MasterDex

I know some of you don't want to give Kotaku hits but this article has plenty of people from all over posting speedtests in the comments. I think it's telling just how many people, even in the states, don't have quality connections. Also, how could you not take Europe into account? It's arguably where the largest slice of the PC pie is so it's certainly relevant in relation to Diablo III. Even stable connections can drop, go down for maintenance or slow to a crawl as contention reaches its peak. What then? Take Blizzard's advice and play something else? I think I will, Blizzard, and I'll buy it with the money I won't be spending on Diablo III. No one is denying that some people will inevitably cave into their desire to play the game but I, at least, can say with staunch certainty that I won't be purchasing it, at least so long as I'm required to be online.

Finished A Clash of Kings audiobook last night. Man, what a finish. I think I can safely say, I'll be with this series until the end. Also, Roy Dotrice was a fantastic choice for the audiobooks, he really helps to bring the world to life. A Clash of Kings Ending Spoiler:

I saw this from a mile away. The first thing I said when I heard there was a console port coming was "They're going to have to get rid of a shitload of vegetation". That said, I wasn't expecting that much vegetation removed but perhaps they did that to allow them to enable AA without taking such a hit (the vegetation in Crysis is the biggest hitter to AA performance).

Battra, are you saying the arguments they make for it are bull or the whole notion of global warming is bull? Personally, I'm only sure of one thing. The climates are changing. The whiterto's and whyfor's of it all don't concern me. I'll leave that to the science guys to figure out.

That is the first TotalBiscuit video I've watched *ducks to avoid incoming stones* but he's just got himself a new viewer. The guy nailed every point to be said on the topic and frankly, now I'm left feeling that a PXOD roundtable on the topic would be redundant...because that cynical Brit got there first - and so magnificently too.

Considering our respective stances on the topic, it's probably best if we agree to disagree and leave it at that before we completely derail the thread. That said, I'd be up for settling this mano-a-mano in BC2 sometime (Or BF3 if you plan on getting it) Sounds about right. =IBF2= began with Battlefield 2, we played competitively for a few years but organising everything became too much of a hassle so we decided to stop. That created a divide, pretty mutual for the most part and a good chunk of members went on to form [A-S] while the rest of us kept IBF2 alive as a community, gaining a few new members along the way. Nowadays, it's just a core group of friends staying in contact and having some fun...much like here....except smaller.

You obviously have no idea how much teamwork is needed to organize a baserape in BFBC2. You need to capture all 3(4) bases on the map, defend them successfully and then attack enemy base ASAP. Now tell me that THAT does not require skill. And as the saying goes, "the weak deserve their fate". It's not my fucking fault that people choose to sit in the bushes as recons and do nothing for their team, and I'm not gonna stand and watch them capturing MY points. THAT is a real teamplay, when you DESTROY your enemy. The same goes for idiots who don't capture points in Domination in Call Of Duty games. If we were talking about clan vs clan combat, I'd be inclined to agree with your no-holds-barred view but for a pub? Sorry but I see only disadvantages to it. You say it needs teamwork? On certain maps, yeah, I could agree with that but the map in that video? You can start raping before a flag is captured. Spawn raping is in no way playing the game better than others. There's no real extra skill needed there. If a team can capture a contested flag, they can certainly capture an (often) empty spawnpoint. That's beside the point however, spawnraping isn't conducive to a friendly, strong community. When the general gamer hops online to play a game, they don't do so to be hemmed into a pen and killed over and over again. You say the server has a constant flow of people. Personally, that's not the kind of server I'd consider good. A good server to me is a server where I can hop on and see a bunch of regulars (beyond the initial group that runs the server) where a competitive environment is created through a gentleman's code of conduct - an unspoken agreement that the game will be played fairly. Real teamplay isn't when you destroy your enemy, it's when you work together to gain victory over your enemy. Spawnraping, to put it simply, is griefing. It's fun for those doing it and no-one else. It ruins matches. While you're off being better at the game by killing static targets before they have a chance to react, there's often 10 people on your team just looking for a fun, competitive game and spawnraping destroys that competitive environment. I honestly can't understand how you could even get enjoyment out of that (other than through griefing, the basest form of fun) and think it's ludicrous that you consider yourself better than others for doing it. You call it gay, I call it sportsmanship.

If ya did that on my old server, I'd have banned ya right quick. I'd have to, it's the biggest killer of servers aside from hackers.

Exactly. As the two biggest FPS competitors on consoles, the series' get compared a lot but they cater to two different styles - Battlefield for Teamwork and CoD for Rambo-style madness. Personally, I enjoy both styles, though I favour BF's style. If I'm out for blood, I'll be playing CoD however. Oh and since we're comparing our e-peens, my BC2 K/D is 1.17, maining assault (playing the class as it should be played) and my W/L ratio is 1.33.

Serial Experiments Lain was one of those. Fucking forever gleaning. Yes! Lain is a headwrecker! Fantastic all the same. I would spend more time playing this if the "multiplayer" would work. >: I've conquered the multi-player "campaign" two or three times, along with its Dalish counterparts. But stroking them into submission really takes some network tinkering. I found GameRanger was the handiest way to get multiplayer up and running when I tried just recently with excel_excel. It's the only reason I have the program installed at all.

I'll support that! Leave the recipe alone. It's 180 years of continued success. It's fine. Want citrus? Separate label! Earl Grey is flavoured with "bergamot", an orange, which tastes citrusy. Personally, I favour the Sainsbury's "Taste the Difference" Earl Grey since it has a more citrus, less bitter flavour which, since I take tea without milk, is great for me. I shall have to try this new Twinings out. Oh...um....well...but still! Leave the recipe alone! Seriously though, I may not be up on my teas but I know one thing for certain, I like my Lyons Original and I'll buy nothing else given the choice. If Lyons decided to change the original blend, I'd be very annoyed because there's nothing like a cup of Lyons Original for me. /Goes and puts the kettle on.

This is why I never play CoD. I couldn't care less about my K/D, I know most people who play it do, so I steer clear. While I'm with you for the most part, I do think that with CoD and other games that have straight-forward deathmatches and TDM's, K/D is an important statistic. Sure, if you're going 20-0 because you've been corner camping then it's stupid to hold your hand up and say "Look at me! I really helped us win. I'm so leet!". However, if you've been legging it all over the map, following the flow of the action and come out with something like 40-20 then I think it's ok to say "Hey guys, I think I won this game for us." NB: I didn't want to go too crazy with the numbers there but I know how high they can get in some rounds so don't read too much into the numbers given.

I feel that that's the whole point of how the Sansa chapters are written. Like her, you're trapped in her mind. Like her, you're not privy to the majority of events unfolding around you. You've just got to grin and bear it and hope that it'll all be over soon and that it was just a horrible nightmare and none of it really happened.

Yes, but some stories are structured so that seeing/reading them again with later knowledge gives you a whole new perspective on things. And in game terms, there is the fun of just playing them, without the story. But to each his own. One movie that springs to mind is the original Ghost in the Shell. The first time around, you'll be too engrossed in all the action and trying to keep up with the plot that you don't see the multiple different layers within the movie. It wasn't until the third or fourth time watching it that I felt I could gleam no more meaning or insight from it and that's a rarity. As for games: Super Mario 3 - it's just so good. The definitive 2D Mario in my opinion. Baldur's Gate - Both of em, I don't replay them often but it's probably the only RPG I've desired to start over again just to play it all over. In contrast, the PSX Final Fantasy games get replayed every now and again but usually from the same save files I've had for years....shit, better check that those memory cards are still working. Sonic - Any of the original ones. It's just fun to pick up and speed through levels, try for a really fast time, all the rings, all the emeralds. CoD 4 - Still going strong and my skills haven't rusted either. I'd have BF2142 in this list but it doesn't like me anymore and keeps kicking me...I blame Windows 7 and Punkbuster.

That's good to hear. I'm happy enough just enjoying the story. As long as the writing stays at the same level, I doubt I'll have any problem with the exclusion of certain characters.

I've been enjoying the audiobooks the last couple of weeks. I'm enthralled and I'll most definitely be getting the paperbacks to add to my library. I'm about 3/4 of the way through A Clash of Kings and I'm loving Martin's writing, it's got a great flow to it and tons of character. Chewblaha, your rating makes me think the books are progressing much like Harry Potter - starting strong, reaching a high point and just tapering off into an eventual "I don't care" by the end. Without giving anything away, how does it get bad? In the situations and resolutions presented or in the actual writing?

Well said, you kept to the crucial point and didn't stray. ever...period.

Sure we can...just not with Joel. I really wanted to, I even started....then I remembered I was banned. Go get 'em!

Can you see it now? Is this with the new redesign of GDocs? Can't remember having to do that before. I can see your 'Why I'm sick of Upgrades' doc, Hot_Heart.

I started a document over on GDocs. I'm not seeing Joel jump to destarring anyone yet anyway but then again, there's no reason for people to accuse him of being paid for this article. Right now, I'm imagining all these critical points slamming Joel physically in the face while he just scratches his head none the wiser.

I think I might do a write-up on this topic (or possibly a round-table discussion?). If we could get some PC devs to chime in, it'd be great too.

He really doesn't get it, does he?

Surely that's dependant on the game in question though? I thought that for the most part, an XBL subscription is to support Live itself. While Microsoft hosts many games, they don't cover it all. Take EA for example, they went with dedicated servers for Bad Company 2 on consoles, Microsoft wasn't paying for those, EA were. I think bringing XBL into the discussion could confuse matters. You're required by Microsoft to pay for XBL, not the publishers or developers.

I'm going to feel inadequate if I can't match the lengthy well thought-out posts already here but I'll chime in anyway. Boycotts, I believe, are an effective method, even for luxury goods, of making a point as a consumer. Sure, the word comes too easily within gaming circles these days but nevertheless, boycotts are not something to be cast aside as silly and pointless. Keeping with gaming, let's take a look at the biggest boycott of recent times - The Modern Warfare 2 Boycott. While there were various reasons for this, the one that stood strongest was the desire for dedicated servers. What use was the boycott? Many will say it was utterly useless; a waste of time. However, the boycott garnered media attention and through the media, Activision's attention. But what about that picture of a single page of the Steam Boycott group? That means little. As has been said here already, there's always going to be people that give in to their desires. The boycott (which spanned further than a single steam group) still had a strong base that were true to their word (myself included). The end result was that while nothing was changed for Modern Warfare 2, all subsequent Activision titles include dedicated servers. We can surmise that this was a decision that was influenced in some way by the furore created by the boycotters. Thought the decision wasn't likely based solely on that, if Activision was ignoring the portion of their market that wanted dedicated servers, they'd have more of a reason to exclude dedicated servers from subsequent games. All in all, I think the Modern Warfare 2 boycott accomplished its goal, at least in spirit. Boycotts (voting with our wallets) and consumer complaints are really the only powers as consumers we have, no matter the product. To dismiss them as silly or pointless, unless people's lives are at risk is just giving in to corporate power, accepting that you're no more than a cog in the machine, unable to change the way the machine works. It may not be the height of morality, it may in many cases be futile rebellion but boycotting products and complaining about issues you have with a product isn't something to be devalued. We could assume that the very act of devaluing boycotts and consumer complaints is one of the reasons that such things are as ineffective as they frequently are. If more consumers believed in the power of boycotts, voting with their wallets and complaining about their products, those things would be more effective. Whatever the case, I'm firmly of the opinion that boycotts et al are something useful and a worthy tool for shaping products and industries if wielded correctly.

Because some publishers have more sense than Ubisoft do. Like I said, I'm not defending Ubisoft's DRM, simply the need for a publicly traded corporation to protect its interests. How to go about it is left up to them and while they may get it wrong more times than right, they still have that responsibility to their shareholders. I think the only way forward is for people to look for better ways to protect their software without harming the end-user. Railing against DRM as a whole, in the end, is as futile as piling on ever more stringent DRM. You still have to convince people that that's sufficient protection and that's not very easy for a large corporation like Ubisoft. Companies like Valve or CDProjekt have the advantage of being privately owned so they can take more risks, more easily. What you're suggesting would be great but we're going to get the short end of the stick with publicly traded companies more in the future as they bureaucratically go about making money for their shareholders. Eventually, Ubisoft will come out with something different, it may even be worse but that's just how it's going to be for the foreseeable future.