get the latest patch.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story.
also how big is the dl? i was probably gonna get it off steam. whats the file size?
[QUOTE=''blues35301''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story. [/QUOTE]
How can you know if Shadow of Chernobyl is dated? You haven't even played it. And games don't date in a year. Play Shadow of Chernobyl first, it's the best shooter of 2007.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''blues35301''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story. [/QUOTE] How can you know if Shadow of Chernobyl is dated? You haven't even played it. And games don't date in a year. Play Shadow of Chernobyl first, it's the best shooter of 2007.[/QUOTE] becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated.
[QUOTE=''blues35301'']becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated. [/QUOTE]
Again, you haven't played the game. Clear Sky is just as ''dated'' as Shadow of Chernobyl, it's just an expansion pack. And dated or not, it's the best shooter of 2007. It's strange if that isn't good enough for you. You are supposed to play SoC before CS.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''blues35301'']becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated. [/QUOTE] Again, you haven't played the game. Clear Sky is just as ''dated'' as Shadow of Chernobyl, it's just an expansion pack. And dated or not, it's the best shooter of 2007. It's strange if that isn't good enough for you. You are supposed to play SoC before CS.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that by dated he means ''Teh grahpics SUCK!!!11!!1!!!one!'' .
SoC seams less of a run and gun game then CS. Both games are very similar to eachother, and theres areas which are teh same in both games so its like playing SoC over again in CS, so if u dont care about the story then go with either, but i recommend going with SoC first.
[QUOTE=''blues35301''] I come to ask this since there is no demo but some of my favorite fps games include crysis and warhead, fear, and hl2. I recently got far cry 2 but was severly disappointed. its a good game but theres so many flaws that arent really flaws but just stupid design decisions like no prone or lean, also no toggle iron sights sucks.Would I like a game like clear sky? Also how does it run on an 8800gt? [/QUOTE] I don't even know you. How would I know what you like?
Oh, god, here come the Clear Sky haters....(ducks)How would I like clear sky?
Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?
I think you would like it. It has some awesome firefights, inventory system, and a variety of weapon upgrades. The graphics are also a pretty big improvement over the first one. However, the Stalker series has always been known for it's bugs so make sure you get the latest patch.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story.
also how big is the dl? i was probably gonna get it off steam. whats the file size?
[QUOTE=''blues35301''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story. [/QUOTE]
How can you know if Shadow of Chernobyl is dated? You haven't even played it. And games don't date in a year. Play Shadow of Chernobyl first, it's the best shooter of 2007.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''blues35301''][QUOTE=''RK-Mara'']Have you played Shadow of Chernobyl?[/QUOTE] nope. but id rather play clear sky first since it isnt as dated. and i know its a prequel. and i dont really care much about the story. [/QUOTE] How can you know if Shadow of Chernobyl is dated? You haven't even played it. And games don't date in a year. Play Shadow of Chernobyl first, it's the best shooter of 2007.[/QUOTE] becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated.
[QUOTE=''blues35301'']becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated. [/QUOTE]
Again, you haven't played the game. Clear Sky is just as ''dated'' as Shadow of Chernobyl, it's just an expansion pack. And dated or not, it's the best shooter of 2007. It's strange if that isn't good enough for you. You are supposed to play SoC before CS.
[QUOTE=''RK-Mara''][QUOTE=''blues35301'']becuase ive seen enough of it and yes it is dated. shadow of chernobyl was set to release in 2004 and even though it came out in 07 it looked like an 04 game. its dated. [/QUOTE] Again, you haven't played the game. Clear Sky is just as ''dated'' as Shadow of Chernobyl, it's just an expansion pack. And dated or not, it's the best shooter of 2007. It's strange if that isn't good enough for you. You are supposed to play SoC before CS.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that by dated he means ''Teh grahpics SUCK!!!11!!1!!!one!'' .
SoC seams less of a run and gun game then CS. Both games are very similar to eachother, and theres areas which are teh same in both games so its like playing SoC over again in CS, so if u dont care about the story then go with either, but i recommend going with SoC first.
[QUOTE=''blues35301''] I come to ask this since there is no demo but some of my favorite fps games include crysis and warhead, fear, and hl2. I recently got far cry 2 but was severly disappointed. its a good game but theres so many flaws that arent really flaws but just stupid design decisions like no prone or lean, also no toggle iron sights sucks.Would I like a game like clear sky? Also how does it run on an 8800gt? [/QUOTE] I don't even know you. How would I know what you like?
Can you run it(systems lab) not accurate enough. whats your experience
My pc is pretty old, with a really awful graphics card and it said i cant run games such as Crysis, But in reality the game actually worked. I was so surprised it played with a decent frame rate, i know the systems test is only a guide but it got this one completely wrong.Can you run it(systems lab) not accurate enough. whats your experience
um... congratulations?
um... congratulations?
probably a stupid question...
I'm not really a PC gamer so....I've just got the new macbook, i was wondering if it was possible for Crysis to ever come out for mac?probably a stupid question...
Even if it did, it wouldn't run very well. Macbooks aren't exactly gaming power houses.
But to actually answer your question, no I can't see it coming out on Mac. You could use boot camp to use Windows though, but I'd recommend sticking to less heavy games.probably a stupid question...
the new one maybe better than you think, 2gb ram, Nvidia GeForce 9400. even so, it probably wouldn't run well.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
I know Apple made the jump to 9000-series but 9400M isn't exactly a fantastic gaming card.
I've always said
Windows = For offices/games
Mac= for offices/Work
There is no way in hell you'll ever see an OS X version of Crysis.
If you were to install Windows on the machine via Boot Camp you can expect Crysis to run like crap!
thanks for the advice guys, better not get my hopes up then.
Even if it did, it wouldn't run very well. Macbooks aren't exactly gaming power houses.
But to actually answer your question, no I can't see it coming out on Mac. You could use boot camp to use Windows though, but I'd recommend sticking to less heavy games.probably a stupid question...
the new one maybe better than you think, 2gb ram, Nvidia GeForce 9400. even so, it probably wouldn't run well.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
I know Apple made the jump to 9000-series but 9400M isn't exactly a fantastic gaming card.
I've always said
Windows = For offices/games
Mac= for offices/Work
There is no way in hell you'll ever see an OS X version of Crysis.
If you were to install Windows on the machine via Boot Camp you can expect Crysis to run like crap!
thanks for the advice guys, better not get my hopes up then.
windows live achievment problems
hello there all.i am having some trouble with the windows live achievment system. when i got my brand new copy of fallout 3. i didnt make a windows live account until i had gotten to lvl 10. now i have made one i cannot get any achievements for quests that i hav done and i really dont want to have to make another profile just to get my achievements. is there any way to get fallout 3 to recognise the achivements that i have completed. any help would be greatly appreciated. thankyou
Mod problem with san andreas
I am trying to run some mods with a copy of san andreas i bought today. Sa mp does not run and makes an infinite amount of errors until I end all the gta processes. MTA is not running but just hangs. Any other mods I should try?
Ameuture Surgeon Review
far cry 2 too small !!!
i got it played it for two days that's like 12 hours and just finished it and started playing another game what about the 50 hours of gameplay said in one of the videos and 30 hours that gamespot said that it would have i finished it 100 % with the side missions bought all weapons and stuff don't get me wrong i really like it i couldn't stop playing it for the first day but really the thing about the gameplay time was a big fat liefar cry 2 too small !!!
Lies are everywherefar cry 2 too small !!!
I have no idea what the hell you just said TC.
My game took 25 hours to complete. I did a couple of buddy missions, a couple of assassination missions and unlocked all the weapons through arms dealer missions. If I'd spent more time on buddy missions ect, the game could easily have lasted 30 hours.I think ''short'' would be a better word than small.
[QUOTE=''Lidve'']Lies are everywhere[/QUOTE]The developers should be publicly spanked.
[QUOTE=''error11'']I have no idea what the hell you just said TC.[/QUOTE]rofl word
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']My game took 25 hours to complete. I did a couple of buddy missions, a couple of assassination missions and unlocked all the weapons through arms dealer missions. If I'd spent more time on buddy missions ect, the game could easily have lasted 30 hours.I think ''short'' would be a better word than small.[/QUOTE]sorry i meant to say short but i was so outrages cause i just finished and reviewed it
wow im 13 hours in and 27% through the story i must be having to much fun.i actually didnt like the game for a while till i got better weapons. the guard posts piss me off so much. its not the fact that i have to drive across but they are aways there god
o i almost forgot did anyone notice that the rains penetrates the buildings while u're inside it was kinda stupid when i was talking to a faction leader with the room raining
[QUOTE=''firo999'']o i almost forgot did anyone notice that the rains penetrates the buildings while u're inside it was kinda stupid when i was talking to a faction leader with the room raining[/QUOTE]Doesn't do that for me. Must be a glitch on your PC.
Yeah! More FC2 hate!Phew. I was starting to get worried...more than a day had passed!
I'm about 30% in.. and its getting really good.. took me a couple of days to get there I really took my time though.. doing the side missions.. sniping etc.
i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands
I boght it yesterday, and my serial was already a not found at the server!!! Not played for ONE FFFnminute!! **** the DRM or whatever they inplanted in m systeem 39 Euro gone!! Any reply helpful .. licher@wishmail.net
Wow.. not sure how you managed to complete it in 12 hours?! I spend 25'ish hours (did most budy missions, all weapon dealer and just 1 or 2 assasinations).
[QUOTE=''Mazoch'']Wow.. not sure how you managed to complete it in 12 hours?! I spend 25'ish hours (did most budy missions, all weapon dealer and just 1 or 2 assasinations).[/QUOTE]its a lieno1 can finish the game in that timei think people who dont own the game just get paranoid and stay at forums to make such stupid threadseven if u finish the game when ur just doing the main missions it doesnt change the fact that i just freaking love this gameits so great and i was really hesitant to buy it 1st but iam glad i did
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]why do u people buy the game?to play or to criticise iti think the level of gamers has come down coz of non gamers just writing stupid things about the games other likereally start playing if u own the gameand if u dont just get a life
I havent played so much.. about 20 % in 8-9 hours or so, but I just love to kill thoose people! I usually just take money missions to get better weapons to find new methods to kill people:P
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]:lol::lol:........:lol::lol: Thanks, I needed that.
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]lol, quality post.I'm pretty sure most of that 50 hours they quoted for 100% would be looking for every last hidden diamond. Although, 12 hours is too fast, I'm at 12 hours and only 50%.makeup 2009
Lies are everywherefar cry 2 too small !!!
I have no idea what the hell you just said TC.
My game took 25 hours to complete. I did a couple of buddy missions, a couple of assassination missions and unlocked all the weapons through arms dealer missions. If I'd spent more time on buddy missions ect, the game could easily have lasted 30 hours.I think ''short'' would be a better word than small.
[QUOTE=''Lidve'']Lies are everywhere[/QUOTE]The developers should be publicly spanked.
[QUOTE=''error11'']I have no idea what the hell you just said TC.[/QUOTE]rofl word
[QUOTE=''bangell99'']My game took 25 hours to complete. I did a couple of buddy missions, a couple of assassination missions and unlocked all the weapons through arms dealer missions. If I'd spent more time on buddy missions ect, the game could easily have lasted 30 hours.I think ''short'' would be a better word than small.[/QUOTE]sorry i meant to say short but i was so outrages cause i just finished and reviewed it
wow im 13 hours in and 27% through the story i must be having to much fun.i actually didnt like the game for a while till i got better weapons. the guard posts piss me off so much. its not the fact that i have to drive across but they are aways there god
o i almost forgot did anyone notice that the rains penetrates the buildings while u're inside it was kinda stupid when i was talking to a faction leader with the room raining
[QUOTE=''firo999'']o i almost forgot did anyone notice that the rains penetrates the buildings while u're inside it was kinda stupid when i was talking to a faction leader with the room raining[/QUOTE]Doesn't do that for me. Must be a glitch on your PC.
Yeah! More FC2 hate!Phew. I was starting to get worried...more than a day had passed!
I'm about 30% in.. and its getting really good.. took me a couple of days to get there I really took my time though.. doing the side missions.. sniping etc.
i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands
I boght it yesterday, and my serial was already a not found at the server!!! Not played for ONE FFFnminute!! **** the DRM or whatever they inplanted in m systeem 39 Euro gone!! Any reply helpful .. licher@wishmail.net
Wow.. not sure how you managed to complete it in 12 hours?! I spend 25'ish hours (did most budy missions, all weapon dealer and just 1 or 2 assasinations).
[QUOTE=''Mazoch'']Wow.. not sure how you managed to complete it in 12 hours?! I spend 25'ish hours (did most budy missions, all weapon dealer and just 1 or 2 assasinations).[/QUOTE]its a lieno1 can finish the game in that timei think people who dont own the game just get paranoid and stay at forums to make such stupid threadseven if u finish the game when ur just doing the main missions it doesnt change the fact that i just freaking love this gameits so great and i was really hesitant to buy it 1st but iam glad i did
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]why do u people buy the game?to play or to criticise iti think the level of gamers has come down coz of non gamers just writing stupid things about the games other likereally start playing if u own the gameand if u dont just get a life
I havent played so much.. about 20 % in 8-9 hours or so, but I just love to kill thoose people! I usually just take money missions to get better weapons to find new methods to kill people:P
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]:lol::lol:........:lol::lol: Thanks, I needed that.
[QUOTE=''Postal_Guy'']i stopped playing when at 2%.... when my AK exploded in my hands[/QUOTE]lol, quality post.I'm pretty sure most of that 50 hours they quoted for 100% would be looking for every last hidden diamond. Although, 12 hours is too fast, I'm at 12 hours and only 50%.
Impossible Creatures VS Red Alert 3?
Impossible creaures, relic's worst RTS VS C%26C Red Alert 3, EALA's best RTS. Impossible creatures gamespot USER rating - 650 votes = 8.3 averageC%26C Red Alert 3 gamespot USER rating - 706 votes = 7.8 averageImpossible Creatures VS Red Alert 3?
Impossible Creature, since I don't have RA3.Impossible Creatures VS Red Alert 3?
Red Alert 3. I don't care what the user rating is, I love it.
Oh and yes, I have played and do own Impossible creatures.
I don't know about RA3, but IC is alright.
i will go for RA 3i like it
Neither. Pathetic game/story vs. pathetic game/cutscene acting. Nobody wins.
[QUOTE=''WDT-BlackKat'']Neither. Pathetic game/story vs. pathetic game/cutscene acting. Nobody wins.[/QUOTE] lol at you.
Impossible creatures as C%26C is tired and old it needs a rethink.
Impossible Creature, since I don't have RA3.Impossible Creatures VS Red Alert 3?
Red Alert 3. I don't care what the user rating is, I love it.
Oh and yes, I have played and do own Impossible creatures.
I don't know about RA3, but IC is alright.
i will go for RA 3i like it
Neither. Pathetic game/story vs. pathetic game/cutscene acting. Nobody wins.
[QUOTE=''WDT-BlackKat'']Neither. Pathetic game/story vs. pathetic game/cutscene acting. Nobody wins.[/QUOTE] lol at you.
Impossible creatures as C%26C is tired and old it needs a rethink.
The Witcher or Fallout 3?
Ok so here's my situation. I'm about to finish Far Cry 2 and want to pick up a new RPG. I can't figure out if I should get the Witcher or Fallout 3. I'm kinda leaning towards The Witcher, cause it's cheaper and one of my housemates just bought Fallout 3 for his 360, although I eventually want to get Fallout 3 for PC. Which do you guys suggest and why?The Witcher or Fallout 3?
I haven't played either much, but I'd go with Fallout 3.The Witcher or Fallout 3?
I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.
Hmmm it is a rather tough decision.... If you ever played Oblivion then thats what you should except from Fallout 3. The world is big, theres plenty of things to do, and you can kill most people you encounter. I have the witcher but I have not downloaded the new enhanced version of it but from what I've played, the characters seemed to be a bit shallow and the fighting was meh at best. Since your friend already has Fallout and if money is an issue I'd say get the Witcher.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
Well I REALLY like what I've seen so far from Fallout 3, but I've heard a lot of people say that The Witcher was one of the best RPG's they've ever played. So yeah I'm pretty split between them. I'll probably make my final choice once I finish Far Cry 2.
[QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
[QUOTE=''chesterocks7'']Well I REALLY like what I've seen so far from Fallout 3, but I've heard a lot of people say that The Witcher was one of the best RPG's they've ever played. So yeah I'm pretty split between them. I'll probably make my final choice once I finish Far Cry 2.[/QUOTE] the Witcher was one of the better RPG's that had come out in a while. However the combat is one of the worst aspects of the game second only to the voice acting (they said that was fixed up in the EE version) the thing is does the best is that the decisions you make aren't the typical good/evil choices. you're often presented with a problem that seems rather evenly two sided but which ever side you pick has far reaching consequences that are hard to predict and often happen so far later in the game that it's too difficult to just reload and try another route.Then depending on what difficulty you put it on, the alchemy portion is either useless or key to survival. Most of the quests involve killing a certain number of creatures, finding certain plants and junk like that.Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different. You have people that hated Oblivion and fans of Fallout 1 and 2 saying the game was crap since it was announced a few years back. Now that the game has turned out fine in many people's eyes and is actually a better RPG than even Morrowind, these naysayer's egos won't let them say anything good about the game and often times you'll get posts like the one above saying the combat sucks.I'm sorry about choosing between a silver sword or another weapon and 3 of the same combat styles for each then clicking on a character to a timed pattern is not better than scavenging for items to repair your many types of guns, explosives and melee weapons and fighting in real time or VATS. Many reviews both professional and user say The Witcher's combat is dull and tedious.
i dont agree. combat is great in witcher. it takes a bit a to understand it but after that witcher's dance is fun to watch. especially when you are fighting against multiple opponents and finish them with cool styles.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
combat in fallout 3 is definatly less good than the witcher. Feel like a half-baked fps and the vats is really annoying to use since it lag and the camera is horrible at showing you your kill. Witcher is probably more interesting story-wise also. ''Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different''I lol'ed at that. I dunno how a grey/brownish open-ended rpg game with gun is totally different than what I've seen before. The problem with fallout 3 is that it try to be too many things at the same time.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
both are great...but fallout seems to have more things to do.....
[QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.[/QUOTE] Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise.
The Witcher.
I have not played either myself but my friends say fallout 3 is the stuff dreams are made of!
My friend said FO 3 was real good on 360, and alot of people say Thw Witcher is really good RPGing. I haven't played either but I think both are real good choices.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.[/QUOTE] Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. [/QUOTE]Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.
[QUOTE=''chesterocks7'']Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.[/QUOTE]I understand that, and he's of course welcome to suggest away. But he's responding to me, and I'm telling him to stop responding to me, since I won't be reading his **** anyway. Next time he wants to give suggestions to you, I think it would go over much more smoothly if he simply responded to your post, instead of mine. Otherwise, it's going to get catty. :DI hope you find his comments helpful in deciding which game to get. :) If you haven't tried Mass Effect, I suggest that one over the two you're looking at. :P
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. [/QUOTE] And my experience tells me that someone's who has played 2 hours of a 40 plus hour game has an opinion that is next to useless.Just like I wouldn't listen to someone that watched 10 minutes of The Godfather and said it was boring. I'm glad you're willing to share your so limited amount of experience on the topic with us so we can readily dismiss your claims. Thank you for not wasting anymore of our time.I'll equally be looking for your 30 minute mark Dragon Age review in fact I think you're onto something here. You should start a website where you review demo portions of games. You'd have the only website that does that and you'd be the first with many reviews
I haven't played either much, but I'd go with Fallout 3.The Witcher or Fallout 3?
I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.
Hmmm it is a rather tough decision.... If you ever played Oblivion then thats what you should except from Fallout 3. The world is big, theres plenty of things to do, and you can kill most people you encounter. I have the witcher but I have not downloaded the new enhanced version of it but from what I've played, the characters seemed to be a bit shallow and the fighting was meh at best. Since your friend already has Fallout and if money is an issue I'd say get the Witcher.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
Well I REALLY like what I've seen so far from Fallout 3, but I've heard a lot of people say that The Witcher was one of the best RPG's they've ever played. So yeah I'm pretty split between them. I'll probably make my final choice once I finish Far Cry 2.
[QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
[QUOTE=''chesterocks7'']Well I REALLY like what I've seen so far from Fallout 3, but I've heard a lot of people say that The Witcher was one of the best RPG's they've ever played. So yeah I'm pretty split between them. I'll probably make my final choice once I finish Far Cry 2.[/QUOTE] the Witcher was one of the better RPG's that had come out in a while. However the combat is one of the worst aspects of the game second only to the voice acting (they said that was fixed up in the EE version) the thing is does the best is that the decisions you make aren't the typical good/evil choices. you're often presented with a problem that seems rather evenly two sided but which ever side you pick has far reaching consequences that are hard to predict and often happen so far later in the game that it's too difficult to just reload and try another route.Then depending on what difficulty you put it on, the alchemy portion is either useless or key to survival. Most of the quests involve killing a certain number of creatures, finding certain plants and junk like that.Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different. You have people that hated Oblivion and fans of Fallout 1 and 2 saying the game was crap since it was announced a few years back. Now that the game has turned out fine in many people's eyes and is actually a better RPG than even Morrowind, these naysayer's egos won't let them say anything good about the game and often times you'll get posts like the one above saying the combat sucks.I'm sorry about choosing between a silver sword or another weapon and 3 of the same combat styles for each then clicking on a character to a timed pattern is not better than scavenging for items to repair your many types of guns, explosives and melee weapons and fighting in real time or VATS. Many reviews both professional and user say The Witcher's combat is dull and tedious.
i dont agree. combat is great in witcher. it takes a bit a to understand it but after that witcher's dance is fun to watch. especially when you are fighting against multiple opponents and finish them with cool styles.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
combat in fallout 3 is definatly less good than the witcher. Feel like a half-baked fps and the vats is really annoying to use since it lag and the camera is horrible at showing you your kill. Witcher is probably more interesting story-wise also. ''Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different''I lol'ed at that. I dunno how a grey/brownish open-ended rpg game with gun is totally different than what I've seen before. The problem with fallout 3 is that it try to be too many things at the same time.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
both are great...but fallout seems to have more things to do.....
[QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.[/QUOTE] Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise.
The Witcher.
I have not played either myself but my friends say fallout 3 is the stuff dreams are made of!
My friend said FO 3 was real good on 360, and alot of people say Thw Witcher is really good RPGing. I haven't played either but I think both are real good choices.
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''][QUOTE=''succulent_toes''][QUOTE=''smerlus''] [QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.[/QUOTE] I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting. [/QUOTE] The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million ''get me X number of this animal parts'' quests.Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.[/QUOTE] Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. [/QUOTE]Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.
[QUOTE=''chesterocks7'']Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.[/QUOTE]I understand that, and he's of course welcome to suggest away. But he's responding to me, and I'm telling him to stop responding to me, since I won't be reading his **** anyway. Next time he wants to give suggestions to you, I think it would go over much more smoothly if he simply responded to your post, instead of mine. Otherwise, it's going to get catty. :DI hope you find his comments helpful in deciding which game to get. :) If you haven't tried Mass Effect, I suggest that one over the two you're looking at. :P
[QUOTE=''succulent_toes'']all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. [/QUOTE] And my experience tells me that someone's who has played 2 hours of a 40 plus hour game has an opinion that is next to useless.Just like I wouldn't listen to someone that watched 10 minutes of The Godfather and said it was boring. I'm glad you're willing to share your so limited amount of experience on the topic with us so we can readily dismiss your claims. Thank you for not wasting anymore of our time.I'll equally be looking for your 30 minute mark Dragon Age review in fact I think you're onto something here. You should start a website where you review demo portions of games. You'd have the only website that does that and you'd be the first with many reviews
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What happend to Might & Magic?
Weren't Ubisoft going to make a trilogy when they where making Heroes V and Dark Messiah?
What was the third game...?
And what happend to it?
And are there any other Might and Magic games in the works?What happend to Might %26amp; Magic?
Not Sure, but my guess is Dark Messiah sales were pretty dissapointing, so any other future versions could have been cancelled
What was the third game...?
And what happend to it?
And are there any other Might and Magic games in the works?What happend to Might %26amp; Magic?
Not Sure, but my guess is Dark Messiah sales were pretty dissapointing, so any other future versions could have been cancelled
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)