alanschu

I'd be surprised if it was someone that made games that did the website though.

I remember once upon a time your arguments would accuse people of lying for doing what you are doing now.

It could be. I suspect it's generic enough given how the game can play though.

What???

Unlikely. You're not familiar with the Total War series?

Next, I suppose they'll be blaming the weather

Oilers hold on to win.

Based on what?

This I doubt. Linky?

Mambo #5 baby!! Ugh...that song was popular......yeesh.

Kor made me think of a different song with a similar title that I enjoy. The Kids Aren't Alright - The Offspring

I know what you meant. I'm just not so sure why disabling features would really keep things cool though, as the impression I get is that the chips are always working as fast as they can when doing most things in 3D. I'm not an expert on 3D hardware though. It just doesn't make much sense to me is all.

Actually, no. Memory-bit inferface "is king". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the bit interface is important, because with high speed, it improves the bandwidth. The bit-interface is just a puppet king for the true powerbroker: bandwidth As for "cooking" systems by playing on systems, I've never really understood that. I don't get the impression that my video card doesn't work as hard when I'm playing a game with lower video settings, as it's usually accompanied with increases in framerates and whatnot.

I suspect a few years worth. Hopefully the game is still easy to find.

His isn't a laptop is it?

Unless things have changed, the biggest problem with onboard graphics is that they share the system memory. Not only does this leave less for the system, but it is typically much, much slower, and usually with a narrower interface. A double whammy of bandwidth limitations. You likely won't find many benchmarks of onboard video, because they have historically been so hideous to the point that no one would bother reviewing it. Any reviews with them are typically against other integrated systems. EDIT: And I agree with Deraldin...I have not seen much "cosmic" performance benefits with additional memory. The only performance boosts I have seen from memory improvements have been due to memory bandwidth.

Did they mean to pick the day of the largest amphibious landing of World War II?

Only the US Xbox version was released at that time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They still need to have it done by then.

No where in that article does it say that there was a PC version in the works.

Because they are console games naturally...

Volourn did say "relatively."

QA can be expensive. I imagine that's why it's not too uncommon for studios to not have it.

Ok, I couldn't let this one go. Unless you work in software development, you cannot say what is or is not "often" the reason for a cut. It has nothing to do with corruption. Unless you have worked in software development, you cannot really comment. Then you screw up the scheduling from PNJ and PG. Unless you have worked in software development, you cannot really comment. Priority has nothing to do with it. Yes, they will fix a bug that causes more damage, but that's not what I was talking about. A smaller bug is still going to be recorded. It just won't be fixed first. So a bug is not going to be forgotten because of the "routine" of it being there, because it would have initially been recorded as a bug in the first place. If it was missed initially, then the point is moot, because if someone with many more views of it misses it, the likelihood of it being spotted by someone that goes over it less is not going to be any better. Unless you have experience with QA though, you're just guessing. Of course. But unless the developers have the benefit of precognition, it's impossible to tell. Like I said, go read up on sunk costs. Yes, it would be a waste of money...but the point is moot because that money has already been spent. I guarantee that if it was only a minimal investment to ensure that the "cut content" was on par with the rest of the game, it would not have been cut. The wiki for sunk costs is pretty good, and also explains the sunk cost fallacy. Any introductory economics textbook is likely to get into detail, and hopefully clear up the issue for you. What? You are saying that by hiring more people, you'll end up saving other money? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Obsidian fanboy? In any case, it was a gaffe on my part, but my point still stands. In fact, I think it stands even better now.

Actually, it's getting kind of old. It's like every post from you is about trying to find some faults in someone else's post, no matter how far back you have to dig. It's not really entertaining and it makes you look like the smaller man. Hey, I can understand it in some cases (*cough*Epiphany*cough*) but every day of the year for every little unnecessary detail you can dig up? Come on.. I much prefer your insightful or witty posts before these bitter and bickering posts, to be honest. But that's just me and my opinion.. and another chance for you to dig up some year old post to compare to this one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know, everyone says that I've changed in some way, but I don't really think my posting style is really that different. I've been digging up old stuff on these fora for quite some time. I guess I'll take a break. Adios.