Since this site is called Gamespot,

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350.

I've heard a lot about it but never got the chance to try it. Considering picking it up during the steam sale...

Describe what's so moments that make the game great? I saw like the A10 warthog and it looked just like a flight sim game.

The only time I'd recommend AMD CPU's would be if you wanted to do like some water-cooled ITX build with an overclocked AMD Trinity Fusion chip, and the case didn't have room for a video card. 

Even then, the AMD APU's don't make much sense because you can get similar performance just by getting like a dual core Intel celeron G-series and a discrete card for less heat and power.

Pretty much. 

For a while, the Japanese were the only ones making RPG games and complex stuff that wasn't arcadey. 

But US gamemakers have caught up since then and so people have more options and don't have to put up with annoying traits from Japanese games.

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

GummiRaccoon

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

Don't get your hopes up on not having to pay for DLC. If it was going to be free, why wouldn't the dev release it with the original title? They put the extra effort into creating it, why shouldn't they get paid for it? I treat it much like buying a new game and do a bit of research before purchase. ESPM400

If a dev released a free DLC, I think they'd get increased sales of the base game itself due to the publicity of the free DLC. 

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

The Fallout games have the best DLC for any game, most of them are very good.

Blueresident87

Which is exactly what makes them so good and worth the money.

A traditional expansion pack like Starcraft Brood War would also give you a campaign that was like 2/3rds that of the original game.

Of course, brood war also cost like $30, which is like 3 paid DLC's.

I dunno, I've never really found paid DLC to work well. LIke, you get it a few months after beating the game so you've forgotten what the gameworld was like. Then, it's over really quickly before you can get back in the swing of things.

After playing Kane and Lynch 2, I realized how bad hitscan is in shooter games. It really short-changes the shotgun in most of these games, and make shooter games feel less like shooting a weapon and more like chipping away at hitpoints like an RPG game.

Will the next gen with more processing power allow for better ballistics in games? 

Or are fundamental constraints like bandwidth and lag for multiplayer matches keep this from happening?

Umm...

I think Tekken is my favorite fighter of all time.