Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Daniel

Real Name Daniel   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname CJ_Parker
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 11, 2006, 23:49
Total Comments 1446 (Pro)
User ID 24408
User comment history
< Newer [ 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ] Older >

News Comments > EA to Publish Rage
46. Re: No subject Jul 15, 2008, 17:52 CJ_Parker
Seriously, why must every game strive for photorealism?

An id game MUST be leading the pack in the gfx department. It is their major trademark. Blow people's socks off with uber visuals.
Asking the question you asked is kinda like asking "Seriously, why must every Blizzard game have multiplayer?"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
2. Re: No subject Jul 15, 2008, 17:47 CJ_Parker
No, Intel is not really getting SLI. The real story here is that nVidia will not be making a chipset for the Bloomfield CPU (Nehalem). That's why they offered the nForce-200 SLI chip to the board manufacturers so that the board makers can now produce X58 boards with SLI support. There hasn't been a direct licensing agreement between Intel and nVidia regarding SLI technology though.
The initial rumors that Intel got SLI and nVidia got QuickPath in exchange turned out to be false (at least as of now).
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Tech Bits
3. Re: No subject Jul 15, 2008, 05:36 CJ_Parker
Wow GTX260 for 300 buck! Time for a new computer...

I'm not an ATI fanboi or anything like that but it needs to be said that the GTX 260 pretty much sucks. It offers only a fairly minor performance gain over the 8800 GTS 512MB but is a) expensive (even at the new price) b) drawing power like mad and c) noisy as hell when it switches to 3D mode. I was interested in buying one myself but after doing some research I figured that I'll wait for nVidia's 55nm offerings (rumored codename GT200b) that will hopefully be less power hungry, cooler and more silent.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Dragon Age: Origins Announcement
27. Re: No subject Jul 14, 2008, 19:53 CJ_Parker
A little game called Mass Effect got in the way of them finishing up Dragon Age. That's why it's not finished yet. Now that ME is done, a full dev team can be devoted to Dragon Age now.

Bullshit. ME was just scheduled to be released first. That's all. BioWare has at least 400+ employees. They have several fully staffed teams working on games for all sorts of platforms (currently ME DLC and an add-on/sequel, the Sonic RPG, Dragon Age and the MMO in Austin... just to name the known or most prominent titles).
Dragon Age coming out after ME most certainly has absolutely nothing to do with a "full dev team" (or lack thereof). A full team has been working on DA ever since it was first revealed. BioWare has gotten seriously HUGE over the years. Get a clue, please.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Tech Bits
12. Re: DirectX 11 Jul 14, 2008, 09:26 CJ_Parker
Ah, yes, those 32-bit limitations... uh, wait, what limitations are we talking about again? How many games actually take advantage of 64-bit CPUs? From the benchmarks I've seen, 64-bit Vista gives the same (or lesser) framerates as 32-bit XP so obviously games aren't really taking advantage of 64-bit CPUs. And future proofing? As you said yourself, most PC games are console ports and consoles are way behind PC hardware. It will be a long, long time before 64-bit becomes a necessity for games.

You really don't get it, do you? So here it is slooowly for you again: Windows XP is a 32-bit operating system. Like any and all 32-bit operating systems (this is not a Windows issue) it is limited to 4096MB of RAM = 4GB of memory.
Due to certain system components reserving memory, the real, useable RAM of a 32-bit Windows XP machine usually ends up being 3.2 to 3.5GB of RAM. That's the maximum amount of RAM to EVER be useable in Windows XP (32-bit).

We are already seeing games today that benefit from larger amounts of RAM (like Crysis in high resolution). It is only a matter of time (and not a long time span at that) until 32-bit operating systems just won't cut it no more.

In a year or two you will need to have a 64-bit OS to be able to play the latest games because you will need a system and an OS that can support 4GB of RAM and upwards.

That's why it makes sense to develop DirectX 11 with 64-bit OSs in mind. Games of the future will require DirectX 11. Games of the future will also require 4GB of RAM and more. The only logical conclusion here is to NOT develop DirectX 11 for Windows XP but to primarily target Vista 64 and Windows Seven 64 instead.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Tech Bits
7. Re: DirectX 11 Jul 13, 2008, 20:42 CJ_Parker
A large reason why DX10 failed to gain mainstream acceptance was because it was Vista-exclusive.

The much larger reason is missing developer support due to the fact that no current gen console supports DirectX 10. Since most titles are multi-/cross platform titles, it wouldn't make any sense for a dev to put a lot of effort into the version that is eventually going to sell the lowest amount of copies anyway (= the PC version).

Since the lead platform for most games is the 360 or the PS3, it simply makes more sense to just port the game over to the PC without slapping additional DirectX 10 features on top of it. Additional DirectX 10 crap just costs extra time and money.

Sure, some devs did it anyway (Bioshock, Crysis et al) but let's face it: The DirectX 10 support was in many cases very limited in scope (just slightly better looking smoke or fog in Bioshock IIRC) and it was mostly just slapped on for marketing reasons.

I don't think that a larger Vista install base would change this dramatically. PC sales are lagging far behind console sales anyway so the resources of a dev/publisher will always be directed at consoles first and the (DirectX 9) PC port second.

With that in mind, it obviously makes more sense to have DX11 be compatible with XP.

No, it doesn't at all. Plain retarded statement.
Windows XP with its 32-bit limitations (yes, I know there's a 64-bit version of XP but we all know how widely accepted and supported that is) is about as future-proof as Pam Anderson's boobs.

The only thing that makes any real sense is to develop DirectX 11 for current operating systems and those of the future that truly support 4GB+ of memory, i.e. for 64-bit OSs.

It obviously makes more sense to look ahead, rather than to look back in that regard because games of the future just won't work with "only" a max of 4GB of RAM (or actually 3.2 to 3.5GB of useable RAM depending on your rig) as is the case with XP.

Well, and ahead lies further improvements to Vista 64-bit and eventually Windows Seven 64-bit in a couple of years. Windows XP is the past already despite its large user base.
But just wait until 4GB+ of memory becomes the norm. That's when XP will be dropped and forgotten about faster than you can say "Vista sucks".

Unless you like playing old games. Or use old hardware. Or dislike excessive and annoying security measures.

Plain retarded again. He said "if you got a big machine...". Why would anyone with a big machine like playing old games or use old hardware (actually "big machine" and "old hardware" = mutually exclusive)? Learn to read and think, k?

Besides, you could always dual boot with XP for old games and old hardware if you really wanted to. And the "excessive and annoying security measures" can easily be customized to a non-excessive (but still secure) and non-annoying degree by just about anyone who isn't such a complete n00b as you appear to be.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Flagship Loses IPs, Closes
48. Re: ... Jul 13, 2008, 09:46 CJ_Parker
I question the reason as to how you believe that this game was doomed to begin with. It was a very promising title driven by some of the (then) well known people.

Yep. Extreeeemely promising, dude. I mean the whole concept of *gasp* a DEMON PORTAL that spawns critters from HELL unto EARTH sounded so motherfucking uber original from the start that it is really hard to believe that this mother of all video gaming concepts actually failed. Add to that the really crappy graphics and animations plus the really intriguing subscription model and you really gotta wonder why no one bought this game. WTF is up with people these days???
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Flagship Loses IPs, Closes
47. Re: Whatever Jul 13, 2008, 09:40 CJ_Parker

Glad to see these losers exit the video game market. Now if you would please be so kind as to fucking retire, Mr. Roper, instead of polluting another poor company with your retarded corpse. kthxbye.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > It Came from E3 2008, Part 4
3. Re: What makes a good E3 press conferenc Jul 12, 2008, 09:55 CJ_Parker
What makes a good E3 press conference?

Like... booth babes that give head for free? Dooooohhhh...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Activision Blizzard Approved
12. Re: No subject Jul 9, 2008, 08:09 CJ_Parker
Vivendi acquired Activision. Vivendi contributed their Vivendi Universal Games (VU Games including Blizzard, Sierra et al) unit to the merger plus $1.7bn in cash. Activision just contributed themselves and their shareholders received a nice, fat 31% premium for selling out.
At the end of the whole deal, Vivendi received a 52% (controlling) stake in the newly formed Activision Blizzard.
They dropped the Vivendi Universal Games brand for Blizzard since Blizzard is undoubtedly the more recognizable, more established and more reputable brand.

So, since Vivendi is controlling the whole thing, Blizzard are effectively keeping their old bosses since they have been a part of Vivendi/VU Games for years now. Nothing's really changing for them. If anything, it's Activision that might get fucked up as a result of the acquisition.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Warcraft III Patches
42. Re: No subject Jul 1, 2008, 19:51 CJ_Parker
Another stupid question: It's safe to delete off the install folders once the install is done right? IE there's no reason the game should need them (once the full game is installed)?

Nope. You need to keep the folders just like if you own the CDs you need to whack off on them in regular intervals. Obviously with the folders it's more convenient since you just need to whack off looking at the folders instead of actually whacking off onto them. Cool, huh?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Diablo III Announced
84. Re: ... Jun 28, 2008, 19:16 CJ_Parker
The isometric style with modern graphics tech is looking gorgeous in Diablo 3, and I think would've been much better suited to Fallout 3 than its current "pandering to the weak-minded masses" over-the-shoulder view.

Errmmm... isometric is WAY more "pandering to the weak-minded masses" than OTS or FPP. OTS or FPP usually cause motion sickness in people who are not into (hardcore) gaming. Isometric also alleviates orientation and is easily the most accessible perspective since all you have to do is point and click like a tard.
The success of dumbed down isometric tard games like Diablo or Baldur's Gate is proof enough of that.
Sorry but please try again to come up with a retarded bullshit reason to hate on Bethesda and FO3.
Diablo is continuing in the isometric tradition because it is a game aimed at the "weak-minded" masses.
Fact. True story. You = pwned + STFU, n00b. kthxplzdiebye.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > E3 to Show Games!
15. Re: Doom4 Jun 28, 2008, 06:43 CJ_Parker
I think you missed my point. I don't care about the risk. I'm not a shareholder or a publisher. I'm a gamer.

Yup. A gamer who doesn't even buy games but just torrents them all. Why don't you just STFU? As someone who isn't even spending any money on games, you are about as irrelevant as it gets.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard: Another Day, Another Tease
38. Re: No subject Jun 24, 2008, 19:25 CJ_Parker
Blizz's name for their codename for their unannounced project is Hydra. Hydra's supposedly have 3 heads

Hydrae in mythology usually have nine heads, not three. You uneducated, burger-munching, basement-dwelling, American dumbfuck console zombie!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > StarCraft II Date?
8. Re: No subject Jun 23, 2008, 17:44 CJ_Parker
I thought we figured this out about 10 years ago. Release dates from retailers mean nothing.

Yup. But some of us have actually advanced in time and aren't still stuck in our mom's basement where the realities of life around us don't catch up with us .
Retailer dates might have been inaccurate until a few years ago but those times have long gone. Gaming has become a big business where retail shelf space needs to be rented months in advance and where manufacturer/retailer resources need to be allocated a long time before the product ships. You can't just dump a few 100K copies of a product on Wal-Mart or EB Games in a surprise move. You need to plan carefully and manage the logistics professionally nowadays. That's why the big publishers send advance info to the retailers via product catalogues with pretty accurate release dates.
Of course, there can always be a "last minute" (last minute = usually a few weeks before the anticipated release date) delay but if a date has been set in stone then it's usually fairly accurate and coming from the publisher. Naturally, it's always subject to change but I wouldn't be surprised if the SC2 date is very accurate. SC2 is a mega launch so the retailers need an extra-extra-extra advance warning to get their shit together for "S-day". That's why we can be pretty sure as of now that December 3 is indeed the date...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Hardware Reviews
6. Re: gt280 Jun 17, 2008, 06:51 CJ_Parker
Lurn 2 reed, n00b!!!111 I like said "under load". I know that it's not drawing power like mad at idle (quite the contrary). But what serious gamer who spends that kind of money on a gfx card gives a fuck about "idle"? Ya'd have ta be really retarded to get one of those puppies just for surfing the web and shit like that.

But when you use the card for its intended purpose (gaming), the card begins to eat power alive and the fan speeds up, creating even more noise. That would be OK if you'd get a really tangible performance leap from this card but you ain't gettin' that. Crysis is still barely playable at high resolutions and in other games, well, it doesn't really matter whether you get 127 FPS or 174 FPS, does it?

That's why I consider this card useless at that price point. They need to bring the price of the 280 down to sub $300 and the 260 to sub $250. Two 8800GT's in SLI are outperforming the 280 at a much lower price even though you have to buy two cards. That's just not right. There is nothing at all (like DirectX 10.1 support or any other cool new features) that would justify a price premium of the 280/260 over the previous gen.

This is basically G80 re-re-recycled and that's just lame but I guess we'll have to wait for the next console gen before PC graphics will really start to evolve at a faster pace again. Right now there's no need for really high end stuff because the games (being targeted at X360/PS3 hardware) just don't require it.
Crysis (and its Warhead expansion) might be the last PC-exclusive title in a long time that are/were aimed at the high end faction. Well, and we all know how that turned out for Crytek so there's no one going to make the same "mistake" any time soon.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Hardware Reviews
4. Re: gt280 Jun 16, 2008, 20:40 CJ_Parker
Way too expensive for the relatively minor performance gain. Draws power like mad under load and gets pretty hot, making a lot of noise when playing games. No DirectX 10.1 support. No really cool new features (like a new shader model or any other fancy stuff). Just a little bit bigger and faster than the previous gen. In other words: This one's a loser.

nVidia needs to move on to a 55nm process and pump out a sleek, cool, silent, high performance DirectX 10.1+ compatible chip at an attractive price target (~US$250 to $300 max). Something kinda like the original 8800GTS. Which I still own and won't replace with any of this crap. Try again, nVidia. Harder.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Call of Duty 5 Details - Co-op Support
52. Re: No subject Jun 10, 2008, 09:56 CJ_Parker
You could also have air combat in a WWI game, as well as a bit of tank and naval warfare.

Yeah, you could. You could also shoot yourself through the kneecaps to see if it really hurts and impedes movement.

Dude, seriously. WWI ain't much fun because everything is so slow and lacking punch. Even WWII feels painfully dated IMHO when you have one of those n00b weapons like an M1 or Lee Enfield and other slow shooting/reloading crap like that. There's so much they could do with modern settings (imaginative or real CT force, DEA, mercenary squads, any army in the world etc). WWI and II is lame by comparison.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
4. Re: Age of Conan Gameplay Performance and IQ Jun 9, 2008, 19:26 CJ_Parker
did anyone else click hoping to see the relation of people's IQ and their game play performance in Age of Conan?

Nope. Only dumbfucks with a REALLY LOW IQ like you did .

IQ of a bread crumb > rocketpcguy

True story.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Carmack on Crysis
28. Re: No subject Jun 4, 2008, 05:41 CJ_Parker
How much will you pay for Vista alone? And since when has Crysis supported DX9? If that were the case, people could run it in XP, couldn't they?

And the award for "Most Clueless Retarded Dumbass of the Day" goes to...

-= WILSON =-

Congrats, man. You really earned this one.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
1446 Comments. 73 pages. Viewing page 45.
< Newer [ 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ] Older >


Blue's News logo