|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 10, 2006 2:20:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 21, 2008 20:44:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Oct 22, 2008 19:54:30 GMT
Who is Alan Wake anyway ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2008 20:04:36 GMT
Other than a ghastly pun, 'AWake'? I suspect he is the twin brother of Autumn Sleep ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 22, 2008 22:21:04 GMT
Alan Wake is a very famous writer, who happens to go to this small town and begins to have psychological issues again, once he sees a woman who looks like his ex-fiance, who sometime back went missing. This game is a psychological thriller/action game by Remedy (who made both Max Payne 1 and 2). For more info -- click me! |
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 22, 2008 22:24:14 GMT
Other than a ghastly pun, 'AWake'? is known for doing things like this. They are known for doing lots of double entrendres with names and locations; metaphors; and a lot of those figures of speech techniques in their games. See the title "Max Payne", for the most "max(imum)" amount of physical and psychological "pain" that he goes through. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 22, 2008 22:30:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Oct 25, 2008 21:02:34 GMT
The language is clearly Finnish. Pelaaja sounds very much like a finnish name.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Oct 26, 2008 2:18:51 GMT
The language is clearly Finnish. Pelaaja sounds very much like a finnish name. is from Finland. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on May 29, 2009 21:31:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on May 29, 2009 21:33:05 GMT
You know what, I'm gonna be honest. [Censored] Windows XP. Its an overrated operating system and Windows Vista is extremely similar or often better. And Windows 7 is even better than Vista.
So, honestly? Screw it. Its and OLD operating system. Why doesn't this game work on Windows 98? Huh? Windows 98 was [Censored]ing awesome. Why won't this work with that? Bah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 29, 2009 21:50:14 GMT
'Old' is not the same thing as 'obsolete' is the point here, Terror. A large number of people still use XP and don't intend to change to Vista.
As a general rule, most PC games are compatible with the latest two (Or sometimes more) versions of Windows in order to maximise sales.
As things stand, Alan Wake looks to be released just as the SOLE operating system it is designed to work on will be superceded. You wanna talk sad - now THAT is sad! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on May 29, 2009 21:57:41 GMT
I <3 my Vista
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on May 29, 2009 22:04:48 GMT
You know what, I'm gonna be honest. [Censored] Windows XP. Its an overrated operating system and Windows Vista is extremely similar or often better. And Windows 7 is even better than Vista. Back when Alan Wake was announced (in 2006, when I made the original post here), they announced it as a Win Vista & X360 Exclusive -- which was a big deal since Vista wasn't even out back then! Today, not so much of a big deal, since Win Vista has been forced onto the market big time by Microsoft (hell, they even refuse to sell Win XP to retailers now), many have bought new PC's with Vista-equipped (b/c of the multi-core processor phenomenon), and especially since Win 7 is about to drop this year -- especially since many people seem to be liking Win 7 RC and probably are going to adopt Win 7. A lot of games were NOT performing as well under Win Vista, whether running the game in DX9 mode or DX10 -- Assassin's Creed PC, Halo 2 PC, Crysis, HG: London -- and that's just to name a few. The Win XP versions were performing better. A lot of people did not care for DX10 b/c there really was NOT much new for tech in the graphics department. Sure, there was the new Pixel Shader 4.0 and all -- which is nice to have and all, but is PS 4.0 really being supported much then? No, not really. What about now? More so now, but still not too much. The best of matters with DX 10, there were a few new calls and passes made, which were to improve some performance -- especially for those wanting to trick out AA, AF, and shadowing to unnecessary lengths -- but many felt it wasn't enough to make them move over to Vista really. DX 10.1 did a better job of improving that. DX10.1 released a few new additions, but NVidia really has yet to support it -- since they're really hopped up on the NVidia PhysX Train (for some reason). ATI's only the ones really supporting DX 10.1 mode -- and really, Assassin's Creed PC was supposed to be the game to really support that, but the feature for using DX 10.1 mode was pulled in a patch for the game (b/c of a dispute b/t NVidia and ATI)! I'm sure DX11 will fly over better than DX10 b/c it'll include some of the new DX10.1 features -- and some other new stuff, as well. Plus, a lot of people seem to feel Win 7 RC is what Vista should've been when Vista first dropped. I have had much LESS problems w/ Win XP, in comparison to Win 98. On XP, I've yet to see many BSOD's or my PC freeze up to ridiculous lengths quite often -- which is what occurred more than enough for me on Win 98. I liked Win 98 a lot, but it's definitely nowhere as stable as Win XP is for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on May 29, 2009 22:09:51 GMT
Nvidia causes most of the Vista crashes for god's sakes, and as a company have had legal trouble due to stealing patons. They lost half of their liquid assets last year for knowingly putting faulty video cards into laptops and were sued, and lost over it.
I hope ATI continues to thrive, and I hope another competitor arrives on the GPU scene, even if its INTEL, and I hope whoever does it can eliminate most of Nvidia's market share. Won't happen, but I can hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on May 29, 2009 22:19:26 GMT
Nvidia causes most of the Vista crashes for god's sakes, and as a company have had legal trouble due to stealing patons. They lost half of their liquid assets last year for knowingly putting faulty video cards into laptops and were sued, and lost over it. Hehe, who'd want to do serious hardcore gaming on a laptop anyways?  Joking aside, they shouldn't be putting faulty equipment in any machines. Major no-no, if you ask me. I can't recall last time I heard of hardware issues w/ ATI cards. Probably been forever. Only issues with ATI that I ever read in the release notes and heard complaints about are software issues with their drivers (game X loses AA support, game J doesn't function anymore, etc etc) -- and those are often fixed with jumping to previous driver or their next said driver. Plus, they always seem to bank out new drivers quite often, so it's pretty much a non-issue. You'd just have to uninstall and reinstall drivers often and really know (or document) which drivers are best with what game -- but, that shouldn't be a big deal for most PC gamers, anyways. I don't want to see Intel take over the GPU market. We really don't need Intel owning BOTH the GPU and CPU market. I don't want to see them monopolize both markets period. I think that'd be a bad scenario, myself. I'd rather stick w/ the current NVidia vs. ATI war in the GPU's, which has been going on since (unfortunately) 3DFX kicked the bucket. I like seeing NVidia and ATI trying to out-do each other with what looks to be every other damn card. It keeps things exciting and they really do push each other to the limits. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on May 29, 2009 22:23:04 GMT
ATI's biggset problem is Nvidia pays gaming companies to optimize their games for Nvidia. If you look at the 3d benchmark tests, ATI's cards, dollar for dollar, annihilate Nvidia's. ATI's handicapped before you even play the game. Thats the biggest reason why I never buy Nvidia. Paying game developers to optimize for your product, even though it many cases its either an overpriced or inferior product, is not something I advocate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on May 29, 2009 22:39:13 GMT
You don't really see nowhere as many games with the "Powered by ATI" license on it; many of them have either the "Powered by NVidia" logo or no logo at all. Especially since in this industry, NVidia -- like it or not -- has the money to throw away here to dev's.
Personally, I find the NVidia PhysX thing annoying. Sure, the game looks much better w/ PhysX for sure, but is it really worth the performance hit you took? I think not, after trying to turn it on for Mirror's Edge PC. Performance now again stuttered or slowed-down immensely here and there, with it ON for me on my PC (P4 3.0 GHZ single-core CPU w/ HT, 512 MB GF 8800 GT, 2 GB DDR2 RAM). With PhysX off, nothing but smooth sailings. PhysX is TOO early in Nvidia's gimmicks for anyone to really support it or care about it too much...yet.
Plus, if ATI ain't got their own version of PhysX on the market -- they are working on one, BTW -- who's gonna gives two damns about Nvidia PhysX? Right, nobody -- b/c the market's really not in either's favor by any large killer margin. Right, that's basically what happened with DX 10.1 -- nobody gives too much of a damn about it, since ATI is the only card supporting it to its fullest; more people would care if NVidia was also supporting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on May 29, 2009 22:43:32 GMT
I love 10.1. Any of the games I have that support it run better than DX10, more smoothly basically. And my video card exploits it. So I'm fine with 10.1.
Geforce basically gets a lot of undue credit due to tossing money around. Were I rich enough to develop games, I wouldn't have powered by anything. I'd have it blank. The game would be designed to work with Video cards as a whole. This favortism does not help the industry. It hurts the industry by stifling real competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on May 29, 2009 23:30:12 GMT
I love 10.1. Any of the games I have that support it run better than DX10, more smoothly basically. And my video card exploits it. So I'm fine with 10.1. ATI actually supports DX10.1, hardware-wise -- so of course you're gonna support it, especially if it runs games very well for you. Hell, I would, too! I'd be bumping PhysX on my NVidia card, if it didn't choke some of my games more than I feel it should. PhysX features turned on probably runs better on double-core processors than my single-core -- but, I don't know really by how much. Why NVidia don't support 10.1 (just to compete with ATI), it baffles me. Why they're supporting PhysX instead, still baffles me. Though, I'm probably guessing they see DX11 as the way to go, since many gamers seem to be like myself -- trying to skip Windows Vista b/c they see it as a "transitional OS" AND b/c Win 7 is basically around the corner (which is gonna basically be a better Win Vista Version 2.0 and then some). That'd be my guess. I think if PhysX is to become important, PhysX will be something important further down the line -- kind of like how most of these bleeding new techs that come up and get released, which feel like they're released as a Beta product. Nobody wants this stuff when it feels like it's in a Beta state. The whole thing w/ NVidia wanting to remove the "Powered by NVidia" logo -- and probably some advertising money, too, I'd guess -- off Assassin's Creed PC was ridiculous -- b/c the game stated it was "Powered by Nvidia" cards, but ran a hell of a lot on a DX 10.1 powered ATI card. So, UbiSoft removed DX 10.1 support to the game in a patch. Silly. ATI users shouldn't have to suffer b/c of that foolishness. It's also like how on Crysis, some advanced graphical features could NOT be accessed by Win XP users, but Win Vista users could access them -- even though the features were supported DX 9.0 and DX 10.0 cards. Absolutely foolish -- and it didn't matter b/c a modder unlocked them for Win XP users, anyways. LOL. Oh, I agree. I mean, that was my point w/ ATI currently supporting DX 10.1 only and NVidia being the only one supporting PhysX. These kind of things just hurt the consumers, more than anyone else. |
|
