Spider

Performance wise you'll do better with two 570 than one 590 (although not by much). So yes, two 580 will outperform a 590. They will also run warmer, but with water cooling that shouldn't be much of an issue I think.

Changes to the PC carries over to BG2. Changes to Korgan does not. So while giving a book to Korgan will be more powerful, giving it to the PC will have a longer impact. Besides, Korgan isn't the chosen one...

The first boss is more about tactics than augs. First time I played him I got crushed in seconds and it took me many attempts to beat him. Then I had to restart the game and this time he was much easier. Since I knew what I was doing I beat him in only a couple of attempts (a bad grenade bounce can still get you). It's all about explosions and cover. I actually didn't mind that boss. I like a little difficulty and variety in my games and he provided both.

It's not quite as bad as Motgoth makes it out to be. A couple of developers can write fairly lengthy and informative posts, although not very frequently. As for Torn, the game died long before BIS, so I doubt it will ever be revisited (but I'm sure they've already used some ideas in other games)

What difficulty are you playing on? Because enemies when I'm found out tend to move around and attempt to flank.

At least Syndicate has a distinct setting, differing from X-Com. I think a FPS Syndicate could be interesting if they designed it to match up somewhat to how the old games played. Strong mission-based gameplay, researching upgrades, team of agents being sent out to do their stuff, etc. All things that for me is the core of what Syndicate is, and all things that work just as well in the FPS genre (just look at the original Ghost Recon). But from what I've seen that's not how they did it, so my interest in the game is a lot weaker now. On a sidenote, I wouldn't exactly call the original Syndicate an action game. It was about as much of an action game as Commandos is.

I played nexus back in the day. It was indeed awesome. Might have to reinstall for that bsg mod alone.

If you go with two cheaper cards, you will get more bang for your buck, but you will invite issues that comes with SLI/Crossfire (not supporting new games out of the box being the primary one). A single ballsy card will have lower performance but be a tad more stable. it also let's you have an easy upgrade path open (get another one in a while and SLI then), but if that's relevant depends on the life expectancy on the rest of your system. Two cards also puts a higher demand on the cooling of your system, which is also something to keep in mind. Personally, I would go with SLI/Crossfire if you expect to upgrade your entire computer within the next year or so. Otherwise I'd go with a single card and possibly add another one next summer (if prices are favorable enough to justify it). I am running SLI with two 9800gtx and haven't experienced any problems with them.

Isn't that how it works? It's been said that when you join a game you get to re-level the character you join as?

It's certainly a possibility. It's hard to say how much sense it will make, because that all depends on how the price drops, and if it is available. If you're not afraid to buy used, it will be easier, but comes with it's own risks.

Don't know why, I rarely think of SLI/Crossfire as a default option (even though I use SLI myself). But yeah, I agree with what Humanoid said. I'll also add that the AMD cards use up less electricity and generate less heat compared to Nvidias offerings. I echo the recommendation for twin 6950 2GB.

There is no difference in game capability these days. Possibly if a game uses PhysX heavily, but that's it (and there has been something like 3 games where that applies). Nivida has 3D-support, AMD has more than two screen support through eyefinity. Nvidia does have better performance in DX11 titles, but again, not many of those arround yet. Basically with graphic cards you get what you pay for. A more expensive card will outperform a cheaper one. The 580 is a fine choice, as is the 6990 from AMD (if it's in your budget). The 6990 has the slight drawback that it's a double card, and will only perform at it's best with games that have Crossfire support. This is all games, it may just take a couple of weeks after some releases.

Depends on what you mean with kicking it's butt. It won't be enough for

Not helping you, no. Clarifying things for the person I quoted, yes. I think the way MP works here is better than in previous DS games so I don't share your agenda. But I can see how others may think differently, and that's fine. I still think giving accurate information is a good thing so people can decide for themselves what they like. @Renevent: As long as you are the host in your game, he can play as much as he want with others and it won't affect your game at all. Or he can just start different playthroughs for different people and it'll still work fine. If neither of those options work for you, then no the MP solution here is kinda bad.

If you're planning to play with your brother-in-law and him only then you won't have a problem. One of you hosts the game, you play together, gain loot and experience. And when you start a new session and you'll both be where you left off. Your character will have the same loot and the same xp. If the host keeps playing SP, or MP with someone else, from the same save, then yes, the non-host would suffer. But if they start a separate SP game that's fine.

There is good written fantasy out there, it's just that most of what is heavily featured in bookstores is trash. Michael Moorc*ck (stupid language filter) is aboslutely brilliant for instance. His concepts have been extremely influential, but he is also a very good technical writer. Brandon Sanderson (among the newer bunch, MM did most of his defining stuff in the 70s or so) is also pretty good. He excels in world creating, but his prose is very enjoyable as well. The way he uses color as a narrative focus in Warbreaker is just brilliant. Or how he conveys the broken world in the MIstborn Trilogy 8as well how the characters grow throughout the series).

The problem is that a majority of the fights play out exactly the same. Fight some baddies, then they get reinforcements, and possibly more reinforcements. The combat mechanics are good (apart from the horrid camera), it's just the encounters that are bad. And not really bad either, just extremely uniform. Then there are other issues that can't be seen from the demo. The extreme re-use of locations (all caves look identical etc) and fairly bland writing. I like what they were trying to do in regards to the story, it just didn't quite get there for me. Still a decent game, but nowhere near the original in overall quality. Basically, it's a rush job and it shows.

They really aren't. The combat mechanics are much better, but the encounter design and AI is so much worse.

I loved IWD and I found ToEE to be atrocious. It looks nice and combat mechanics are good. Everything else is horrendous. The writing is terrible, the quests are simplistic and boring, encounter design is uninspired, but worst of all is the voice acting. And it's buggy, but so are most RPGs so that can be forgiven.

I had more problems with bugs in DA2 than in DA:O (Awakening not included). Perhaps things weren't working right in the first game, but they weren't as glaringly obvious as loosing permanent hit points when being downed (as in not regainable through a injury kit). This is where I disagree. I think it's fairly predictable how the waves will be composed, since most of the time they are identical to the first battle you had with the same enemy type. Positioning is a bit more important, but since the camera is so bad, assigning good positions is more difficult than it should be. I don't particularly think the mooks are smarter than in DA:O either. About the same. I've only ever used Taunt for threat management (perhaps the rogue ability that takes aggro once or twice, but most of the time I want aggro AWAY from my rogue, so not that much). I think DA2's combat has the ability to be better 8in spite of the camera) but the wrecked it with the extremely dull repetition.

DA:O used waves in some fights. It was nowhere as common, but it was there. Personally I rather think DA2 removed strategic elements because it fell back to wave all the time, making fights fairly predictable after a while. Also, I don't agree that the game is more responsive. The horrible camera puts a stop to that (from a PC players perspective). Positioning is a nightmare and AoE spells is a lot clunkier to use. I do think the combat is fun and the splashier effects when you activate abilities do make it feel more visceral, but as a whole I think the combat is distinctively worse. I still think the game is decent, but it is much worse than DA:O.

If you played DA1 on the console, I don't think DA2 is much worse. Improved in certain areas, worse in others. If you played it on PC I'd say DA2 is worse though. It's still pretty good, but the crappy camera takes it down a few notches. I personally loved DA1 and only like DA2. Regardless, if you haven't got ME2 it's still a good deal. Because ME2 is a great game. So getting one great game and one good game for that price seems pretty nice to me.

How do you get that? The offer page clearly says Cerberus Network is included?

Say what? Buffy ran for 7 seasons, Angel for five. Dollhouse got two. Firefly was the only one that was really cancelled quickly, and even that got a movie afterwards.