alanschu

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.

If you're going to compare the rate of level up, then yes.

Damn, I forgot to include the shameless wallowing in self-pity.

Then why waste your time doing worthless stuff? And I already have gotten an argument from you, so there's another notch.

Levels are inherently abstract. Especially when your level is a very poor indicator of your power in Oblivion. The concept of levelling up may be similar, but it doesn't mean that a level 4 Oblivion character is in any way similar to a level 4 D&D character.

You're just doing your usual bid for attention. And trying to slam a company for the sake of slamming a company. You straight forward said that they should never have even mentioned horses, and called Obsidian liars. Nothing should be hyped, because if it gets removed, fans get pissed. If you don't like me digging up old posts, then stop posting stupid stuff in an attempt to make yourself feel special because people are actually talking with you. It's better to be noticed by being contradictory and a hypocrite than to be ignored right? Oh wait, here comes the "Oh, but I'm irrational and a hypocrite, as I have completely come to grips with" post that you'll have. But not until after you and I bicker some more, and other posters (and not surprisingly, often the female posters) start calling you on it as well. Then you can go and use the :darque: emoticon and say "Oh, I'm just my goofy irrational self " I dig up this **** because it makes you look like a twit, and makes your opinion worth less than Eddo's. It's also entertaining for the rest of us.

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=558718

Bioware doesn't?

Then that's likely because you either didn't bother levelling up your primary stats, or you weren't bothering to level up either. But hey, it's great that you can beat Oblivion as a level 4 character too! You can't compare levels from different rulesets. You'd think a stickler for the rules like you would actually recognize that.

That's not what you were saying earlier. What was that about how they should never have even mentioned they were going to be in if they weren't going to be able to stick with it? I'm not sure why you trust Obsidian, as you outright called them liars.

Kumqautq did bring up an interesting point...which some seemed to have missed.

I thought the Core was hideous. I do like Hillary Swank though. I enjoyed this review of it. http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html

So you'd rather we rephrase the archetype?