Lexx

So far two people have suggested me the Asus VG248QE. It's 289€ on Amazon, but oh well, could as well increase the price range to 300€. The only thing a little bit worrying me about this one is: I've read from a few people that they had to fiddle a lot with the settings to get the colors somewhat right, because the default settings "are bad". The majority doesn't seem to care, though.

Holy sheet do I, as a bald man, feel opressed now. I never realized this bald dude issue before but now I see it everywhere.

My current resolution of 1920x1080px is totally fine for me. Also I forgot to write that 24" is my target size (same as my current benq). Response should be as good as possible, regarding the colors: I don't necessarily need them to be exactly and 100% totally true to real colors, but I've read about some monitors having something like "too much blue", which is really not what I'd like to have (yes you can fiddle with the settings a bit on your own, but.. ehw). About the rest of your questions... no idea. I am using a Nvidia graphic card, so I'll guess I would stick to G-Sync.

What the title says, but it is actually a lie, because I am looking for *two* new monitors. Now that seems easier said than done, as I just figured... Heard them Asus monitors are pretty good, but apparently none of them can be wall-mounted (at least the ones I've found on Amazon). So yeah, that's why this thread exists. What I want: - 2 Monitors of the same type - 24" - Need to be able to attach them to the wall - I want one monitor to be upright (shouldn't be a big deal if I can mount it on the wall) - More than 60hz would be nice, but as far as I've read, you need super high fps for anything above or it won't do any good - Ofc the colours need to be good. Occasionally I do graphics related work and then it would be bad if the colours are all shait. Price tag around 200 to 250€ per monitor. Anyone got any suggestions for me?

Did you fight any oversized bosses by any chance? Man, you are really trying hard here. All I wrote was that I hate oversized *weapons* in the hands of the player character and you go all fanboy over it. If I'd hate oversized enemies, then I'd wrote something along the line of "I hate the general style of the games". Here is a hint: I didn't.

Why? Did I wrote the game is shait? Nope, it's what you want to turn my words into. PS: I've wasted about at least 300 hours with the Souls games and guess what, I never used any oversized weapon.

Good lord, you Germans and your nitpicking... Dude, I thought we abandoned "realism" when we were fighting crows that are twice the size of my cat! And yet it is silly + I hate the style (which means you can't call it nitpicking, by the way). Seriously. And that's not even the biggest sword. /edit: "Bandits Knife"

I really don't like the weapon design in Bloodborne. The clothes look fancy, the guns too (can't do much wrong here), but what about this huge ugly melee weapon stuff and how is he holding it with one hand? I thought the super huge swords in the Souls games were real silly, but this stuff just keeps going on.

Heh, that would never get into a game. I mean, if you would play a gay character and suddenly the village hears about you and they start to throw stones, etc. It will take literally minutes after people found out about it to start a huge fuzz about it, no matter the presentation. I can already see the twitter posts "bigot Obsidian says gay people must be stoned". Just remember the silly limerick one of the PoE backers wrote. It was nothing, yet people made a huge thing out of it. After all, it's the idiots who scream the loudest.

I've worked in a big / open office once and it was absolute hell. Beside hearing the conversations of everyone around you (especially bad with telephone related stuff), it also gave me the feeling to be watched every minute. Really not a fun work environment, in my opinion.

Wut, I have never seen this area and I thought I've explored all of DS2.

I played it a bit with a friend, and even then I've found it to be extremely unenjoyable. It's one of the games where I really thought not even a price tag of 2€ is worth it.

To be honest, I really can't remember a blizzard area with randomly charging horses. The only DS2 DLC I didn't liked was the sunken king with all the poisen and stuff. Never had a problem with the iron passage, though maybe that's because I've been already level 100-something when playing through it. Also later I started to coop everything- became a lot more fun and also a lot easier. Actually I've quit playing the game when it started to take longer and longer to get together with other players. Especially on the later newly released pc version it became harder to find someone to play with the further I've progressed in the game.

I thought the Martian was mediocre because it lacked so much of the book. It felt too heavily compressed to me, with most of the interesting science and events being cut. Though, of course that's usually what happens with movies based on books... But in the Martian, it really didn't felt like he was on that planet very long. Food never seemd to be a big deal, water neither, air? Well, apparently there was enough air in his tiny dome (which he actually expanded in the book). I don't remember him ever talking about it. They had nice vistas and stuff, but other than that, I never got the feeling his presence on mars is threatening or an issue at all.

Just seen Pontypool. That movie was scary. Also wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhat an inspiration for parts of the plot in MGS5- namely the stuff about the vocal cord parasites. /Edit: I mean, really. It's probably the first time in years that I kinda wish I had seen a movie in broad daylight.

I don't agree with that.

Graphics isn't everything. Dead State was awesome for the most part. Sadly, it was very noticeable that the development budget was tight.

I had one experience with a redhead and it was absolute hell that is still haunting me.

Apparently you can watch MCA write some style guide over here.

But upgrading your PC doesn't necessarily mean to get rid of Win7?

I don't think the movie will be worse than the originals. I mean, they are cool and stuff, but I still don't think they are as exceptional as people make them to be.

Turn based combat and less of these fillers and I probably would still play PoE.

This stuff makes me lol a lot. On the other hand, if they had kept the location and just "turned back the time a few thousand years", I'd say it would have been kinda cool. On the other hand of the other hand, people then would complain about this being a mere cash grab, only worthy of being a cheap dlc for Far Cry 4 or something. /Edit: Actually I wouldn't even be surprised if the game started as a Far Cry 4 dlc and later got turned into a full game. Think of this one Blood Dragon game for Far Cry 3.

Maybe it's all a big hoax and they do switch the characters. :>

^ Sounds okay to me (now). I've read they do not plan a 1:1 conversion from the books, and they apparently plan to only make *one* movie. As by nature of how the dark tower works, with its levels and stuff, pretty much anything could be possible in that movie. /edit: Just flew over the article. This part is a bit of a bummer to me: I'd rather see something more from the "wild west" part of the story. I occasionally re-read the parts in the Barony of Mejis, for example. Love that stuff.