That there were primitives already here didn't really matter in the bigger story. And they didn't, they are little more than local color in any serious history. Their culture was so far below the Europeans they simply ddin't stand a chance. Not passing judgement here, not saying whether it was 'right' or 'wrong', just that it is what happened.
I'm gonna have to go ahead here, and disagree with you on this one. See, the first years of colonization were fraught with native/colonist battles, skirmishes, and bitterness. From the beginning onwards, it really gave colonists this sense that they were truly "better" than these barbaric and uncouth natives. As time progressed, and colonies began to turn into nations (I'm going to stick with America here mostly), this notion of superiority transformed into one of the biggest driving factors in recent history; the idea of American Exceptionalism.
Americans, from the beginning, felt they were exceptional for many reasons; overthrowing the king, bringing democracy to the land, being enlightened, what have you. However, I would contend that one of the biggest factors contributing to this mindset came during the period of American westward expansion. As America pushed into the frontier, they felt they were spreading civilization across the land - land that was formerly native. They felt they had a duty to the world, to spread this civilization.
So they did. This is where Manifest Destiny came from - Americans are the biggest, baddest, and most enlightened people in town, and we're enlightening you too (whether you like it or not). Would America have grown to the size it is today without this ideal? Probably not. The Mexican-American war was started largely because of manifest destiny (James Polk ran on a platform of American expansion), and that's where nearly 1/4 our (continental) geographical size came from. However, geography isn't the big deal with American Exceptionalism; it's all about foreign policy.
From the 1890s onward, America was openly expansionist; the Philippines were more or less ours, Hawaii was up for grabs, etc. However, American Exceptionalism was about spreading culture, not land. So damn near every chance America got, we exerted our influence (Roosevelt w/ "speak softly and carry a big stick", Wilson/WW1/League of Nations, Truman/UN). Even today, I would argue that our entire foreign policy is driven, at some points openly, and other points subtly, by the ideal of American Exceptionalism.
A perfect example, I feel, is Iraq. We weren't invading Iraq for oil; we were invading for two reasons (according to our President, mind you). First and foremost, to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his very terrible weapons of mass destruction. Second, to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Now, doesn't that sound an awful lot like the great, civilized, exceptional Americans making the "barbaric" parts of the world just like us?
So to just brush aside the natives as a non-event is silly. They were the evidence that American Exceptionalism was "right"; if they could be civilized, so could the rest of the world. They were not the origin of American Exceptionalism, but they did a hell of a lot to justify that ideal, and the effects of that justification can be felt very clearly today.
Note: I'm trying my best to be objective. Whether I feel America is exceptional or not, the fact of the matter, is that America felt it was exceptional, and has for 200 years.
Also, the Xbox 360 has sold 20 million units? of those, how many are connected to the internet? A tiny number compared to how many hundreds of millions of PCs are on the internet. The PC has been helping people communicate with one another online for years. Theres enough PC users around for AoC to becomes 10 times the size of WoW.
Well, there's an inherent flaw in your logic. While, yes, AoC could potentially become that large on the PC, it won't. The reason? Well, just because a PC is connected to the internet doesn't mean there's a gamer sitting behind that keyboard. With a console, your odds of landing a hardcore gamer are significantly higher.
Furthermore, the prevalence of MMOs on PCs causes problems. In general, many people don't play more than one MMO at a time, and if you're competing against WoW, Guild Wars, EQ, etc., your market size shrinks considerably. Consoles are essentially MMO free. If you make a killer MMO work great on a console, there's a serious untapped market to be had.
That there is the problem. Console MMOs suck, because everyone refuses to build from the ground up for them. If you design a game with solely consoles in mind, you don't (always) get "watered-down crap". Sometimes, you get a fantastic game with a sweet concept (best example: EndWar). Trash consoles all you want, but they are getting some really cool innovation, and innovation sells (whether that be on PC or console).
Finally, there is one HUGE incentive for developers to switch to consoles; piracy. Say what you want about it, but piracy is a cancer on the PC market. Is your game actually going to do well, or is it gonna get pirated to hell and back? Will you even make a return on that investment? Consoles have significantly lower piracy, and that makes them a safer bet.
Mark my words; console MMOs will be huge. Someone will hit it big sometime, and it will rock the gaming market. It'll be that console generation's Halo; it'll prove (once again) that consoles are viable not just for genre x, but genre y too. You just have to work with them.
Yes, I'm very happy at the news of Jack's disbarment, but at the same time, I fear he will find a new place to espouse his, err, "opinions" at fox news.
They picked up Karl Rove, so Jackie boy seems like such a perfect fit.
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this.[...]He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
See, the penalties only work properly if you include that one caveat. I may be wrong here (please, correct me if I am), but wouldn't a party be able to apply the same penalties to a small scale pirate, for instance? If you copy a game 5 times and hand them out to friends (say you sell them for 5 or 10 bucks), does it make sense for the same penalties to be applied?
I understand that the idea behind the huge penalties is to deter others, but it seems to me that there should (at the very least) be different levels of copyright infringement, piracy, etc. Again, IAANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there aren't really any variations on these laws. Couldn't Activision sue the hypothetical you for $150k (minimum), seeing as you copied it five times?
It's not taking down the large scale operations I have a problem with, it's applying the same law in an area where it really shouldn't be applied that causes me to let out a "wtf".
A game costs roughly $60.00. For each act of infringement, Activision wants, at the very least, 50000% of the initial price, or at the most, 250000% of the initial price. How is it even legal to demand that much? I truly don't understand our legal system. If he had stolen the game 5 times, he'd probably be fined $500 - $1000, but for distributing 5 copies, he now has to pay (if activision gets their way) $150k?
I'm sorry, but that's just incredibly fucking stupid.
Crazy thought.... don't buy the games. You don't think the new ones are up to snuff and don't want more to come out.
Where exactly did I say I was going to buy the (invariably mediocre) games again?
Ummm.... there are plenty of titles that go far beyond what they should have. Ultima peaked at #4, King's uest stopped being innovative. Mario Brother 97 coming out any time soon? Harry Potter? This is the way it is in movies, books, games. If there is money to be made it will be made. Stop buying it, and there won't be any more coming out.
So, since Ultima's legacy was ruined (like many others), I should stop being upset at Microsoft's abuse of the Halo franchise? Sorry, but I can't follow that "logic".
Hi Microsoft, I'm a dedicated Halo fan. Halo:CE is really the game that made me a gamer - I played it, and I was hooked. I absolutely love that game, and I really enjoyed Halo 2 and Halo 3. I think they're fantastic games; you may disagree, and I say, to each his own. Now, onto the next matter of business:
The milk is drying up. The horse is dead. Please, stop pissing on what was once a respectable gaming series. I don't give a damn if you think it will make you oodles of money - you keep bending the franchise over like you are, and it will lose it's touch. People will stop buying it. The fans will cease to be, and you will have a shell of a franchise.
Halo was pretty damn good, but don't go make the Master Chief the next Sonic. For FSM's sake, GO INNOVATE. That goes for the entire damn industry! I can't believe the day has actually come when EA is being more innovative (Mirror's Edge, Spore) than the rest of the industry.
I'm not saying retire the entire Halo series (I'd be infinitely happier if you would, but I'm not an idiot). I'm saying that if you don't stop abusing the legacy of the franchise that launched your console, that both you and the fans will regret it.
Halo was special. It was a revolutionary console game (that's an argument for another time, however). Please, do not make fools of yourselves, and moreover, fools of the fans. Take a page out of any book that isn't George Lucas' and leave the franchise intact. Stop pimping it out. Leave it be, or at least in the fewest, most capable hands you can, AND GO MAKE SOMETHING NEW.
For a while now, I've hoped that I wouldn't ever see another Halo game. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. I fear that my favorite series is doomed to mediocrity.
We respectfully take your concerns into consideration, and present you with this money basket. We hope that this free donation to your re-election campaign, brand new BMW, and lakehouse are enjoyed thoroughly by you! Thank you for ceasing your inquiry - err, we mean, thank you for invariably enjoying our gifts!
The bigger news is the status of Microsoft Game Studios. 1st party titles make the console, more or less. Online is pretty important, sure, and the aesthetics have something to do with it, I guess, but gamers aren't (complete) idiots. That's right, we're devoted fanboys. So let's be clear - nothing makes a console more attractive than a strong, non-multiplatform game. Like MGS? Sony has a console they'd like to sell you. Halo fan? Microsoft looks pretty nice, eh?
Well, the problem with this news isn't that Ensemble (one of my favorite RTS devs) is closing down - that's a damn shame, sure, but the real news is that Microsoft has lost yet another 1st party game developer. Bungie? Gone. Bizarre Creations (Project Gotham Racing)? Toodleloo! Now, Ensemble no longer exists. What studios does MS have left? Where is the appeal? Exactly what in the hell is happening over at MGS?
To me, it seems like MGS is getting bit in the ass by their rather authoritarian style of management. MS has been notorious (in the past few years) for pushing unfinished games out the door, delaying games so it can be released on a better schedule for them, and basically pushing around their own dev teams. Bungie (quite literally the entire studio) threatened resignation if they were not given independence (looking at Halo 2/3, it's obvious to see why their so jaded towards MGS). Hell, even after Bungie became independent, they're still being forced around by MS (see: recent Bungie announcement cancellation). It seems to me that the creative types are getting sick of the MS abuse. Maybe this is just wild speculation, but knowing how MS operates, it all seems to line up in my head. Time will tell.
The difference here is that the Xbox cost them a huge amount of money (I don't think they ever made a profit off an Xbox sale), and did not benefit from integration of parts. For instance, one of the most acclaimed bonuses of a 360 (by developers) is the integrated memory (I'm not a hardware engineer, so if I'm off here, correct me). The fact that the memory can be used both as video ram and standard ram allows for serious optimization benefits.
Just throwing together some PC parts doesn't make it better. It may be more reliable and save on R&D costs, but a console like a PS3 would blow a PC equivalent (512mb RAM, 6800GT, let's not talk about the CPU) out of the water. In the console market, you have to build a "console" and not a PC, otherwise you'll never bring down the cost sufficiently, and it won't have a very good lifespan (graphically).
But for Newegg's service, honestly, I'd still be ordering from there. Building a new computer is almost always expensive - but it's hard to put a price on service. Sure, you could go with Tiger, but when that one part is three days late, or that one HDD clicks when you put it in, do you really want to deal with Tiger?
It's quite a premium to pay, but service is something that is really important to me. If I order a $200 video card, I want to feel safe knowing I'll be able to return it. Again, that's just me, but you should definitely be asking yourself how much service is worth to you. At the very least, keep that question in the back of your mind - it could definitely come back to bite you in the ass if you don't.
I am so sick of these whiney posts.... wah wah wah, I might be capped soon.
So just because you're getting bent over by your ISPs means that I shouldn't care that mine are starting to follow the same trend? Look, we get it, Australian internet sucks. That doesn't mean the rest of the world's has to.
You lost your fight - bummer. That doesn't mean that we have to lose ours.
In America, if you're part black, you're all black. Argue that Obama is half-white, grew up with a white family, etc., the populace will still see him as a black man. You can be a quarter Irish, a fifth Turkish, a third Native American, but you can not be half Black. As wrong as it is, that's how America sees him.
ATi isn't exactly great either. I have multiple ATi cards - an X800GTO AGP, 9800pro AGP, 9600XT AGP, and none, zero, zip, nada, work with the latest series of drivers (Catalyst 8). They all throw up blue screens when trying to run anything 3D. Why is that? Well, ATi has dropped support for AGP cards. That means you're stuck with the abysmal cat 7s if you're running AGP. To be honest, I wouldn't be very upset about this whole situation (I spent roughly 3 days pinpointing the issue) if ATi had just had the common courtesy to tell us. Instead, they opted to let all AGP users who decide to stay up to date struggle with driver problems for a while. It's such a bummer that ATi has such shitty support (consistently awful drivers, this problem, etc.), because they make some beastly cards (HD series).
Note: The AGP problem does affect all AGP cards, but hotfixes have been released for the HD series AGP cards. Ironically enough, the only cards to get hotfixes are cards that were made by third-parties.
I hope someone else enters the GPU game. I'm getting sick of being stuck between Nvidia and ATi - come back, 3dfx!
I think a lot of FPS players are going to be tricked into buying this ("Wow! Look at those graphics/setting/review score/whatever"), and be very distraught once they learn that it is not an FPS. Sure, there will be those who will like the fact that your shooting skills/power are based upon your stats, but I can see those who are used to guns doing a set amount of damage with a set amount of accuracy being very turned off by this game.
Regardless, I think it looks fantastic, and moves a classic series in the right direction (the isometric viewpoint no longer feels right for this series, IMO). Hopefully it can shake off the "Oblivion with guns" moniker - and properly execute the setting. The new viewpoint/gameplay coupled with the classic Fallout setting/themes (very dark, lots of black humor) looks really promising. There's a lot of ways to mess this one up (especially with regards to the setting!), but it looks like Bethesda did their homework. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Hmm. You're the kind of person I don't invite to my LANs. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against weed - I partake on occasion - but a LAN is a social event. At that point, it becomes less about your enjoyment of playing "mashed", and more about the other people thinking "who is this weed-smelling, cackling dumbass?" When it comes to LANs, people are there to game, and all it takes is one ass to ruin the fun for everyone else.
I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing.
Do you drive? 42,884 people died of accidents in the U.S. (2003), out of a total of 196,165,667 drivers (2003). This means that your odds of being killed are 1/4574. Obviously, with variances in driving styles, habits and skill, that statistic could fluctuate greatly - but I doubt to the point of 1/100,000.
Cocaine is IMO a horrible drug - something I'd never even consider. However, it's silly to say that you're afraid of doing something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time, when you regularly take a just as lethal risk an order of magnitude higher. Had you listed the other bad aspects of cocaine (addiction, illicit, etc.), I probably would've avoided this rant.
I just find it odd when people are irrationally afraid of some things (omg terrorism), and then feel completely safe doing something that's stupidly more dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
That there were primitives already here didn't really matter in the bigger story. And they didn't, they are little more than local color in any serious history. Their culture was so far below the Europeans they simply ddin't stand a chance. Not passing judgement here, not saying whether it was 'right' or 'wrong', just that it is what happened.
I'm gonna have to go ahead here, and disagree with you on this one. See, the first years of colonization were fraught with native/colonist battles, skirmishes, and bitterness. From the beginning onwards, it really gave colonists this sense that they were truly "better" than these barbaric and uncouth natives. As time progressed, and colonies began to turn into nations (I'm going to stick with America here mostly), this notion of superiority transformed into one of the biggest driving factors in recent history; the idea of American Exceptionalism.
Americans, from the beginning, felt they were exceptional for many reasons; overthrowing the king, bringing democracy to the land, being enlightened, what have you. However, I would contend that one of the biggest factors contributing to this mindset came during the period of American westward expansion. As America pushed into the frontier, they felt they were spreading civilization across the land - land that was formerly native. They felt they had a duty to the world, to spread this civilization.
So they did. This is where Manifest Destiny came from - Americans are the biggest, baddest, and most enlightened people in town, and we're enlightening you too (whether you like it or not). Would America have grown to the size it is today without this ideal? Probably not. The Mexican-American war was started largely because of manifest destiny (James Polk ran on a platform of American expansion), and that's where nearly 1/4 our (continental) geographical size came from. However, geography isn't the big deal with American Exceptionalism; it's all about foreign policy.
From the 1890s onward, America was openly expansionist; the Philippines were more or less ours, Hawaii was up for grabs, etc. However, American Exceptionalism was about spreading culture, not land. So damn near every chance America got, we exerted our influence (Roosevelt w/ "speak softly and carry a big stick", Wilson/WW1/League of Nations, Truman/UN). Even today, I would argue that our entire foreign policy is driven, at some points openly, and other points subtly, by the ideal of American Exceptionalism.
A perfect example, I feel, is Iraq. We weren't invading Iraq for oil; we were invading for two reasons (according to our President, mind you). First and foremost, to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his very terrible weapons of mass destruction. Second, to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Now, doesn't that sound an awful lot like the great, civilized, exceptional Americans making the "barbaric" parts of the world just like us?
So to just brush aside the natives as a non-event is silly. They were the evidence that American Exceptionalism was "right"; if they could be civilized, so could the rest of the world. They were not the origin of American Exceptionalism, but they did a hell of a lot to justify that ideal, and the effects of that justification can be felt very clearly today.
Note: I'm trying my best to be objective. Whether I feel America is exceptional or not, the fact of the matter, is that America felt it was exceptional, and has for 200 years.
Where's the part where some kid named nm1AzNboi screams "desu desu desu!" and kills me before I get marines? That was always my favorite part.
Also, the Xbox 360 has sold 20 million units? of those, how many are connected to the internet? A tiny number compared to how many hundreds of millions of PCs are on the internet. The PC has been helping people communicate with one another online for years. Theres enough PC users around for AoC to becomes 10 times the size of WoW.
Well, there's an inherent flaw in your logic. While, yes, AoC could potentially become that large on the PC, it won't. The reason? Well, just because a PC is connected to the internet doesn't mean there's a gamer sitting behind that keyboard. With a console, your odds of landing a hardcore gamer are significantly higher.
Furthermore, the prevalence of MMOs on PCs causes problems. In general, many people don't play more than one MMO at a time, and if you're competing against WoW, Guild Wars, EQ, etc., your market size shrinks considerably. Consoles are essentially MMO free. If you make a killer MMO work great on a console, there's a serious untapped market to be had.
That there is the problem. Console MMOs suck, because everyone refuses to build from the ground up for them. If you design a game with solely consoles in mind, you don't (always) get "watered-down crap". Sometimes, you get a fantastic game with a sweet concept (best example: EndWar). Trash consoles all you want, but they are getting some really cool innovation, and innovation sells (whether that be on PC or console).
Finally, there is one HUGE incentive for developers to switch to consoles; piracy. Say what you want about it, but piracy is a cancer on the PC market. Is your game actually going to do well, or is it gonna get pirated to hell and back? Will you even make a return on that investment? Consoles have significantly lower piracy, and that makes them a safer bet.
Mark my words; console MMOs will be huge. Someone will hit it big sometime, and it will rock the gaming market. It'll be that console generation's Halo; it'll prove (once again) that consoles are viable not just for genre x, but genre y too. You just have to work with them.
My AMD processor will last until it's obsolete! Huzzah!
What's that? It's obsolete by the time it's shipped to my house? Huzzawwww...
Yes, I'm very happy at the news of Jack's disbarment, but at the same time, I fear he will find a new place to espouse his, err, "opinions" at fox news. They picked up Karl Rove, so Jackie boy seems like such a perfect fit.
Change we can believe in.
See you all in 2012.
Always upgrade to the newest stable drivers. Have we learned nothing?
If ATi ever makes a car, I'll quit driving.
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this.[...]He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
See, the penalties only work properly if you include that one caveat. I may be wrong here (please, correct me if I am), but wouldn't a party be able to apply the same penalties to a small scale pirate, for instance? If you copy a game 5 times and hand them out to friends (say you sell them for 5 or 10 bucks), does it make sense for the same penalties to be applied?
I understand that the idea behind the huge penalties is to deter others, but it seems to me that there should (at the very least) be different levels of copyright infringement, piracy, etc. Again, IAANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, there aren't really any variations on these laws. Couldn't Activision sue the hypothetical you for $150k (minimum), seeing as you copied it five times?
It's not taking down the large scale operations I have a problem with, it's applying the same law in an area where it really shouldn't be applied that causes me to let out a "wtf".
A game costs roughly $60.00. For each act of infringement, Activision wants, at the very least, 50000% of the initial price, or at the most, 250000% of the initial price. How is it even legal to demand that much? I truly don't understand our legal system. If he had stolen the game 5 times, he'd probably be fined $500 - $1000, but for distributing 5 copies, he now has to pay (if activision gets their way) $150k?
I'm sorry, but that's just incredibly fucking stupid.
Promoting ignorance: A cause we can all get behind!
Crazy thought.... don't buy the games. You don't think the new ones are up to snuff and don't want more to come out.
Where exactly did I say I was going to buy the (invariably mediocre) games again?
Ummm.... there are plenty of titles that go far beyond what they should have. Ultima peaked at #4, King's uest stopped being innovative. Mario Brother 97 coming out any time soon? Harry Potter? This is the way it is in movies, books, games. If there is money to be made it will be made. Stop buying it, and there won't be any more coming out.
So, since Ultima's legacy was ruined (like many others), I should stop being upset at Microsoft's abuse of the Halo franchise? Sorry, but I can't follow that "logic".
Hi Microsoft, I'm a dedicated Halo fan. Halo:CE is really the game that made me a gamer - I played it, and I was hooked. I absolutely love that game, and I really enjoyed Halo 2 and Halo 3. I think they're fantastic games; you may disagree, and I say, to each his own. Now, onto the next matter of business:
The milk is drying up. The horse is dead. Please, stop pissing on what was once a respectable gaming series. I don't give a damn if you think it will make you oodles of money - you keep bending the franchise over like you are, and it will lose it's touch. People will stop buying it. The fans will cease to be, and you will have a shell of a franchise.
Halo was pretty damn good, but don't go make the Master Chief the next Sonic. For FSM's sake, GO INNOVATE. That goes for the entire damn industry! I can't believe the day has actually come when EA is being more innovative (Mirror's Edge, Spore) than the rest of the industry.
I'm not saying retire the entire Halo series (I'd be infinitely happier if you would, but I'm not an idiot). I'm saying that if you don't stop abusing the legacy of the franchise that launched your console, that both you and the fans will regret it.
Halo was special. It was a revolutionary console game (that's an argument for another time, however). Please, do not make fools of yourselves, and moreover, fools of the fans. Take a page out of any book that isn't George Lucas' and leave the franchise intact. Stop pimping it out. Leave it be, or at least in the fewest, most capable hands you can, AND GO MAKE SOMETHING NEW.
For a while now, I've hoped that I wouldn't ever see another Halo game. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. I fear that my favorite series is doomed to mediocrity.
They support XP! Forget Acer, hello Sager!
We respectfully take your concerns into consideration, and present you with this money basket. We hope that this free donation to your re-election campaign, brand new BMW, and lakehouse are enjoyed thoroughly by you! Thank you for ceasing your inquiry - err, we mean, thank you for invariably enjoying our gifts!
Love,
The Telcos
The bigger news is the status of Microsoft Game Studios. 1st party titles make the console, more or less. Online is pretty important, sure, and the aesthetics have something to do with it, I guess, but gamers aren't (complete) idiots. That's right, we're devoted fanboys. So let's be clear - nothing makes a console more attractive than a strong, non-multiplatform game. Like MGS? Sony has a console they'd like to sell you. Halo fan? Microsoft looks pretty nice, eh?
Well, the problem with this news isn't that Ensemble (one of my favorite RTS devs) is closing down - that's a damn shame, sure, but the real news is that Microsoft has lost yet another 1st party game developer. Bungie? Gone. Bizarre Creations (Project Gotham Racing)? Toodleloo! Now, Ensemble no longer exists. What studios does MS have left? Where is the appeal? Exactly what in the hell is happening over at MGS?
To me, it seems like MGS is getting bit in the ass by their rather authoritarian style of management. MS has been notorious (in the past few years) for pushing unfinished games out the door, delaying games so it can be released on a better schedule for them, and basically pushing around their own dev teams. Bungie (quite literally the entire studio) threatened resignation if they were not given independence (looking at Halo 2/3, it's obvious to see why their so jaded towards MGS). Hell, even after Bungie became independent, they're still being forced around by MS (see: recent Bungie announcement cancellation). It seems to me that the creative types are getting sick of the MS abuse. Maybe this is just wild speculation, but knowing how MS operates, it all seems to line up in my head. Time will tell.
The difference here is that the Xbox cost them a huge amount of money (I don't think they ever made a profit off an Xbox sale), and did not benefit from integration of parts. For instance, one of the most acclaimed bonuses of a 360 (by developers) is the integrated memory (I'm not a hardware engineer, so if I'm off here, correct me). The fact that the memory can be used both as video ram and standard ram allows for serious optimization benefits.
Just throwing together some PC parts doesn't make it better. It may be more reliable and save on R&D costs, but a console like a PS3 would blow a PC equivalent (512mb RAM, 6800GT, let's not talk about the CPU) out of the water. In the console market, you have to build a "console" and not a PC, otherwise you'll never bring down the cost sufficiently, and it won't have a very good lifespan (graphically).
But for Newegg's service, honestly, I'd still be ordering from there. Building a new computer is almost always expensive - but it's hard to put a price on service. Sure, you could go with Tiger, but when that one part is three days late, or that one HDD clicks when you put it in, do you really want to deal with Tiger?
It's quite a premium to pay, but service is something that is really important to me. If I order a $200 video card, I want to feel safe knowing I'll be able to return it. Again, that's just me, but you should definitely be asking yourself how much service is worth to you. At the very least, keep that question in the back of your mind - it could definitely come back to bite you in the ass if you don't.
I am so sick of these whiney posts.... wah wah wah, I might be capped soon.
So just because you're getting bent over by your ISPs means that I shouldn't care that mine are starting to follow the same trend? Look, we get it, Australian internet sucks. That doesn't mean the rest of the world's has to.
You lost your fight - bummer. That doesn't mean that we have to lose ours.
In America, if you're part black, you're all black. Argue that Obama is half-white, grew up with a white family, etc., the populace will still see him as a black man. You can be a quarter Irish, a fifth Turkish, a third Native American, but you can not be half Black. As wrong as it is, that's how America sees him.
If blogs spoke for the majority of voters, Ron Paul would have been the Republican's candidate.
ATi isn't exactly great either. I have multiple ATi cards - an X800GTO AGP, 9800pro AGP, 9600XT AGP, and none, zero, zip, nada, work with the latest series of drivers (Catalyst 8). They all throw up blue screens when trying to run anything 3D. Why is that? Well, ATi has dropped support for AGP cards. That means you're stuck with the abysmal cat 7s if you're running AGP. To be honest, I wouldn't be very upset about this whole situation (I spent roughly 3 days pinpointing the issue) if ATi had just had the common courtesy to tell us. Instead, they opted to let all AGP users who decide to stay up to date struggle with driver problems for a while. It's such a bummer that ATi has such shitty support (consistently awful drivers, this problem, etc.), because they make some beastly cards (HD series).
Note: The AGP problem does affect all AGP cards, but hotfixes have been released for the HD series AGP cards. Ironically enough, the only cards to get hotfixes are cards that were made by third-parties.
I hope someone else enters the GPU game. I'm getting sick of being stuck between Nvidia and ATi - come back, 3dfx!
I think a lot of FPS players are going to be tricked into buying this ("Wow! Look at those graphics/setting/review score/whatever"), and be very distraught once they learn that it is not an FPS. Sure, there will be those who will like the fact that your shooting skills/power are based upon your stats, but I can see those who are used to guns doing a set amount of damage with a set amount of accuracy being very turned off by this game.
Regardless, I think it looks fantastic, and moves a classic series in the right direction (the isometric viewpoint no longer feels right for this series, IMO). Hopefully it can shake off the "Oblivion with guns" moniker - and properly execute the setting. The new viewpoint/gameplay coupled with the classic Fallout setting/themes (very dark, lots of black humor) looks really promising. There's a lot of ways to mess this one up (especially with regards to the setting!), but it looks like Bethesda did their homework. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Hmm. You're the kind of person I don't invite to my LANs. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against weed - I partake on occasion - but a LAN is a social event. At that point, it becomes less about your enjoyment of playing "mashed", and more about the other people thinking "who is this weed-smelling, cackling dumbass?" When it comes to LANs, people are there to game, and all it takes is one ass to ruin the fun for everyone else.
I'll give you botches.
I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing.
Do you drive? 42,884 people died of accidents in the U.S. (2003), out of a total of 196,165,667 drivers (2003). This means that your odds of being killed are 1/4574. Obviously, with variances in driving styles, habits and skill, that statistic could fluctuate greatly - but I doubt to the point of 1/100,000.
Cocaine is IMO a horrible drug - something I'd never even consider. However, it's silly to say that you're afraid of doing something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time, when you regularly take a just as lethal risk an order of magnitude higher. Had you listed the other bad aspects of cocaine (addiction, illicit, etc.), I probably would've avoided this rant.
I just find it odd when people are irrationally afraid of some things (omg terrorism), and then feel completely safe doing something that's stupidly more dangerous.