I would be willing to pay to play online if EA/Dice would fix the bugs that have plagued the BF2/2142 series since its beginning, but they haven't. At least Blizzard takes time to balance classes, keep servers sturdy, and adds new content without needing to pay for it (minus the new expansion) for free (new dungeons, weapons, etc) for its playerbase. Hell you have to buy maps and vehicles in the BFx series, that is just dumb.A-Unit64 wrote:
wow sucksteek22 wrote:
I think it sucks.... and everyone who plays it seems to degenerate into a robot playing the game 24/7. So there fore it sucks
It doesn't deserve the top place on xfire for minutes because most people just idle there and use if for chat purposes.
And it isn't free to play online even more bs
Search
Search results: 428 found, showing up to 50
It sucks that everyone 'hates' the game because they have some loser friend or relative that doesn't have any self-control and just sits at their computer for 12 hours a day playing a damn game. I play WoW, I can go a week without playing it, or can play it every night. I play it when I have spare/free time and nothing else really to do (homework is done, gf is sleeping, nothing on tv, whatever). I will have a 3.5+ GPA in my third year in college and have plenty of time to spend with friends and party.
from what I have read Diablo3. Grant it, I think that there are teams going on for Starcraft, etc, as we speak, but I do not think that there will be another MMO out there that will take away from WoW until it begins to die down (it hasn't even peaked yet).
welcome aboard!
Wow, I didn't know it was that cheap now. I purchased BF2 for $50 around release, and SF for $40 around release. Then the booster packs for $10 I think... meh, too much for me. I just don't think that you should have to pay for maps, imho those should be done in patches (for free).|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:
I bought BF2 Deluxe Edition (Contains SF) new for $15 plus $4 shipping and The 2 boosters EF & AF for $14.99 with free shipping . And I agree, that's why I said IMO (in my opinion), my opinion isn't everyone elses. And I didn't know it was $14 a month for WOW, I thought it was $50, so my mistake, either way I spent a lot less money :p than you thought I did. Oh, and what other things? There are just boosters and thats it, patches are free.Janus67 wrote:
how is it $50 a month? it is as low as $12.99 a month.|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:
$15? Try $49.99 a month, WOW is IMO a HUGE waste of money, just imagine how much money you've spent by the time you get bored , yep a HUGE waste of money, and it sucks! If you want an RPG buy a Final Fantasy game (Except 11 which is similar to WOW), BF2 wins HANDS DOWN, It's just a lot more fun.
BTW just to mention, BF2142 was a disappointment for me, I downloaded the Demo and it sucked the weapons were crap, vehicles were crap (except the walker which was fun) and the Commander mode is horrible, overall it sucked (IMO).
just imagine how much money you spent on BF2, upgrading for BF2, expansion packs, booster packs, and other things just to get bored with it in the end...
it just isn't a fair comparison. It is literally like comparing apples to oranges. That is like saying 'Half-Life 2 is so much more fun than Command and Conquer' it just doesn't work. It is difficult enough to compare games within the same genre, let alone way the hell out of it.
Like I said, whatever floats your boat, I like Resident Evil and you might hate it, that's the beauty of having our individual opinion , don't take it personal because it wasn't an attack.
meh, to be honest I got bored with BF2 and started playing WoW... so I guess that is my vote.
how is it $50 a month? it is as low as $12.99 a month.|=-sL-.Cujucuyo. wrote:
$15? Try $49.99 a month, WOW is IMO a HUGE waste of money, just imagine how much money you've spent by the time you get bored , yep a HUGE waste of money, and it sucks! If you want an RPG buy a Final Fantasy game (Except 11 which is similar to WOW), BF2 wins HANDS DOWN, It's just a lot more fun.jackdreaper wrote:
Keep in mind im a huge BF2 fan, huge! So my brother convinced me to try World of Warcraft, raving about how great it is and addictive it is. I was apprehensive, but gave it a solid go. I played for a few hours and realized that WOW is the most overrated game out!!! I was bored out of my mind, whilst in any round of BF2 I would have led a squad, flew a jet, or drove a tank and went on several killing sprees all i did was walk around a magical forest listening to music that only belongs in war movies...for a moment i thought the movie Gladiator was about to start.
I'm just soooo surprised people enjoy it ...some 7 million people pay 15 bucks a month to just walk around and collect stuff......not even close to BF2 in my opinion....any thoughts?
BTW just to mention, BF2142 was a disappointment for me, I downloaded the Demo and it sucked the weapons were crap, vehicles were crap (except the walker which was fun) and the Commander mode is horrible, overall it sucked (IMO).
just imagine how much money you spent on BF2, upgrading for BF2, expansion packs, booster packs, and other things just to get bored with it in the end...
it just isn't a fair comparison. It is literally like comparing apples to oranges. That is like saying 'Half-Life 2 is so much more fun than Command and Conquer' it just doesn't work. It is difficult enough to compare games within the same genre, let alone way the hell out of it.
there is a lot more skill than you can imagine. I played FPS games for about 10 years, I learned 95% of all of the skills of the games that I played and worked towards mastering them. WoW is just a different type of skill, it is timing, knowing your pros/cons in a situation, damage management and other things. Saying that there is 'no real skill' is just complete bs. If that was true then every single person would be raiding Naxx, which isn't close at all. There is a lot of skill in knowing your class, inside and out, and if you PvP you have to know how to deal with every other class in the game in various situations. If you can't see that then your vision on different types of games is shortsighted.88mm wrote:
To pay each month for playing a game like WoW is A SUCKER BUSINESS. What are you actually paying for? Hardware is cheap.
In BF2 skill depends ONLY on what you yourself put into the game. You don't get any help from the level you are on, or for how many hours you have played, or what weapon you have bought. You ability to succeed in BF2 only depends on what you do with the mouse and keyboard in front of the screen when you play and nothing else.
I have gotten into Guild Wars, a fine MMO with no fee. The world looks great. In WoW you expect Donald Duck to pop up any moment. MMOs are more social than a shooter. It's fun to be part of a guild and do missions together. It's a fine break from a shooter, but there is no real skill involved in playing the game.
My 2 cents...
I pay the $15 a month for the freedom that I get in the game, the customizability, the patches, the fixes, the constant updates -- figure you are paying $50 for BF2142...nothing more than a lame mod for BF2 and you get the same thing, plus the 'booster packs' and other crap and you are paying about the same that I am, but I guarantee I get more hours out of WoW than I did BF2 even with the 'booster packs'.
meh, I left BF2 for WoW and haven't looked back. I left before 1.4, I was tired of all of the crashes to desktop, needing to reintsall 3x after every patch, no customizability, and all of the drama with the clans that I was in. Meh, I will play $15 a month for a much better time than I had playing BF2.
DDR2 has been supported by Intel much longer than AMD did with their AM2 processors.misconfiguration wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong I thought the DDR2 was only compatible with the X2 procs?
On Topic: yes, it would be fine.
DX10 card for sure.
first of all *waves to max*max wrote:
yes, i usually dont bother with demos. also bought bf2 & sf at the same time after them selling best (sf) and second best (bf2) in my local games shop some weeks before chistmas. didnt even know about the whole battlefield series (i am pretty new to fps - before i just build the pcs but rarely played)
second of all, I voted Hell, NO.
I haven't played since all of the problems with 1.3 I was tired of needing to uninstall/reinstall multiple times until the game got patched correctly. Then when you think it did you get crashes to desktop and other problems. It just isn't worth my time. So instead of that I have put in hundreds of hours into WoW -- a game that hasn't ever crashed on me.
about to recommend the same thing. This is the best way to do it. Whether you are watercooling or doing regular air cooling you want a push/pull configurationThe Stillhouse Kid wrote:
For the best airflow and lowest temps you should have the front and side fans bringing air into the case, and the rear fans pulling air out.
hercules 3dprophet 4500 (64mb) that or an 8mb graphics card for my first PC... I can't remember.
7800gtx here, overclocked of course.
I won't consider buying it until BF2 is fixed. It is the same engine, with that in mind it will probably have a lot of the same bugs.
I doubt that the bluetooth mouse would be as responsive under gaming as one of the logitech sets would be, so that is my perspective. Up to you though of course.
this is true max, but when it comes to benchmarks... 100fps is a HUGE difference :pmax wrote:
it wont really cause any difference to a high-endish AMD/P4/P-D. when i clock up my opty from 250x10 to 290x10 i dont see any improvement in gameplay. at high settings with an average resolution (1280x1024) the game is mainly gpu limited. at low settings this may be different but who cares if you get 200 or 300 fps
for the past three years I would have said AMD, but by seeing the new benchies etc and performance/overcockability of the Core2Duo I can't help but vote for Intel.
I am going to agree with those that say quality of quantity as I have brought that up to hundreds of people that ask for advice on picking out a power supply. Then they come up to me and ask about the Ultra power supplies and other cheap psus and I just smack my forehead.
You get what you pay for, it is simple as that. A $30 "500W" (read: super-high peak) will die before a $70 400W will even get close because the more expensive the part is (most of the time) it is of a higher build quality and priced like that for a reason. If you can't afford one of the more expensive power supplies... then save.
I also noticed that right now you have a 250W power supply. If this is by any chance from a OEM distribution place (HP, Dell, Gateway, etc) then it is most likely a proprietary power supply that is made to work with the motherboard that is also proprietary. Meaning that some of the wires that are coming from the power supply and into the motherboard are not of the standard ATX form factor and will most likely fry your computer if you replace it.
For the person that said: "if you get less than a 400W power supply then it will fry your computer" that isn't true -- unless the PSU blows up. It will only make your system unstable and then you will probably shoot yourself for making such a dumb mistake as to buy a cheap PSU.
You get what you pay for, it is simple as that. A $30 "500W" (read: super-high peak) will die before a $70 400W will even get close because the more expensive the part is (most of the time) it is of a higher build quality and priced like that for a reason. If you can't afford one of the more expensive power supplies... then save.
I also noticed that right now you have a 250W power supply. If this is by any chance from a OEM distribution place (HP, Dell, Gateway, etc) then it is most likely a proprietary power supply that is made to work with the motherboard that is also proprietary. Meaning that some of the wires that are coming from the power supply and into the motherboard are not of the standard ATX form factor and will most likely fry your computer if you replace it.
For the person that said: "if you get less than a 400W power supply then it will fry your computer" that isn't true -- unless the PSU blows up. It will only make your system unstable and then you will probably shoot yourself for making such a dumb mistake as to buy a cheap PSU.
I tried searching for the Intel system that you listed on the orb (futuremark website) and there aren't any projects with those specs.
try searching for this, there have been about 10 threads on this (at least) already. As j5689 recommended I also have the CYBORGEVO and love it.
I would not recommend upgrading the PSU - Dell's motherboards are proprietary and so are their power supplies. If you replace the power supply a lot of the time the wires can be switched and you will fry your motherboard (and sometimes whatever else is on it) beyond that you are also voiding your warranty (that is assuming you still have one on the refurbed model).DoctorFruitloop wrote:
If that's the case then it looks like it's definitely PCI-E. One thing I would say, PSU at 350W is a bit wimpy for high end graphics cards. You might want to upgrade your PSU as well.Teamsreth wrote:
Just found this on US Dell site
Refurb 8400
Mine is a powercolor X1800 XT 512. Cant find pics at the mo'-----------------Found one. x1800xt
edited to add piccy
agreed... I mean seriously... It was a month and a half old and rotting.
any opteron in the 2xx is a socket 940 FYI
either fall back or try the newer drivers.
7800gtx. eltorrente, you have a 2407fpw? I just got mine and LOVE IT!
I always just use the CPL reg fix /shrug
Ultra PSUs are actually on my do-not-buy list as I have read about a few that have actually exploded inside of people's cases. Red_Wolf you are very lucky that yours hasn't failed on you. I haven't seen a single rating of the Ultra PSUs from PC Gamer (I have been a subscriber for 6 years) - I know they have the ads in there, but that doesn't mean they endorse them.
I am not a big fan of them because they are cheaply made. I would the enermax that you linked to.
I am not a big fan of them because they are cheaply made. I would the enermax that you linked to.
This is a completely biased poll at the wrong place, but I will play along...
I voted for PCs as I find them easier to work with (grant it I have 100x more experience with them than a mac). I occasionally use a mac at work (IT) and I can see where they do have benefits --
- less security flaws (grant it less people attack them because of the smaller marketshare)
- easier install of programs/OS
- more user friendly (if you are willing to pick it up)
- more portable (depending on model)
- better multitasking/development offerings than a PC would have.
Now to better benefit the Mac world they began shipping intel processors with their computers which allows people to dual-boot (or use Parallels -- similar to a VmWare application) that allows you to switch between OSX and XP on the same PC. That range of ability puts a heavy lean towards moving to Apple computers because of their freedom and the ability of a user to choose between the two, and sometimes on the fly. Also, because of the ability to install XP on the Mac you are able to play games on it, with no problems (minus some hardware quibbles here and there). I have also read that a Mac can run XP faster because of the drivers that are installed are from a Mac on not the regular XP/developer drivers - but I still need to see some more proof of that.
I voted for PCs as I find them easier to work with (grant it I have 100x more experience with them than a mac). I occasionally use a mac at work (IT) and I can see where they do have benefits --
- less security flaws (grant it less people attack them because of the smaller marketshare)
- easier install of programs/OS
- more user friendly (if you are willing to pick it up)
- more portable (depending on model)
- better multitasking/development offerings than a PC would have.
Now to better benefit the Mac world they began shipping intel processors with their computers which allows people to dual-boot (or use Parallels -- similar to a VmWare application) that allows you to switch between OSX and XP on the same PC. That range of ability puts a heavy lean towards moving to Apple computers because of their freedom and the ability of a user to choose between the two, and sometimes on the fly. Also, because of the ability to install XP on the Mac you are able to play games on it, with no problems (minus some hardware quibbles here and there). I have also read that a Mac can run XP faster because of the drivers that are installed are from a Mac on not the regular XP/developer drivers - but I still need to see some more proof of that.
nope, sure isn't.sneakysegan11 wrote:
http://www.crazypc.com/products/7281.html <<<<<<< Can anybody maybe tell me if this is a good choice for a PSU? I have been looking around and I think is a good one but I need your opinions. Thanks!!!1
The brands that I trust (with my thousands of dollars of hardware):
Antec
Seasonic
PC Power and Cooling
OCZ
Mushkin (have heard some good things about their new line)
Enermax
Sparkle
Fortron (FSP Group)
Zippy
and I am sure I am missing some, but that is the basics.
99% of all psus you will find for less than $50 are complete crap. First things first, that power supply only gives 25A on the +12V rail (if you have a somewhat new computer - assuming you do since you are buying PCI-E video cards) then it will need a bit more than that to support your card and entire computer. That is to assume a safe level of operation and little wavering of voltage. I would look for a psu that offers a combined (over 2+ rails) or 30A+ on a single rail. When talking about dual rails I wouldn't get anything less than dual-17A rails.
en.wikipedia.org
I recommend searching for the terms you do not understand.
I recommend searching for the terms you do not understand.
if he doesn't know about how to add space I doubt he knows that.Viper007Bond wrote:
Eh, that's WAY expensive, max. You shouldn't be paying much more than 30 cents a gig.
Anyway Helmet, is this a serious question? o_O If so, do you have any SATA ports or just IDE? How many free of each do you have?
glad to hear it. high-5
completely agree ninja, overclocking > *
but beyond that, yes it would work, but wouldn't be worth it if you don't OC. What processor do you have?
but beyond that, yes it would work, but wouldn't be worth it if you don't OC. What processor do you have?
nice system,
what monitor do you have?
what monitor do you have?
also sometimes ram even when they are from the same chips (winbond bh-5 for example) will not run together at all because the SPDs are different.
those two cards are in completely different categories though... that is like saying a 2.0ghz p4 versus a 3.0ghz p4, it is apples to oranges.TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
I always buy ATI cards. It seems to be more powerful...
My friend, for example, has an nVIDIA 6600. He plays Counter-Strike: 2.0 (shhh I know it's a noob game, it was just for a video test ) with 30-40 FPS average. I have a Radeon X550 (not the best card in the world) and run with 4x AA, all other settings high/beyond high and get 100 average. 70 lowest and 250 highest.
and as for amd:ati-intel:nvidia that is bs.
I vote for nVidia because I have had less problems with them than ATI's (had a 9800pro before my current card - was nice, but not as good and constant as my current card)
well when I have to scroll past 5 or 6 messages that could have saved another page to go through to try to help people it does. Besides the fact that the wireless I am on is to a crawl so it would alleviate a lot of problems if all of the posts were centralized._j5689_ wrote:
It doesn't matter that much really.Janus67 wrote:
good fucking lord, use the edit button.
@ dh124289
the importance is not in the wattage, it is about the build quality of the power supply, partially the wattage, and more imporantly the number of amps on the +5 and +12V rails.
the importance is not in the wattage, it is about the build quality of the power supply, partially the wattage, and more imporantly the number of amps on the +5 and +12V rails.
if you knew something about the Arctic Cooling coolers then you wouldn't be saying that they are bad. The AC Freezer64 is an awesome heatsink/fan and definitely one of the best bang for the bucks out there. The sound and performacne compete with the top of the line products out there and costs $20-$30 less.BigglesPiP wrote:
1. The big typhoon claims to be fine on an AXP, n00b. Check before you open your trap.
2. Those Arctic Cooling coolers are really very bad!
good fucking lord, use the edit button.
DX10 software will be out with vista (2007) not sure about the cards.
I just saw it this morning. I can't believe how serious they are taking Battlefield2 to be, I mean honestly.
there is no such thing as "fast enough" besides the point that I will back up cyborg for... that is made, read: made for overclocking.Dieselboy wrote:
FX-60 stock......no point in OC'ing it as it's fast enough!!
^^^ pwned max.
I am highly doubting you are getting anywhere near respectable fps running everything on high with a 9600._j5689_ wrote:
Those are expensive. Get a 256MB Radeon 9600PRO, I should've saved up more and looked to get a PRO(They have much needed fans, most standard 9600s don't) but back when I bought mine, 9600s were expensive to begin with. It can play the game on high with a sufficient processor. Here's one for cheap: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6814102410cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
7800gs is good or get 6800gt. to me AGP is teh DEAD!!!
they are the same thing.
move: arrows
jump: shift
reload: kp_end
use/enter/exit: kp_ins
prone: delete
duck: ctrl
radio buttons are on left side of mouse
parachute is below my mouse wheel
pick up weapon is my mousewheel button
voip is insert
that's about it for main controls
jump: shift
reload: kp_end
use/enter/exit: kp_ins
prone: delete
duck: ctrl
radio buttons are on left side of mouse
parachute is below my mouse wheel
pick up weapon is my mousewheel button
voip is insert
that's about it for main controls