Sometimes... I beyond hate video games. Seriously. Playing Mass Effect and encountered some glitch on this level in the elevator that won't let me leave. Game is completely down the drain. Have to start from scratch. UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I feel your pain. Once I played Super Paper Mario for wii and in the very last level just before you take on the final boss, part of the storyline is that everyone in your party gradually drops off one by one leaving you alone at the end without them or their useful abilities for you to use. Before tackling the last boss I decided it would be smart to warp back to the hub town to stock up on health items and things, waltzed my way back through the final level to find I could no longer cross a gap 'coz Peach nicked off with her floaty umbrella.

Must just have bad luck with games, because this is the third time something like this has happened to me. First play through of Diablo 2: got to the final boss on the third act, hit him with the final blow aaaannnddd... computer froze. Assassins Creed 2: accidentally shut game off while saving, save file corrupted, start from scratch. Pain in ze anus.
See it was actually saving that shafted me this time! I saved in the elevator, which you normally can't do, but after reading online today found out that that's what the glitch is, it lets you save in there. So I did something I wanted to undo, loaded that save, and I was trapped. If I tried to go up in the elevator the loading screen would just sit there endlessly. 17 game hours down the drain. Just my luck to save right in a glitch lol. But made a new character today and powered through a bunch and I'm pretty close to where I was now. And I'm doing a bunch of stuff I missed before, like starting a romance. And being a complete dick Renegade so not all bad I suppose.

Since it came with my bundle, I started playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood this afternoon. I've come to two conclusions: I need to get the previous games to better understand the plot, and this has to be the most infuriatingly addictive game I've ever played, and I don't say that lightly. Yeah, the graphics are awesome, it has an interesting story, and I'll be in front of it for days checking out all of its features. That said, I wish the fighting was better coordinated (or perhaps I need to work on it more), and I am in total hate with the climbing system. The level where you're meant to navigate an underground temple in less than 8 minutes left me seething, as it took me almost half an hour, most of that time screaming obscenities every time the character decided to swan dive Matrix-style off the wall for no goddamn reason (the fact he keeps doing this every level is what really pisses me off).
Perhaps I'll like it better over time.

Saw this in the cinema yesterday, before the movie:

[youtube]w1AenlOEXao[/youtube]

Now I want a cinema screen in my house!
I didn't know what it was at first, then I recognised the guard's uniform and the protagonist's helmet and thought: "Hel-lo!".

Been beta testing Star Wars: The Old Republic over the last few months, participating in the beta weekends. I'm really enjoying the game, and runs extremely well. However, it is a bit too simple, IMO. Hopefully it gets more challenging. Graphically, it is a bit too bright and clean for me. There was a dark, gritty feeling to the KOTOR games.

Still, the storyline quests have been great. The writing and voice acting is top-notch, and I have run across very few bugs, and they all have been minor.

Pretty solid game with room to grow. I just pre-ordered it.

To all those playing Skyrim... watch this. Holy. Shit.

http://badassdigest.com/2011/11/18/see- ... rim-video/

This man is my hero.

I'm looking to buy a gaming computer rig. After some searching I came to the conclusion that if I wanna respect my budget and have some future proofing I'll have to assemble it myself, can't buy a complete machine.
And just how complicated this process is, I spent all afternoon yesterday looking up parts, and finding what works with what.
Lining up a quad core 3.2ghz AMD AM3 socket processor.
2*4gig DDR3 1600 corsair vengeance ram.
HD Radeaon 6850 graphics card.
and an 80 gig SSD.
Anyone see any problems/advice related to that?

Lining up a quad core 3.2ghz AMD AM3 socket processor.
Anyone see any problems/advice related to that?

Get a motherboard with an AM3+ socket. I think AM3 CPUs should still fit (check first, though!) but you could upgrade to AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver/Excavator based CPUs later.

Lining up a quad core 3.2ghz AMD AM3 socket processor.
Anyone see any problems/advice related to that?

Get a motherboard with an AM3+ socket. I think AM3 CPUs should still fit (check first, though!) but you could upgrade to AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver/Excavator based CPUs later.

The mobo already is AM3+ socket type, and they do work with the older AM3 socket.
I did not go for a more recent AMD processor, as they are mostly six-core, and from what I gathered that does not help much in gaming.
I could go with a AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Quad-Core Desktop instead, if it's a big improvement.

Lining up a quad core 3.2ghz AMD AM3 socket processor.
Anyone see any problems/advice related to that?

Get a motherboard with an AM3+ socket. I think AM3 CPUs should still fit (check first, though!) but you could upgrade to AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver/Excavator based CPUs later.

The mobo already is AM3+ socket type, and they do work with the older AM3 socket.
I did not go for a more recent AMD processor, as they are mostly six-core, and from what I gathered that does not help much in gaming.
I could go with a AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Quad-Core Desktop instead, if it's a big improvement.

The newest AMD processors, Bulldozer based (like that FX-4100) are quite good at parallel workloads (especially the FX-8xxx series, since they have 8 "cores"). Most games don't require a lot of parallel computing though, and when it comes to pure per-core computing power the Bulldozers aren't very good yet. Later generations (named Piledriver and Excavator, if I'm not mistaken. Bitchin' names if you ask me) should be better at this.

So for now, you're probably better off getting a pre-bulldozer CPU/APU (since they're a lot cheaper than the Bulldozers and probably on par when it comes to per-core speed) and keeping the possibility of easy upgrades later.

The newest AMD processors, Bulldozer based (like that FX-4100) are quite good at parallel workloads (especially the FX-8xxx series, since they have 8 "cores"). Most games don't require a lot of parallel computing though, and when it comes to pure per-core computing power the Bulldozers aren't very good yet. Later generations (named Piledriver and Excavator, if I'm not mistaken. Bitchin' names if you ask me) should be better at this.

So for now, you're probably better off getting a pre-bulldozer CPU/APU (since they're a lot cheaper than the Bulldozers and probably on par when it comes to per-core speed) and keeping the possibility of easy upgrades later.

I'm slowly being convinced to go with an intel cpu, as it seems they are just better, and at around the same price. Even though the guy that said that then recommanded an Intel 230$ cpu instead of the 130$ AMD cpu I had picked.

The newest AMD processors, Bulldozer based (like that FX-4100) are quite good at parallel workloads (especially the FX-8xxx series, since they have 8 "cores"). Most games don't require a lot of parallel computing though, and when it comes to pure per-core computing power the Bulldozers aren't very good yet. Later generations (named Piledriver and Excavator, if I'm not mistaken. Bitchin' names if you ask me) should be better at this.

So for now, you're probably better off getting a pre-bulldozer CPU/APU (since they're a lot cheaper than the Bulldozers and probably on par when it comes to per-core speed) and keeping the possibility of easy upgrades later.

I'm slowly being convinced to go with an intel cpu, as it seems they are just better, and at around the same price. Even though the guy that said that then recommanded an Intel 230$ cpu instead of the 130$ AMD cpu I had picked.

At the moment, nothing can beat Intel's Core i7. I believe AMD's processors are good matches for the Core i5 but I'm not sure how the prices compare. Traditionally, AMD would give you a bit more bang for your buck.

However, Intel seems to change their socket type every 2 weeks, so if you plan to upgrade your system at a later point, you'll be screwed. And their built-in GPU sucks donkey balls, but if you're building a gaming system you'll probably want a dedicated card for that anyway. But if you get an AMD CPU with onboard GPU and a dedicated AMD card, they'll work together with that Crosslinx technology, whereas any Intel GPU (which is basically a rebranded PowerVR, the GPU designs that have ended up in many smartphones) will remain unused.

I'm a bit in the same pickle myself, although my plans are a bit more long-term. But I'll be running a lot more multi-threaded workloads which is where AMD is going to shine. The Bulldozer modules scale very well, once AMD manages to stick 8 or more of those on a chip it'll be awesome.

Besides, Intel's marketing "tricks" are a bit dirty and I welcome every bit of competition in that market. AMD seems to be more innovative, but they need all the help they can get.


(I'm such a nerd)

At the moment, nothing can beat Intel's Core i7. I believe AMD's processors are good matches for the Core i5 but I'm not sure how the prices compare. Traditionally, AMD would give you a bit more bang for your buck.

However, Intel seems to change their socket type every 2 weeks, so if you plan to upgrade your system at a later point, you'll be screwed. And their built-in GPU sucks donkey balls, but if you're building a gaming system you'll probably want a dedicated card for that anyway. But if you get an AMD CPU with onboard GPU and a dedicated AMD card, they'll work together with that Crosslinx technology, whereas any Intel GPU (which is basically a rebranded PowerVR, the GPU designs that have ended up in many smartphones) will remain unused.

I'm a bit in the same pickle myself, although my plans are a bit more long-term. But I'll be running a lot more multi-threaded workloads which is where AMD is going to shine. The Bulldozer modules scale very well, once AMD manages to stick 8 or more of those on a chip it'll be awesome.

Besides, Intel's marketing "tricks" are a bit dirty and I welcome every bit of competition in that market. AMD seems to be more innovative, but they need all the help they can get.


(I'm such a nerd)

This is a tough decision to take, AMD definately gets the heart warming feeling that you are helping the small guy. Thanx for your help, and I too nerd all I can, I'm just not up to par on the latest information on these specifics, as they move ahead so fast.

(I'm such a nerd)

Where's that old "In Love With A Computer" profile getup when it's needed...


I'm currently playing through Assassin's Creed: Revelations and thoroughly enjoying it! Trying to leave Skyrim off until a little later because of the inevitable impact it'll have on my social life. Played the bloody thing for about 5 hours when I bought it and ended up being a werewolf with about 50 side-quests in that time alone!

I'm looking to buy a gaming computer rig. After some searching I came to the conclusion that if I wanna respect my budget and have some future proofing I'll have to assemble it myself, can't buy a complete machine.
And just how complicated this process is, I spent all afternoon yesterday looking up parts, and finding what works with what.
Lining up a quad core 3.2ghz AMD AM3 socket processor.
2*4gig DDR3 1600 corsair vengeance ram.
HD Radeaon 6850 graphics card.
and an 80 gig SSD.
Anyone see any problems/advice related to that?

I have the 6870 dual fan card, the 1090T Black Edition 6-core AMD thing and 16gb ram. Can run pretty much everything on full, I just regret not getting a 2gb VRAM card. Maybe I'll just buy another 6870 and do dual GPU. And yeah six-core doesn't really do much for gaming but multithreading works great for Cubase and shit. Intel CPUs are better overall but then again they cost 4x as much as AMD's (from the ones I compared before I bought my components). But listen to Biert though, he's nerdier. Oh and you should look forward to having an SSD, it's ridiculously amazing.