BrilliantLoser's forum posts

  • 33 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -

All it simply means is that your laptop is getting older and the games are becoming more demanding.  The 330M is a decent performer but it pales in comparison to current mid level or better graphics cards. Modern games are all moving past the current console phase as a minimum so expect your laptop to have increasingly difficult time playing them.
 
Don't expect an upgrade of ram to make much of a difference (unless you multitask constantly). By the time you will need 8gigs just to run a single game, your laptop probably could not run it acceptably. However, I expect Skyrim/Rage should still run well. Fallout 3 ran decently on my laptop with a weaker graphics card than a 330M (remember New Vegas was not made by Bethesda) and Rage seems to have a good engine behind it. However if you really do want to play those games, I would actually suggest saving up some money and building a desktop (around $600) or wait a bit more and get a gaming laptop ($1000+). Current tech can run 1080p without a sweat.  I got a low end "gaming" card, an Nvidia 550 Ti in my desktop, and it easily runs most games at 1080p though you can see it sweat on Directx 11 stuff.

#2 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -

Awe damn, they moved the commentaries from the limited edition up to legendary since Halo 3.  Ah well, at least I get that journal.

#3 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -

It's the video player. It's too bad because it's nice footage of both levels with a Bungie guy commenting.  If anyone can put this on youtube, that'll be awesome.

#4 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -

Gamesradar is terrible when it comes to their video player.  There's no direct link to their nice, big HD vids from their embedded player.  They just copy the link into your clipboard.

#5 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -
#6 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -

Yeah, my bad,  I accidentally hit start new topic.

#7 Edited by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -
#8 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -
@withateethuh said:
12 hours is much longer than most single player first person shooters as far as I'm concerned. "
It's hard to justify a game by "hours" though because it's based on the person and the difficulty they play at.  I don't even think that "hours" should come into play.  The right length is one where you finish the game and feel like you were able to get your full worth out of it.  Halo 2 felt short because of that ending, and Halo 3 felt short because it had one too many flood levels (Cortana) so I repressed those memories.  I'm sure Bungie could do something like Doom and just put a bunch of random enemies in a box to extend gameplay, but then we would get a level like the Library in Halo 1.  So I rather go for short and sweet rather than long and boring.
#9 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -
@Ineedaname said:

" Oh, I'm enlightened by your condescending and righteous post. Now give me a moment whilst I bask in your cuntish aura. "

When you first replied,  Lebensbaum commented that there are people who are legitimately are excited for the game and the reasons why they are.  You said you were more perplexed.  I was condescending because you were acting the same to Lebensbaum.  I got a bit miffed because of it.  Nevermind,  this is the internet,  I shouldn't have left that comment in the first place.  I apologize.
#10 Posted by BrilliantLoser (33 posts) -
@Ineedaname said:
" One day I'll understand the excitement. One day. "
Now, imagine you want a game.  It's not Halo.  It's a game you want.  You know it's going to be fun, because you like it. You'll probably feel some emotion.  It could be excitement or maybe some sort of expectation.
 
Stay calm.  This is called "empathy," an ability to understand another human being's emotions.   Just because you may not be excited for a game does not mean everyone else will agree.   Life's subjective like that.
  • 33 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4