[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]I also agree the difficulty should of been a bit higher.... but in the end if the game is cheap, it's fun to play.Swiftstrike5
I'd pay maybe $5 for the game. The demo was absolute crap. It's certainly not worth $50 imo.
Controls are a mess.
The demo mission was probably the most linear mission I've ever played. It felt like a rail shooter.
I could run up an melee every single person on the default difficulty.
They labeled 'easy' as P, which is insulting.
The enemies curse every other second.
In defense of the cursing, they were staying true to the source material. Ever read the comic Wanted is based on? The game and the movie is kids stuff compared to the language and visuals used in the comic. However I agree, it is not worth $50 by a long shot. One of the shortest games I've ever played. The irregularities between the pre-rendered cutscenes and the 'real-time' cutscenes was jarring. Good graphics, smooth gameplay, but not even worth $20.
I'm one of the heathens who has not played Mass Effect yet, mainly due to the lack of availability in terms of PC games where I live. I ordered it off Amazon and it should arrive in 2-3 days, and I'm sure I'm gonna love it.
Vista Ultimate 64bit. The complaints about resource-hogging are way over hyped IMHO. For $900 I built myself a PC with a quad core, 4 gigs of ram, and a gtx 260 core 216. I can run ANY Game out now and to be released in the next year/years with ease. I have NEVER had a BSOD. The only time my PC has slowed to a crawl was when I was rendering a particularly cluttered animation in Form-Z RenderZone Plus while installing Race Driver: GRID (hard drive activity can slow down the PC's performance) while also video-chatting in Skype, having Photoshop open and saving a 20 MP image (a 300 DPI image of a city plan I was working on, with some post-processing in PS). That's the only time my RAM usage has gone over 90% (usually is at around 5-10%), and my CPU usage was only at 13%.
Dead Space for me. A very different take on a survival-horror game. The minimalistic HUD, which is implemented into your characters' armor and weapons, really add a whole 'nother level of realism to the game. The *extremely* limited ammo also adds a sense of unease throughout the game, always wondering what weapons you should use to conserve ammo for likely boss encounters. The camera was fine, at first I thought it was a little weird but 10 minutes in it feels natural. Also, Dead Space is absolutely GORGEOUS (yes, even the monsters trying to cut you in half). It also has one of the best fire animations I've seen in a real-time game. It just has so many small touches. Upgrading weapons and armor, having zero-G environments, panicking about your oxygen supply, and getting attacked by monsters in space (and, thus, not being able to hear anything) all add to the sense of dread. Great game, one of the best of 2008 for sure.
Not too old, but I would love to see The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind with Oblivion (or even Crysis)-like Graphics. The amazing visuals would only help to complement one of the most engaging and immersive plots in a video game I've ever played.
Actually your friend is only partly right. He's correct in saying that the most expensive card available for MAC's is the Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5Gb of VRAM. The most expensive video card PERIOD is the Quadro FX 5800 with 4 Gb of VRAM, which isn't available for Mac Pro's yet (TAKE THAT, APPLE). Now, will it wipe the floor with any other card? In terms of rendering massive-resolution CAD images or photo-video editing, debatable. The ATI FireGL's top of the line cards are very competitive in programs like Maya, but the Quadro FX 5600 (and, respectively, the 5800) are overall slightly better (although much more expensive). Can they game? Sure, they can game. But a friggin $200 GTX 260 is already much better for gaming due to a specialized architecture. Apples and oranges here, bro.
Log in to comment