gtrfreak182's forum posts

Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#1 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
Crysis 2 DX11, Metro 2033, Witcher 2, Shogun 2, Dirt 3. That should get you startedferret-gamer
Dirt 3 was mindblowing in the videos, Witcher looks great and haven't dug too deep into the others but I definitely will
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#2 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts

Depends what games you played the last 5 years.

oblivion + enhanched graphics mods

bioshock

gta iv + enhanched graphics mods

crysis 2 dx 11 patch + high res textures

mass effect 1 & 2

gears of war

borderlands

fallout 3

fallout new vegas

crysis & crysis warhead + enhanched graphic mods

star wars , the force unleashed

call of duty 4,5,6,7

battlefield bad company 2

medal of honour (last one)

prototype

just cause 2

dead space 1 & 2

witcher 2

Well i hope that's enough to get you going have fun

evildead6789
oblivion + enhanched graphics mods -- currently playing awaiting skyrim (not with graphics mods yet) bioshock -- played, fantastic game gta iv + enhanched graphics mods -- havent played yet crysis 2 dx 11 patch + high res textures -- havent played yet mass effect 1 & 2 --- love gears of war --- gears on pc ftw borderlands -- addicted to, but never could run it well fallout 3 -- currently playing fallout new vegas -- havent played yet crysis & crysis warhead + enhanched graphic mods -- havent played...couldnt run lol star wars , the force unleashed -- havent played yet call of duty 4,5,6,7 -- meh lol with all due respect i think theres better things to play than average console ports of team deathmatch "military shooters" battlefield bad company 2 -- excited on highest settings medal of honour (last one) -- cant say ive played but its supposed to be an option as a free game with preorder of bf3, so will get then. prototype -- looked fantastic, havent played yet just cause 2 --- havent played yet dead space 1 & 2 -- 1 was great, starting 2 right after i finish elder scrolls and fallout...whenever that happens lol witcher 2 -- looks amazing, havent played yet
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#4 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
Just bought a new PC for BF3 when it comes out. Besides the obvious Crysis, I need some game recommendations to really work out my new graphics card. I've been reading Metro's a good one. All recommendations are welcome whether it be artistic or technical graphics. I'm using two GTX 580s in SLI so the sky is the limit.
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#5 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
Just played Crysis. Felt kinda like all flash no substance to me. Missions were generic as many of you have stated. Gamespot goes on and on about how good the AI was and I was far from impressed. There is very few games that truly pull off the open world shooter bit (Metroid Prime series, Borderlands (hell most shooter/rpgs)), and this is simply not one of them. I felt no rush towards finishing goals and just going around fighting eventually got old. Yes, the huge changes in level structure are interesting and unique but I felt that within each type, everything was so similar that it just felt like...okay everything changes (play 10-20 minutes) okay bored with this now. I'm sure the Zero G stuff later is amazing but it wasn't worth the time and effort getting there and the suit changes themselves were so one sided and going between them got in the way of the gameplay. Gun mods were only interesting until you found what you liked and never touched it again. Not to mention the story was generic and predictable. Amazing graphics (played on High) but I'd much rather see visuals like that in a game I enjoy playing (awaits Gears and Mass Effect 3). On the subject of Dead Space, downloading demo for 360 now (kinda pissed there isn't one for PC). I'll post an opinion on that when I'm done. Thanks for all the reviews!!
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#6 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
You've never even listened to them. You've never tried them whatsoever and you're continuously arguing off the thought that the Astros are no better than Tritton or Turtle Beach which is ignorant and incorrect. I am aware of the capabilities and drawbacks of open-back being that not everyone wants to hear everything going on in the room.
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#7 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
Agreed with the Dr. Dre, those sound horrible yet everyone thinks they're phenomenal 0.o. I understand Bose sells for more with their reputation but I don't see why people don't think they sound good. I have the older set of Around Ear and to me, they sound excellent. I mean, I can nitpick slightly, but in some scenarios, the reason I don't like the sound is because the production of the song I'm listening to isn't too impressive. If I put on Rage Against The Machine's self titled record, Bose brings them to live better than any company I've listened to. I'm not ignorant to Sennheiser, I am a musician and I'm familiar with their level of quality but by simple personal preference I think the Bose headphones sound better. I can never understand why people like you think there is one headphone or two that sound the best. Yes, there is a high line and a low line, but once you spend over $100 for a set of headphones you're not gonna get something bad. After breaking past the conveniently priced line, it's all preference. I think the Bose sound excellent, punchy but the low end smoothens it to prevent from any annoying sounds. Personally, the over-present headphones sound too treble to me and most others sound like theres a subwoofer in the headphones (in some cases, they say there is). Certain Sennheisers do sound very good, I've just chosen Bose. I agree that the main companies (including the Astros that I support) do not have an audio background, but they get the job done for what they're trying to accomplish. I've been playing Gears for PC with my Bose and yes, it sounds excellent, but what seems like a more distinguished stereo spread (probably due to the blend usually accomplished from low end) and high end clarity, it makes more sense for me to use something like Astros for gaming as opposed to an audiophile headset. I've said it several times now, and I don't know if you've paid attention but: I HAVENT SAID THAT ASTROS SOUND BETTER THAN SENNHEISERS...I SAID THAT THE FREQUENCY RANGE PROVIDES EASE FOR GAMING THATS why I'm ordering my astros. I'm satisfied with my movie/music sound and if I'm playing an offline game, the Bose create a great cinematic experience. And whether you or whoever else likes or doesn't like Bose doesn't matter to me cause that's the sound my ear likes. If you want a great sounding headset to hear those cinematics, get an HD555 or Bose or whatever else, I agree. Gaming headsets won't make those epic Gears cutscenes sound all that fantastic. On the other hand, if I'm playing Bad Company 2 and want to hear the location of an enemy from around the corner, I could put on my Astros and shoot him before either of us would see or normally hear each other.
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#8 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
I agree that gaming headsets are a gimmick in some sense. Technically it's just a headset, adding gaming to it is the way that they can make it more expensive, cause let's face it they sell it for how much they think they can make, not how much it's worth. I own Bose Around-Ear headphones and to me, these sound excellent and I really don't need anything else for listening to music, movies, tv shows, etc. As I wrote in my post earlier, these headsets are made so you can hear in game sounds clear. They weren't made for music or movies even though they may advertise that it's also useful. Why do they sound poor to people? Well, the high mids and treble frequencies aren't usually boosted as much as they are in gaming headsets and bass is usually heard quite well to have a smooth underneath to the sound so it blends. If I want to watch Inception and hear it, I wouldn't break out A40s, I'd rip out my Bose, or in your case HD555s. On the other hand, if I'm playing COD online and I want a better feel of what's around me....If I use my Bose headphones and a grenade goes off, you have a loud low end and you won't hear very much else for the next couple seconds, while with the gaming headsets, you'll probably hear the initial attack sound of the grenade and resume to hear your opponents. Yes, Astros are pricy for reputation with MLG, but simultaneously, MLG wouldn't sponsor **** You tell me when you see GC's drumming competition sponsored by First Act and maybe I'll be a bit more open. This is not even to mention that it seems to me that none of the posters here putting down this headset have even used it... Tritton and Turtle Beach are companies you can find at Best Buy, Amazon, etc. and yes, they are crap, but how can you judge all gaming headsets (gimmick or not) alike based on the two crappy popular store bands?
Avatar image for gtrfreak182
gtrfreak182

403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#10 gtrfreak182
Member since 2006 • 403 Posts
well including the product you just mentioned, most pro-audio companies do not concern themselves much with digital audio and surround sound. It goes without saying that the best, fullest, purest sound will come from an analog signal. The whole 'digital age' bit lets these other companies make use of a gimmick. I'm not blind to the way the world works. No doubt you can get the best sound from converting the optical cable to individual signals, wire them and mix them down to a stereo mix using an analog mixer and some compressors and pan-by-pan eqs for the sub, center, etc., then run the ouput through a professional headphone amp, preferably tube. Although the final product will be significantly better, due to the dumbing down of ears due to iPod headphones confusing what people determine as quality sound, most couldn't tell the difference (weeps for humanity). The ones that could would rather a small interface that tells them exactly what to put where. Have two or three wires, two knobs, and good to go. Which, in the sense of gaming, the hassle and clusterf*** of wires just isn't worth the time or effort. I'd rather spend a little extra, plug, and play and have a little no difference.