Humanoid

That eBay listing is for 8x8GB sticks, so that's not going to be practical. That said, depending on your case, you can increase the RAM clearance of the D15 by raising the fan somewhat. Just move the wire clip up a few notches until the fan is right up against the side panel. Hopefully that can widen your choices a little. 3200C14 will generally be expensive Samsung B-die, but Hynix-based 3600C16 is a decent alternative that comes reasonably decent at stock.

If any of those solutions sounds terrible, it's not the fault of the device outputting the digital signal - after all, they're just outputting a stream of 0s and 1s. It's the device on the other end that's doing all the heavy lifting and which determines audio quality. Buying another sound card would be throwing good money after bad, unless you use one of its analogue outputs. The primary role of a sound card is to take a digital signal and convert it to analogue (i.e. a DAC) and then amplify that signal to a level suitable for output (i.e. an amplifier). If you simply use it to output a digital signal, which optical, digital coax, USB and HDMI all are, then you're using exactly none of that functionality.

Digital output, whether it be coaxial or optical, means you're bypassing the onboard audio processing altogether and the audio quality will therefore be entirely dependent on what you have connected up at the other end of the cable. The entire notion of a sound card is made irrelevant by using a digital interconnect (other than sometimes you need to add the physical connector for cheap motherboards that don't have an optical out).

Yeah, going back to that 10 identical bandit encounter, half of them had strategic vantage points surrounding the party. So of course on their first turn they all climbed down from their strategic positions to rush me with their maces. I ran around them and claimed the wooden tower that two of them started on, and only after I blocked the ladders up did the game show that actually, all 10 bandits had heavy crossbows all along. Real facepalm moment, that.

Got ambushed by a set of dectuplet bandits, all with identical outfits, maces and beards which seemed a bit absurd. Had to use the box strat exploit of standing on a tower and blocking all the ladders up to stand a chance. So yeah, the balancing of random encounters is a bit wonky. On the plus side, the location design of the second major questing location is far more reasonable and interesting than the first location, and the fights seemed much more reasonable too. So in general the challenge seems okay now. Early on it was probably skewed a fair bit because we created the characters with more of a 3.5E mindset and have generally poor stats after taking the default rolls for all four characters. Stuff like there not being any skill points was a big shock, as well as learning that I should have been dual-wielding from level 1 with no supporting feats, etc.

I don't think any of my quibbles or issues with the game so far have anything to do with co-op, since I assume mechanically the campaign plays out exactly the same whether there be one, two or four people splitting the characters between them. Which is good in terms of making a stable co-op experience, but perhaps a little bad in terms of the issues being having around for a long time before co-op was even a twinkle in their eye.

Tried Solasta co-op, having never played the game before. Got squashed on the middle ("authentic" I think) difficulty. I'm going to blame low-level D&D blues for that but I also suspect that skipping a sidequest may have cost us an all-important level-up. Regardless, we're going to switch it down a notch next session. The dialogue system is also kinda silly with individual dialogue choices arbitrarily tied to to party slot. That is, the first choice is spoken by the first party member, and so forth. Besides that, my biggest gripe is probably the camera controls, which I don't see an option to customise. Getting the camera to auto-follow your unit(s) is particularly irritating because the input for doing so is at odds with the input to select multiple units. So for example, you already have multiple units selected, but the camera is not on auto-follow. You double-click a unit to set the auto-follow, but this means you've now only got one character selected. So now you need to drag a selection box to select everyone again. It's extraordinarily tedious to have to go through this ritual of double-click then box select every time I want to move, especially as the mode gets deactivated at the drop of a hat.

I need to go back and play MI1 and 2 huh? A few years ago I did the workaround to get the new Special Edition voice lines working with the old graphics (because the new graphics were horrifically animated) but I didn't actually get around to properly playing it and that setup was on an old laptop I've since given to my mum. Just need to do that again, I'm sure it'd take maybe 5 minutes to set up. Still massively welcome news of course, especially given that we're over a quarter of the way into the year and I've played zero new games so far. (As for superhero Diablo, wow, somehow someone's managed to combine my two least favourite things in media )

On a whim I started playing Sid Meier's Covert Action again. The odd thing about it for me is that it's not a game I play out of any real nostalgia: I didn't play it back when it released, not for the rest of the 90s, not in the 2000s. I think I only played it for the first time a little over 10 years ago. And yet it scratches that one itch that nothing else has managed to in all these decades: my need for Advanced Carmen Sandiego. So while the gameplay is actually pretty sub-par, the meta-layer of investigating all the links with actual pen and paper in hand is still extremely satisfying. A reimagining in something resembling the Hitman engine would be very welcome indeed.

I did an "Adventures of Naked Man" pastiche (inspired by a one-panel cartoon that was in the local newspaper at the time) with Morrowind on a previous iteration of the forum.

That juxtaposition made it seem like Roberta Williams was onboard to make the most sadistic Witcher game yet.

This trailer contains no useful information, but if it's anything like the previous game, it may be my game of the decade.

Oh wow, I didn't know co-op was even on the menu for Solasta. I don't know how fun controlling two characters each will be but definitely giving it a shot given it's on Game Pass. I get that co-op is an afterthought to many players, but for something like this, it turns a game I would never touch (given my long-standing position about party-based RPGs) into a must-try. (Meanwhile, Bloodstained still doesn't have it's co-op update, sheesh)

Content-wise no difference, but the trick to telling them apart is that the review has a watermark in the corner with the Gamespot or IGN logo.

In terms of shape, it's the original Microsoft Sidewinder Gamepad for me. As for the Playstation touchpad, I've never held the PS5 gamepad but the PS4 one had the issue that for all the limited functionality the touchpad added, it was cancelled out by the start and select button being rendered useless for use in any fast action context. They're tiny, poorly-positioned, minimal feedback, and just generally horrific - I'd expect better even from a MadCatz controller in the 90s. Furthermore, as I never did play a game that properly employed the touchpad, the result is a net loss. That said, it's a fairly minor complaint in the grand scheme of things and I'm not opposed to them trying things; it's just in the wrong position, size or shape. I won't get into the rest of the issues I have with it, as I've already done so at least a couple of times here. A bigger complaint I have with regard to game controllers is the designs of steering wheels controls being completely dictated by the consoles. No, it's not about the buttons being labelled like console controllers, that's irrelevant. It's that in assigning the mappings there's no consideration to how many controls actual normal cars have. The design of various flight controllers shows that speciality controllers don't need to be dumbed down in terms of inputs, but nope, standard console inputs only. Give me my indicator stalks, my high beams, my cruise control ...controls.

Ideally you'd use a Wii Fit board to sense which direction you intend to roll in.

Yeah, it's about the same difference here. However, that's offset by the fact that a quality B550 motherboard for the Ryzen is cheaper than the cheapest decent B660 board for the Intel right now by about the same gap. Indeed it's a net saving if you're happy with a fairly basic B550 board, which is easier to get away with because the more efficient Ryzen chip doesn't need nearly as robust a power delivery system as Intel CPUs do, though obviously you'd also be sacrificing things like onboard audio, 2.5Gbit Ethernet, ax WiFi and would probably need to settle for a microATX board (but then the affordable B660 boards are microATX too). So what I've generally found with pricing here is that like-for-like, the final pricing ends up about the same, with the Ryzen holding a slight performance advantage, trading off against future upgradability and more PCI-E lanes for things like the PCI-E 5.0 slot for the video card (not that any such video cards exist yet), and running multiple PCI-E 4.0 SSDs (whereas you can only run one such SSD on B550). EDIT: To give an example, the MSI B550M Pro-VDH is a very good lower-midrange board, and it'll happily run any Ryzen CPU around, even the top-of-the-range models. For about $120 here, it comes with basic ac WiFi, basic onboard sound, Gigabit Ethernet, and a USB-C header but no rear-USB-C port. By contrast, the cheapest decent B660 board is probably the Gigabyte B660M DS3H. For about $190 here it has no WiFi (but an ax version is available for $30 more), mystery-meat onboard sound (they refuse to say what it is), 2.5Gbit Ethernet, a rear USB-C port but no header for the front. Its PCI-E x16 slot is also only certified for version 4.0, unlike on the mid-range B660 boards. Now buying an cheaper Intel board isn't inherently a terrible thing. However there is an issue in that while it will no doubt run something like an 12400 with no problems, I would not necessarily trust it with an i7 or above, and who knows if the 13th gen CPUs releasing at the end of the year will be even thirstier. Therefore going with a cheap board sort of undermines the upgradability argument of going with Intel in the first place, and so I would tend to recommend spending more on something like an Asus TUF which is around $240. As you can see, to get the full benefits of the Intel platform you do end up spending quite a bit more despite the cheaper (and slower) CPU.

Locally the 5600X has been dropping in price such that it edges out the 12400F once total platform costs are added up, but that will change as decent B660 boards drop in price (and they also offer an upgrade path to 13th gen). Both very much viable so I would spec something up with both options and compare side-by-side. It may also be worth waiting for the imminent Zen 3D release (late this month?) to see how much improvement it offers. A little update for me as I opportunistically replaced my i3-4130 in the HTPC with an i5-11400. I had some spare DDR4 lying around because of an Amazon shipping error, so I picked up the CPU bundled with a B560M Mortar for $314 AUD which is outrageously cheap. Could easily retain everything else ...except the SATA cables. Stupid side-facing SATA ports butting up against an internal plate in the case meant I had to buy two 270-degree (a.k.a. left-angle) SATA cables for $8 each which stings.

My understanding is that the F2P restrictions aren't as horrific as they used to be, but looking them up, they still seem rather annoying. I mean things like a low number of hotbars, no bank access, being restricted to one tradeskill, inability to trade or send mail (particularly relevant for co-op I imagine). I would say that if the game manages to grab you enough to commit beyond a day or two, then getting at least preferred status is something you'd probably want. I would say give it a go for about 10 levels (which gets you off tutorial planet and into the main "city") and if you're continuing past that, upgrade. Now, the cost to upgrade to preferred status and lift the worst of the restrictions is small, you just have to buy something, anything. But a common recommendation is that instead of paying for a microtransaction, it's better to subscribe for a single month instead, which unlocks all current expansions for you, permanently and therefore is technically much better value. The counter-argument of course is that you might get bored of the game and never even make it to that expansion content. That was my experience in a co-op run with my sister actually. The 1-50 content was good - and yes, you do roll for who wins dialogue - but we found the first expansion content so limited that we quit at the end of it. The reason for this is fairly obvious, in that up to level 50, every class has their own story tailored to them alone so it feels both personal and coherent. After that, the content is the same for all classes with little more than lip-service paid to your class, and the storytelling therefore become very generic. I'm not sure I can comment much on the actual gameplay because I understand some systems have been significantly overhauled since I last played 5+ years ago. Since then they've killed the Aussie servers and I'm not going to go back to cross-Pacific pings ever again, so I won't be back. But from what I remember it just feels like a clunkier but workable version of WoW. The limited UI customisation tends to become the primary challenge, as you can probably imagine what playing WoW without mods is like - keeping track of things like cooldowns and DoT durations is a royal pain. I remember my critique at the time of its launch, that it wants to have the mechanical complexity of WoW, but provides you none of the tools to manage that complexity by banning mods. That said, they've at least improved on the amount of in-game customisation allowed since then. Besides that, it just feels a bit "off" too, in that your actions lack the oomph or immediacy of WoW, partly the fault of the somewhat wishy-washy animations.

If you remove the concept of levels altogether, to save on costs and development time, all enemies will be perfectly level-scaled at all times. So it could happen that way.

Yeah, it's not the most common choice, especially in D&D, but I always, always play a thief/rogue-type character in my first playthrough of any game.

MotB was unplayable because every single enemy in the tutorial dungeon was immune to sneak attacks.

The human noble origin definitely amplified this feeling for me. I tend to think that the origins were mistakes in general. You can't just funnel six entirely different prologue stories, each barely the length of a tutorial, and expect a smooth and believable transition into a one-size-fitz-hall story. The wildly disparate situations and motivations of each origin end up being left more or less unaddressed and handwaved away for most of the main story.

Just launched the game with the new content for the first time. Being able to have sleepovers is cute, but boy does Judy need to buy a new bed.

DA:O is an odd one for me. It kind of put me offside straight away because I resented being conscripted into the Grey Wardens and spent the first part of the game pointlessly trying to rail against it, but of course you have no recourse. After that initial resentment faded, I was able to reasonably enjoy the game for a while, but with steadily waning interest, up until one day I just couldn't be bothered firing it up again. Yes, I got through the Deep Roads. No, I didn't actually mind The Fade. I don't recall where I actually got up to, except that I know I never got to settle any of my personal feuds. And I've never really been able to enjoy that style of vaguely-tactical RPG experience ever again. If I want to manage a squad, I'll go play something like XCOM, thank you very much. I did not play DA2 and only tried DA3 through the tutorial. My opinions on Mass Effect are simpler. ME2 turned out okay because I played it first but the writing would have pissed me off a lot more had I played it in order. ME1 is fine as a standalone experience and I don't even hate the gameplay other than the inventory management. ME3 sucked and I ragequit less than a quarter of the way through it. ME4 doesn't exist.