Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just some tech info for 2008.. Your system will be obsolete?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by ZDragon View Post
    And coming back to the current topic: nothing gets obsolete so fast. From the point on that a hardware is claimed to be dead soon, it'll be at least 3 more years. And the thread opener also stated lots of idiotic bull****. Like SATA3, who needs it? SATA2 isn't faster than SATA1 because hard drives are just not able to read or write data at those rates anyway.

    Just for your info SATA speeds (150Mb/s) SATA 2 speeds (300Mb/s)....
    If you looked at the topic it sez "Just some tech info for 2008.. Your system will be obsolete?" <---- do your see the "?" at the end of that? Anyways stop being a whiner no one said your system was obsolete. So If you want to whine about it call the editor of Maximum PC and whine to him. Thats where this info came from in the first place... geeze roflmfao

    Comment


      #47
      I saw the quad card ati setup, couldnt see anything except the cards and the processor fan from the side.

      Comment


        #48
        4 GPU's? Won't need a heater in your house with that thing, just open your PC's sidepanel...

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Fartingbob View Post
          Games seem to have evolved from very simple platform games with rather poor gameplay to what we have now, which is very good graphics and nice scenery, but the gameplay still isnt as good as it can be.
          Games in the late 90's however had reached the point graphically where it was real enough to be fun, and the gameplay was also superb. replayability and open endedness was what people wanted.
          I still don't know how many developers, large and small, still don't get this.

          And this doesn't mean MP-only.

          Like I stated, look at games like GTA and Mercenaries. These games are the definition of open-ended. Not only do you not have to do the main storyline missions, but when you do it is up to YOU how you accomplish them.

          Now with console gaming and short attention spans people dont play one game continously for months on end, and so game developers have decided that making the game look good the first time you play it (think cutscenes) is more important.
          True... And I believe this is part of the reason for developers completely ignoring what a video game should be: A video game... Not a pre-scripted "cinematic" experience.

          This design philosophy... To try and make games more like movies because the masses of casual gamers can more easily identify with movies (vs. games)... Is the primary reason for games not being open-ended enough, IMO.

          I understand why developers do it like I stated above, but I wish developers believed more strongly in the actual game play of the game itself to attract players.

          I like games like UT3 where the SP is basically simulated MP. It trusts itself enough in the core game play to win the gamer over instead of trying to wrap all those elements in a linear story.

          (I realize UT3's SP Campaign does just this, but this is one of the rare occasions where it doesn't matter if you care about the characters or story and still have fun with the bot matches themselves).

          The last game i played again and again and enjoyed every minute would probably be Diablo 2. Before that UT99. No game today can replicate the game experience to keep you playing for years that these games had.
          What is also sad is a lot of contemporary sequels often sacrifice (SP) replayability and open-ended play for scritped, story-driven campaigns that by default have no replay value at all.

          Two series that have literally evolved from an open-ended, dare I say "adult" games to linear and scripted teen-shooters is "Rainbow Six" and "Ghost Recon".

          I recently purchased Assassins creed and finished it within a week. Then i sold it on ebay. There was no incentive whatsoever for me to start it up again and play through the exact same game doing the exact same thing.
          UBISoft is notorious for being one of the worst publisher/developers in this regard. I'm not trying to start an Epic vs. UBISoft debate, but UBISoft is the epitome of assembly-line game development (PC and console) that churns out mediocre games that aren't meant to last even a month to encourage consumers to buy whatever mindless release they put out each week.

          Comment


            #50
            I saw this along time ago, cool looking but so far for me, sli wasnt worth it

            quad sli
            http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion...hp?t19199.html

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Latera1us View Post
              you would need your own nuclear power station to run them
              Or my wife's farts...

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Hickeroar View Post
                They already DO dominate the monitor market.

                Also, these "This is the future" articles in mags have a bad habit of being dead wrong. I remember reading an article in PCGamer about the time UT99 came out talking about the PC in five years. Is was about the size of a CDRom drive and sported a 100mbit direct connection to the net along with loads of other horse-hockey predictions.

                Hmmm, I'm on 10mbit and my PC is about the size of a barn.
                I'm on 100mbit. But my PC is still huge

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Gareee View Post
                  adding that many cards means we'll also have to quadruple power supplys, and also we better have some kick *** cooling solutions.

                  There are very few people running sli systems for these reasons now, and I think even fewer people will be running quad card systems because of the costs involved.
                  I "must" run SLI for my 30 Inch monitor of I want to run at 2560x1600. I don't have a real problem with buying 4 cards for say $700.00 a piece if I have to. I spend a lot on hardware but I still spend far less than the people I know who are raising children. I have none...

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by TPSFan View Post
                    I don't know where this console hate comes from. Why people have to boost their e-go by putting down consoles and those who play them is beyond me.
                    I have no use for consoles for 2 reasons. The most important is I don't want to run it on a tv. I want to run at 2560 x 1600 resolution. The other reason is I despise controllers...

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Lol I always go for the "sweet spot" of bang-for-your-buck hardware. Its been working pretty well for me. I'm always able to play the latest games on high settings with smooth frames and only spend $500-$1000 max per year on hardware.

                      ...oh and I will never run more than one video card.

                      But by all means, if ya'll can afford it, have fun.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by [TT]BrundleFly View Post
                        Or my wife's farts...
                        "You'll feel the impact of that one in a minute..."

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X