[QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]Wait if he made a new account, why is the suspicious activities related to your account? manningbowl135

They ban all acounts related to the IP.

Especially when most ISPs refresh and reassign IPs to individual customers once in a while. And if you cancelled your service, they will just give your IP to another customer.

What is the best racing game for PC right now? Is it Grid? That thing looks the nicest.

Also, do you have to get a wheel for racing games? Would using keyboard and mouse be so bad as to affect gameplay?

just do task manager for system mem.

czechgangster44

What's the best program to check for how much system and Video ram a game is using?

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=687&p=7

According to this, the shader clock doesn't really matter, is that true? Those games tested are a bit old.

Also, since you can unlink the clocks now, why was there a specified ratio in the first place? Like now you still can choose to link them, what was the point of linking them in the first place if you can unlink them? Is there some special benefit to keep the shader/core at a certain ratio?

A slightly different topic, is it very dangerous to overclock the vram?

Thank you.

Does running background hosting software like Steam impact the game performance compared to the games (most of them) which doesn't require you to run the background DRM like programs?

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

I don't know what you call "established", if you want a mathematical proof then there isn't one.

SpaceMoose

You keep saying there is less to do in a turn, but I want some examples other than the things I mentioned, and thus far I haven't really seen any. Less to do how?

Corruption, that was a joke. Now having too many cities costs more money. Building new cities just to have them do nothing at all, that was always dumb. Again, you are taking something that is actually basically a non-choice and painting it as a positive. Do you want to build a city that doesn't really do anything (except maybe under Communism IIRC)? Almost never (unless you need a city at a choke point or something) so how does that really make the game better? You realize there's a reason they changed this stuff, right? Because most people though it was stupid.

spacemoose

I said to fix the way they work, not put the exact same thing back again. ZJI

They did fix it. They made it deduct money from your overall economy instead, which is why rush building towns too fast can really screw your economy. Boom, fixed.

That doesn't even make sense, I said I dislike Civilization IV the most. Especially if your expectations are according to the year of release, that is games released later should be better as technology/experience improves.

ZJI

I don't understand why you even bought the new one if you never liked the series in the first place, which is what you said: "I never liked any of the civ games, especially CIV4." So you played the new one anyway for whatever reason and thought it was worse. Fine, if you don't like the game, whatever. I'm not going to try to convince you to like it. That's just pointless and I don't really care what games you prefer playing. That doesn't mean it is "dumbed down" from the previous ones. I mean, did you keep playing it even though you don't like the series? How are you even that familiar with all of the gameplay mechanics if you've barely even played them...or do you always play games that you don't like to the point where you understand them thoroughly? Anyway, according to the overwhelming majority of Civ players it is better,in a lot of ways.

So now all of a sudden expansion packs are relevant. :roll: spacemoose

Again, that doesn't even make sense, you just wrote a sarcastic cliche without context. I said that Civilization IV is too simple, and after two expansions, it finally gotten some decent depth added to it.

ZJI

Why do you even keep playing this game that you claim not to like to the point where you actually get the expansions? You're not just another pirate whining about the games that they obtain illegitimately in the first place, are you?

GalacticCivilizations II was very rich in the first place.

ZJI

Again I fully disagree. I mean, it's rich, but I wouldn't say it's more rich than Civ IV. There are various reasons for this, such as not actually getting to choose where bases are located, not that it would matter much anyway since, with it being space, there is no terrain. There are not really specialized combat units to the extent there are in other strategy games. You have different weapons (and I already gave my view on that), but you don't have, say, air units and grounds units and sea units, for obvious reasons. On another note, the economic model is just blatantly illogical and broken with the way that increasing spending on production decreases it on labs, even if you have the money to support both.*

I never said that expansion packs are not "relevant', what ever what you intend that to mean. Twilight of the Arnor should be compared to Beyond the sword, as they are both second expansions to their respective games, and Twilight of the Arnor is much richer in content than Beyond the sword.

You keep writing insluts and cliches without context, it's hard to write a reply when you don't make any descriptive statements.

ZJI

Well, you said something to the effect that it shouldn't have taken two expansions (in your opinion) for Civ IV to acquire depth, but then you basically praised Galactic Civ 2's depth based on them making the races significantly different in their second expansion. (I don't really think the tech trees make that much of a difference so much as the super-abilities, personally, which is at least partially because you can trade for a lot of the techs, which you would be doing anyway, exclusive or not.) And I'll be the first to say that the first expansion to Civ IV was crap, which is why I never bought it. This is all getting way off of the topic at hand anyway, which is whether games are truly getting "dumbed down" or not.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

Letting you do less in a turn means that there are less things to worry about, and less commands and facets of the game that you have to address. It is not merely deciding how fast techs are researched.

SpaceMoose

You haven't really established to me that there is less to do in a turn, other than not cleaning up pollution or not having to shuffle around 200 of the same unit every turn in the end game.

Corruption, that was a joke. Now having too many cities costs more money. Building new cities just to have them do nothing at all, that was always dumb. Again, you are taking something that is actually basically a non-choice and painting it as a positive. Do you want to build a city that doesn't really do anything (except maybe under Communism IIRC)? Almost never (unless you need a city at a choke point or something) so how does that really make the game better? You realize there's a reason they changed this stuff, right? Because most people though it was stupid.

spacemoose

[QUOTE="ZJI"]I never liked any of the civ games, especially CIV4.

spacemoose

Okay, great, so you want the new one to be more like an older game you didn't really like to begin with. :roll:

That doesn't even make sense, I said I dislike Civilization IV the most. Especially if your expectations are according to the year of release, that is games released later should be better as technology/experience improves.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

I find all of Sid Meier's games to be too simple for a turn based Strategy.

spacemoose

Yes, none of Sid Meier's games are as complex as Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Are you joking or what? If you're going to point out that he didn't really directly create SMAC, then I'll retort that he didn't directly create Civ IV either. Either way, it's more than a little obvious that SMAC is 75% Civ clone with a sci-fi setting.

Alpha Centauri was Brian Ryenold's idea, for the games where Sid was the core designer, like Gettysburg, Civilizations, they are all much simpler in game mechanics.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

In galactic c civilizations Twilight of the Arnoryou actually get different tech trees for different races, not just one unique unit per race like in Civilizations.

spacemoose

So now all of a sudden expansion packs are relevant. :roll:

You keep writing insluts and cliches without context, it's hard to write a reply when you don't make any descriptive statements.

I would suggest looking into the survival horror and/or rts genres for some challenge.

VVatson

I just played Headfirst's Call of Cthulhu. Pretty well designed game, much better than most of the first person games of today.

Also, you are right about today's game focusing all the money on eyecandy, games like UTIII and Crysis are like that, they look nice, but once you play it it gets old FAST.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

I believe that the original DOW was intended to be something more than just a simple tabletop game, a PC version of a tabletop game need not copy every characteristic of it.

CHC999

Which I find ironic, if the original was intended to be more than a simple tabletop game (which it is not simple, I will explain later), it didn't made it far enough and landed straight into a simple RTS. Like I mentioned before, the tabletop game is not simple, the manual which can be easily thicker than the game box and amount of rules and exceptions will make the most dedicated Total War fan cry in frustration. For example, Deep Strike in tabletop can actually go wrong and land outside of the board thus considered dead and your tanks can explode and kill everyone around them. Now I call that complex, rulemakers goes out of their way to make a tabletop games with little figures seem real by thinking out ridiculous amount of "If this happens then this happens" situations. I wonder why the DoWI didn't implement them, hmmm...too complex I suppose? "Well hell with all those rules, lets just throw in a bunch of buildings and call it a day"