Something went wrong. Try again later

BitterAlmond

This user has not updated recently.

422 21 34 8
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

BitterAlmond's forum posts

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By BitterAlmond

I'd love to see a pro team do this game and actually release it for money. I watched Marble Hornets back in the day and loved every bit of it, and I'm thrilled that Slender Man is still floating around teh intarwebz.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#2  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Shensai said:

Konami never liked Microsoft to begin with. Racists.

It is more than just a little suspect that they only patch the version released on the Japanese system. A lot of Japanese devs really don't like the 360.

Also, this has got to be the lamest excuse not to patch a game ever.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#3  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Mr48 said:

Will it not be a buggy, awkward piece of crap anymore?

Edit: I'm blaming the ARMA engine, not the mod team BTW.

Agreed. I was holding out for this to happen because of how terribly eastern-european ARMA is, and not in a good way.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#4  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Mykander said:

To fix some misconceptions in this thread (that have been pointed out, but ignored as this will probably be)

1) Arbiters aren't pulled from some magical pool of technically competent people. They're pulled largely from former lawyers and judges, meaning you get the same people you'd see in a court of law. Only guess what? You lose all the regulation and penalties on corruption and have almost no recourse to fight back against problems arising from that as you would in a court of law.

2) Most companies offer to pay arbitration costs in one fashion or another, including many of those identified in this thread as somehow worse than Valve in this clause. Valve may be more consumer friendly than some companies, but they don't sit around saying "how can we make our legal wrangling more consumer friendly?" No, this is a standard thing most companies do and Valve isn't doing anything different, special, or otherwise noteworthy by offering to pay for arbitration should it be required. Not to mention if you actually read the clause they've got a loophole you can drive a bus through to avoid paying it if they so choose.

3) Just because Class Action Lawsuits are less efficient for the consumer doesn't mean they're worthless. Aside from being far more painful to a company than individual lawsuits, they bring more attention to an issue or the severity of said issue that would otherwise be ignored by some people. Furthermore the only cheap alternative to a Class Action Lawsuit is small claims court, but if you actually look up the rules of small claims court in your area they usually say the loser can appeal the ruling. Which means if you win against a company the company can appeal and turn it into a full blown deal where you start racking up huge legal expenses to fight them. Not common, but if enough people start doing small claims against companies they can fight back.

Edit:

Also a great example of how a Class Action can be really useful is in the EU right now. Since the ruling came out that you should be able to resell digital games a Class Action would be one of the best (if not THE best) and cheapest way to sue Steam for not allowing that service. A regular/individual lawsuit would be far less efficient because your average Steam user probably doesn't care so much about trying to sell their games, especially not enough to go to court over it.

Bumpin' this so more people see it.

Also, this doesn't mean you can't sue the company. You just can't sue them en masse. A large number of people all individually suing the company is totally kosher. And more harmful and costly to the company, too.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#5  Edited By BitterAlmond

Dear Alex,

Please stop titling all your news stories "[serious title] for some reason".

Thank you,

Your Fans.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#6  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Xeirus said:

@BitterAlmond: So... jump scares, the cheapest form of "scary" is what scares you. Well alright, I prefer my horror to request a little more effort than that.

Hey, Doom 3 wasn't all just jump scares. Jump scares are the easiest thing to deal with, too: just shoot the shotgun and you're good to go. The atmosphere of that game (the darkness, etc) really bugged me out.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#7  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Xeirus said:

@BitterAlmond said:

I played Amnesia. It wasn't scary. I could see how it could be, but even with the lights out alone at night, the janky controls and uncertain fetch-quests had me too confused about what exactly I was supposed to do and how to do it to actually become immersed at all in the game.

Likewise, when the first enemy appeared and began staring at me, I calmly went to another room, selected something that looked heavy and threw it at it. It didn't do anything and I died. It wasn't scary, just disappointing.

I guess it's possible nothing in the game scared you, but I also feel like people who go out of their way to say things like this are trying too hard to impress someone ...

If the game didn't scare you feel free to tell us what does, otherwise it just sounds like you're bragging.

I was pretty terrified by Doom 3, and Penumbra until I discovered Penumbra to be similarly broken and janky.

Basically any horror game where the interface doesn't get in the way of immersion. If I feel like even understanding the game is a chore, I'm not going to get into it enough to be scared by it.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#8  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Devildoll said:

BitterAlmond: That's also not what I meant. I was talking about the "same" card (architecture, name, etc.) made by different manufacturers, or possibly different "editions" of the same card by the same manufacturer. Two GTX 680s are not necessarily even. Obviously you can't compare architectures just by number of transistors. My old Radeon HD 3850 only runs 300MHz slower than my new GTX 550 Ti, but it has about a third the framerate on most games. I'm telling him to compare between EVGA, ZOTAC, GIGABYTE, and all those other companies making the same card.

@BitterAlmond said:

A word on video cards: the numbers you don't understand (pipelines, bit, whatever) are more important than you think. If the one you're buying is $30 cheaper than the competition with similar first-glance numbers (clock speed, RAM), check those other numbers to make sure they're comparable to the more expensive competition so you don't end up with some arcane bottlenecking issue.

it really doesn't look like you are talking about different subvendor versions of the same card here.

the only thing that differs between subvendors is the sticker on the cooler.

if they have an overclocked edition they bump up the core frequency by 12 MHz. ( and if you are clever, you save a couple of bucks by not buying that one and do the overclocking yourself. )

they are never ( okay never say never ) EXTREMELY rarely going to differ busswidth or piplines. and you are not going to avoid a bottleneck by picking another brand of the model.

Edit :

i just dont reccomend novice people looking at specs, i'll just confuse em.

as i stated earlier, its better if they just look up performance tests of the cards they are interested in and see how they actually perform, instead of looking at numbers and trying to guess which one is better.

Yeah, sorry about that one. I agree it wasn't clear, and that's why I said "meant" instead of "said" there. My bad.

And I'm just warning the guy because I have seen it happen. He doesn't actually have to know what the numbers mean (I certainly couldn't tell you what a pipeline actually is or does), just that if the cheaper card's numbers are considerably lower than all of the other cards, it may end up with some funky stuff going on. Check generally, and do some reading if you want to.

I'd disagree with you about the performance between Intel and AMD, but that's because I'm an AMD boy (and I can tell you're more of an Intel fan yourself). Although a 3.0GHz Intel will outperform a 3.5GHz AMD, there is a point where AMD's raw power will overtake the Intel chips. That's why I recommend overclocking: you get the efficiency and the power.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#9  Edited By BitterAlmond

@Devildoll said:

what? overclock an intel cpu to get even with amd?

back in the days of pentium 4 and athlon perhaps. right now intel has undisputed performance advantages. there are very few "every day" cases where a modern amd cpu actually beats an intel.

That's not what I said at all. I said overclock to get the same performance for the same money. I recently bought an FX CPU that ran at 4.2GHz, right out of the box. My mobo's auto-overclock feature set it to 4.5 by default, and if I feel like pushing it I can get close to 5.0 comfortably. It cost me less than $200. For the same money, I could barely afford a 3GHz Intel chip. However, because of how they're built, I'd bet that the Intel chip costing the same would perform about the same as my AMD if it was overclocked. Otherwise, forget it.

tl;dr: I'm not suggesting that a 4.0GHz AMD will outperform a 4.0GHz Intel. The opposite is true. However, AMD will give you a higher-clock chip for less money, and in order to get maximum bang-for-your-buck, overclocking Intel chips is essential. Especially since they're rated to withstand temperatures much higher than AMD's chips.

@Devildoll said:

its extremely complex to compare graphics cards of different architecture to each other.

the best thing to do is to look at what actually matters, game performance, find a review that has all the cards you are interested in, and look at the graphs.

an example is the 7970 vs 680.

CardTransistorsCore frequencyShadersTexture unitsROPsMemory SpeedMemory Amountmemory bus width
79704.31 Billion925 MHz2048128325,5 GHz3 GB384 bit
6803.54 Billion1006 MHz1536128326 GHz2 GB256 bit

seen like this, the 680 looks like crap. its got over half a billion transistors less than the 7970, way fewer shaders, tad higher fequency's but in turn way lower amounts of ram, as well as a significantly narrower memory pipe. the reason you cant just look at the numbers is because they dont show the whole picture. there is no universal "shader" they all use. the 7970's might be individually less capable than the 680's etc etc.

the real life situation is that the 680 is the better card, something you probably wouldn't have figured out just going by the specs.

the only time you can safely compare two cards, is if they are both the same card, and one of em has a factory overclock. cause then you know for sure, that that is the only difference, and since the factory oc card has the bigger number ( somewhere ) its going to be better, although a sane person would just overclock his card himself and save a couple of bucks.

That's also not what I meant. I was talking about the "same" card (architecture, name, etc.) made by different manufacturers, or possibly different "editions" of the same card by the same manufacturer. Two GTX 680s are not necessarily even. Obviously you can't compare architectures just by number of transistors. My old Radeon HD 3850 only runs 300MHz slower than my new GTX 550 Ti, but it has about a third the framerate on most games. I'm telling him to compare between EVGA, ZOTAC, GIGABYTE, and all those other companies making the same card.

Avatar image for bitteralmond
BitterAlmond

422

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

8

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#10  Edited By BitterAlmond

I agree with both of the real suggestions above: if you're going to buy an Intel CPU, you have to overclock it to compete with the similarly-priced AMD model. Spend the extra $10 and get an ASUS board; they just work better. The one piece you absolutely don't want to skimp on is the motherboard, and not just because it's the hardest thing to replace down the road.

I'd also suggest you get an aftermarket fan/heatsink. Even a good one won't run you much more than thirty bucks, and they make a world of difference. Just make sure it'll fit in your case: a friend of mine had to dremel a hole in his side-panel to make his fit! Don't worry about your power supply not being able to power the larger fan; I'm running a similar setup with only 500W.

Speaking of power supplies, a modular power supply will really help you cut down on tangled cords all over your case, and they're becoming very popular (i.e. inexpensive) these days. I don't have one, but I wish I did. No real biggie if you don't, though.

And yeah, just get yourself 8 gigs. It's all you need at this point unless you're a big photo/video editor. Get two 4GB sticks (instead of 4x2GB) so that when you actually do need 16, you can just buy a couple more and fill the other two bays instead of throwing out your old RAM.

A last suggestion is to get a full-sized ATX board instead of a micro-ATX. They're easier to work with, especially since you're buying a beastly video card. Better airflow for cooling, too. This one's more personal preference, though.

A word on video cards: the numbers you don't understand (pipelines, bit, whatever) are more important than you think. If the one you're buying is $30 cheaper than the competition with similar first-glance numbers (clock speed, RAM), check those other numbers to make sure they're comparable to the more expensive competition so you don't end up with some arcane bottlenecking issue.

Great idea buying yourself a giant drive and a modest SSD; that will really help you out. Happy building!