I somewhat agree that only the educated should be allowed gun ownership, but that doesn't mean that smart people are always innocent. I WOULD suggest some type of moral examination, but then again, even a lesser intelligent person knows right from wrong in a universal sense, whether or not they practice it themselves. Bubbling in the correct answer doesn't gaurantee innocence in practice.

Maybe restrict the use of guns to those with a need for them or physical disadvantage? Like single women or families with young children? Of course, the crime statistics of the area should also be considered. Would they use the weapons tyraniously? Sure, it's always possible. Could the weapons be stolen from them? Certainly. Could they use the weapons inefficiently? Not if they're required to take take arms education/training.

Could the number of home invasions/rapes/assaults on women and families be drastically decreased? I think so.

The Spiderman movies made me want to go! Jk. But some of those pics make it seem like a cool place to at least visit. I'm curious of how the social life is in a dense population like that. Part of me thinks that people are quite open to engaging convo with strangers, but at the same time, they may be paranoid and snobby due to the large amount of encounters on a given day?

The people in the area are just as imporant as the area itself IMO. Sure, many people relocate for jobs and such, but it helps if it's a friendly area too. Not just for safety, but beyond that. Life is about people.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

A demo for that game came with my voodoo banshee card.

Was pretty awesome, only zipper interactive game I like.

mep69

Sorry to be off topic, but SAME HERE. I thought how awsome it looked and kept looking at it for a minute trying to figure out what it was. Even though it said "Hard Reset" in big bold letters, I thought "surely, it can't be that little game that never met the hype." Regardless, I want to check it out.

If anyone can do it, Crytek can. I think the reason it's always been avoided is because rendering a jungle is a difficult task, both from a modeling and rendering perspective. Crysis clearly demonstrated that it can be done, and look pretty good too.

Imagine huge dinosaurs on that island. It would have been the perfect game to implement them IMO, as long as there was a good reason for them to be there.. Regardless, it's a bit late in the story arch to be able to add them I think, unless there's some time travel device involved. [grin]

This game looks terrible. Graphically, it looks worse than BO1 IMO. Stylistically, it's just plain ugly. The buildings look terrible, the robots look terrible, the whole damn atmosphere looks terrible. This looks like perhaps the worst COD ever. I'm not trolling here, no joke. The story seems terrible too.

As soon as I was getting to like Treyarch, they pulled THIS out their ass. It makes them look like desperate leaches with no originality, trying to milk the shadow of IW.

"We have all this cool technology, mankind has gotten weaker due to becoming dependent on technology. I'm an old vet and we black ops know how to get things done the old fashioned way, unlike these unwillful tech-dependant nerds of 2015. We've always been comfortable, but now the enemy has gotten control of our robos."

Why the hell did they have to go futuristic? That crap's getting old now. The last 3 modern warfares were futuristic. We don't need anymore. Leave that to Ubisoft who can get it done RIGHT.

Honestly? Haha. You won't find the answer on THIS forum..

Edit: Unless the MSDN thing works, good luck.

TBH, I havn't been keeping up with CPUs much nowadays, but I don't think you'll need a 6-core. Sure, there's some games here and there that utilize it, but how big is the performance boost? Go for the highest clocked 4-core you can get, I say. If you encode video or do hardcore photoshopping.. or maybe even do music editing with numerous plugins and tracks, maybe the 6-core can make a notable difference.

I have a Phenom II 955 x4 3.2ghz, overclocked to 3.7ghz on air. Not bad. Though I love the value of AMD, I'm thinking that intel's 2500k maybe the wiser choice. It seems to be very flexible in OC'ing and overall, the architecture tends to deliver better performance than the AMD counterparts. Aside from the 2500k, there tends to be a steeper price for intel CPUs. From what I've heard, the 2500k is like the holy grail of budget CPUs in terms of price to performance. The benches were impressive if I recall correctly.

If you haven't already chosen your CPU, I suggest you look up "best CPU for the money april 2012," where you'll get the most accurate objective comparisons.

This isn't even worth responding to, but it's fun so I will anyway.

The number "360" and "PC" shouldn't even be said in the same breath. I own both and consoles look TERRIBLE compared to the potential of a PC. I got my 360 for around 90 bucks off of ebay, in great condition, so I agree that it's a great deal for those who want to dive into some semi-decent gaming.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. I'm not here to insult those who can't afford a decent PC, but don't judge the PC unless you've really invested in one. You can have a crappy PC that has the gaming potential of a PS1.. or you can have a monster machine that can max out Crysis and impress the stingiest of videophiles. Sure, a decent PC will cost you above 500 bones, but it's infintely more capable than a console.

What about all the other things you can do on a PC.. like surf the unrestricted web, play media of any format, do 3D modeling, web design, programming, photo editting, music composition. The PC craps on consoles in terms of flexibility. You can actually be productive and God forbid, make MONEY on a PC. As a gaming platform, the results are directly proportional to how much you're willing to dish out. At any rate, I think the value of a PC far exceeds that of any console, even though the initial "entry price" may be a bit steeper.

That would be awsome. Keep the physics and weapons, but add improved lighting and shaders, of course some new maps, but keep the old ones too. Imagine using the Rage engine for Q3. id could easily make it happen IMO, yet they decided to create qlive instead.. Same game, just ruined by ads and priced content. It's sad because in Qlive, you pay for new maps. In Q3, you simply download them freely. At least it has close integration with the browser interface.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="CaptainAhab13"] Actually, Nexuiz and Quake Live are quite different in both physics and design. Both are arena shooters, but that's where most of the similarities end. Both are great though.JigglyWiggly_

Honestly, they're practically identical in gameplay IMO. I wouldn't say Q3 was worse with net code because it depended on the mod. One thing I like about Q3 (and Qlive) is that it's consistent. If you have 50 ping, you know where to lead EVERY time. In noghost, if it's unlagged.. well then you don't lead. In insta, you also don't lead, but it has a different feel. At least in Q3 you had the choice between mods/feels.