Lexx

Pretty sure the problem isnt necroing a thread, but necroing ALL the threads, which might as well look like an awful lot of spamming. :>

Added an edit while you posted. :> My graphic card is already full--- I have my main monitor running with adapter (DVI to HDMI), my second monitor with HDMI and my TV with the remaining HDMI port. For a 4th device I'll have to somehow make room and as the 4th device uses a default HDMI port as well, I figured I could just clone that one and then switch between the devices. For example, this is what I have in mind, but it doesn't have a remote (also needs another HDMI cable from PC to switch, ffs). This might be useful as well, but needs additional power via mini USB. God, I have so much stuff running with USB cables already, seriously it is getting out of hand...

Sup people, looks like a silly question, but I'm searching and can't find what I need--- I am looking for a simple HDMI splitter with 1 input and 2 output AND it should come with a remote, as I want to keep that thing behind my PC with an as short as possible HDMI cable. It's also a plus if it doesn't require an additional power source. So far I can only find the reverse- multiple outputs, but only one input. Also found one or two with 1 input and 2 outputs, but they don't come with a remote. Anyone got any idea about this kind of stuff? I'd like to run my TV and another device with it, so I don't have to crawl under my desk everytime I want to change the signal. Any help is appreciated. /edit: Forgot to mention, it's "Type A". Also Now I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to just use a normal splitter without switch function, so stuff is always running on both outputs and I just have to disable the devices (TV etc) directly. But I have no idea if - without additional power source - such a splitter would have a negative impact on display performance??

Some of them Hey Guys are wearing way too much lipstick, imo.

To me it feels like ME:A had been given way too little money and time. Lots of the stuff that I see people criticize appears to be elements that still could have been polished with more time.

I don't know, man. It looks really cool and all, but also has this kind of horror movie style where everyone dies in the end.

It's magic.

So, how did CRPGs turned out? Anyone got an opinion?

You can. I did this with most of my gog games.

I'll doubt the remastered version will be better than the current with high-res patch.

Aren't these shots public then? I don't like uploading my screenshots to everyone browsing that side, tbh.

I completely suck at any of the Wargame games. Really tried to like them, but I can't even win the most simple missions. Everything is just so tiny and chaotic and I don't know.

Apparently anything with swords and an inventory and randomised loot is an 'RPG' Nowadays everything with inventory and some stats is said to be an RPG. No matter what game, you can find someone who'll tell you it's an RPG.

Yeah, then they should critizise those, but all I see are the same video snippets from the female Ryder or that blue Shrek with pistol in the wrong direction.

I don't think these people should focus on the default main character face. I mean, isn't everyone creating their own face anyway? Does anyone really play with the default?

The quality of the game will be visible already a long time before any official "full release" (if such a thing will ever happen anyway, as they are currently are just rolling out updates every once in a while). Squadron 42 on the other hand, that's going to be interesting. Truth told, the stuff going on with Andromeda now doesn't really surprise me. They didn't really presented a lot of the game before, and that's usually a sign of the publisher trying to hide things.

Tried to watch Jupiter Ascending a few days ago. The movie is about 2 hours.. after 1 hour I've called it a day and stopped. Can't believe this thing is from the makers of The Matrix, and I sure as hell can't believe that this turd got so many positive ratings on amazon. Also, finally watched that latest Star Wars movie yesterday. I think it was an ok movie. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so it didn't really flash me in any kind of way, but I also didn't regret watching it.

I wonder if they wrote this with Felicia Day in mind. Would totally fit the cringe level.

I really don't get why folks are still writing storylines like that. Shouldn't everyone know by now that the player never ever feels connected to a character that dies in the first few minutes, even if it's the father, mother, daughter or however close the relationship is? Either these kind of stories are always written by noobs or they expect their story to make a difference, I dunno.

Is there even any reason to have this father Ryder dying thing going on? Couldn't they just make the player the "pathfinder" right from the beginning, making the start of the game much less awkward?

The last few weeks have been pretty great anyway. Lots of new info, lots of new video material. It's one of the projects I recently really like to track again. Basically I've exchanged my weekly Trump news with Star Citizen. It's better for my health anyway. Now they just have to drastically improve the netcode of the game. Adding european servers already helped a great deal, but it's still not as good as it should / could.

Beginning of spring time maybe? I'm feeling it too every once in a while since a couple of weeks now.

And the inventory and the weapon loot that made you switch your weapons every 10 minutes.

I thought ME3 was ok. I certainly enjoyed it to some extend, as much as I did ME2. Would never count it under my top10 ever, but I don't regret playing it either. Guess this new game will be the same-- good for what it is, and forgotten quickly.

FACT. So, is it a better wrpg than witcher 3?