How do you hack the Wii?

Arii wrote:

Da Don Dotta wrote:

If gears wasnt an Xbox only title, i wouldnt own an Xbox. I can whole heartedly say that Gears is the ONLY reason i own an xbox.

Not the same for me, but I understand. I love my X-Box games. Can't play Mass Effect anywhere else. Or Portal for that matter.

Yes you can.

Two Words

Personal. Computer.

Halo 3 Bitchez.


No PC, PS3-rerelease, multi-port argument can save you now.


[/end]

Hypa-Link wrote:

Halo 3 Bitchez.


No PC, PS3-rerelease, multi-port argument can save you now.


[/end]

BORING!

Da Don Dotta wrote:

Hypa-Link wrote:

Halo 3 Bitchez.


No PC, PS3-rerelease, multi-port argument can save you now.


[/end]

BORING!

Lol, you think Call of Duty 4 is boring, so I'll ignore that.

You're just a 3rd person shooter guy.

Gears is great but it gets mad boring after a while.

And if you're not in a party/with friends? That shiz gets boring after two matches.

There's a reason Halo 3 is the most popular shooter ever.

I think Halo is boring as hell as well.

I love Gears though.

Frank Elle wrote:

I think Halo is boring as hell as well.

I love Gears though.

I'm just not building an 800 dollar computer to play it, lol.

lol, why? When there's a $300 console?

And I'm old school. I don't care if it's the year 3000, I'm always gonna have at least two of the generation's consoles.



Genesis & SNES

N64 and Playstation

Gamecube and Xbox

360 and Wii

I mean computers are awesome and everything but they aren't in competition with these guys.

PC's competition is Mac.

And the gaming argument is used to counteract Mac's slightly superior media editing capabilities.

Hypa-Link wrote:

Da Don Dotta wrote:

Hypa-Link wrote:

Halo 3 Bitchez.


No PC, PS3-rerelease, multi-port argument can save you now.


[/end]

BORING!

Lol, you think Call of Duty 4 is boring, so I'll ignore that.

You're just a 3rd person shooter guy.

Gears is great but it gets mad boring after a while.

And if you're not in a party/with friends? That shiz gets boring after two matches.

There's a reason Halo 3 is the most popular shooter ever.

No No No i think Call of Duty 4 GETS boring very fast.

Lets not forget that you JUST got into Call of Duty 4. I was playing that game LONG before you were even thinking about getting it. Long before you ever had LIVE. For TWO systems not to mention. I wore that game out.

Arii wrote:

Frank Elle wrote:

I think Halo is boring as hell as well.

I love Gears though.

I'm just not building an 800 dollar computer to play it, lol.

I bought my computer at retail for 450$....and it can play those games...

And its not like you substituted a computer for a game system...i mean..lol you're on a computer right now.

Just think if you DID substitute all the money you invest in a 360 in addition to 450$...

Just sayin..

Hypa-Link wrote:

Halo 3 Bitchez.


No PC, PS3-rerelease, multi-port argument can save you now.


[/end]

Lol he's jocking ONE game.

Most popular shooter..meh.

They do upgrade wit every release i guess...but i got Halo'd out at my friend's house and i don't even own the game.

SamaT wrote:

Arii wrote:

Frank Elle wrote:

I think Halo is boring as hell as well.

I love Gears though.

I'm just not building an 800 dollar computer to play it, lol.

I bought my computer at retail for 450$....and it can play those games...

And its not like you substituted a computer for a game system...i mean..lol you're on a computer right now.

Just think if you DID substitute all the money you invest in a 360 in addition to 450$...

Just sayin..

Rofl you're talking to a computer geek, kiddo. Sure, you bought your computer at 450, and it can play those games, but in order to play them at the same speed, and resolution of the console they are on, (which would be Max settings) you need an equivalent video card, processor, etc.

Here's how that goes. PC technology is on an ever increasing rise, and you will continually update your PC year after year after year in order to keep up with the graphical specifications. With a console that is unnecessary due to it being able to withstand many iterations of graphics. Look at early Ps2 games and then look at Kingdom Hearts II. Same hardware.

So, unless you're suggesting everyone forks over some serious extra cash for a new video card every 8-12 months, I'll pass. a 400 dollar console for 5 years beats a 700 dollar computer system (If you're even talking about real quality here), with continuous updates of 100-200 dollars just to play the games for 5 years.

Also, unless you have an HD TV hooked up to the same said computer, I'll also pass. I've spent enough years playing on monitors.

I bought this computer 2 years ago.. >_>

And it's capable of playing them VERY well.

WE're not even gonna talk about what computer THESE days can do...

And you're a geek huh..

Then tell me...why does crysis use WAY more resources than pretty much every PC game on the market...

Hm...and let's think for a minute...lets say use ps2 as an example...the reason those look better later on is why? That's..the programmers are using the their code more efficiently.

And you DO NOT need equivalent computer graphics cards to play games at the same speed as on 360..or ps3 for that matter. You just have to utilize your memory more efficiently. Why do some games on PC look better than others on PC. Why do some games on 360 look better than others.

Hm...why do some games on PC look better than their 360 counterparts..gta4..hell that game looks just as god if not better than the ps3 version.

Now...why do some games look better on 360 than on ps3? Hmm...

You DO NOT need to keep upgrading your computer every year to keep up. I bought this thing TWO YEARS AGO and i spent 40$ to upgrade the RAM ONCE from 1 gb to 2 gb LAST year. Not only did it improve my PC gaming...but it improved EVERYTHING..photoshop, web surfing(idk why), and it damn sure sped up imageready.

As for HD displays...i guess you're right about that one...but im sure the resolution is this LCD screen im lookin at right here can produce "360 like" graphics just about as good as your 250-400$ HD display.

Geek? rofl..

Rofl @ you thinking Crysis can be run on any regular computer. I guarantee you can't run it, and if you can barely get it going, there's no way you can run it at Max settings, which would be the onl reason I play them on a PC.

Playing them "very well" is code for being able to play them in Mediocre fashion, whilst you could have done the same thing with a console. Know why Don is a PC advocate? I watched him build his beast of a computer with great parts, and a Quad processor that'll make people shit themselves.

Your dinky machine is probably the equivalent to my Laptop so your advocacy of PC gaming is really without merit. Spend the money on a real rig and get back to me.

SamaT wrote:

I bought this computer 2 years ago.. >_>

And it's capable of playing them VERY well.

What are the specs on that PC?

lol i NEVER said Crysis can run even "very well" on any PC.

Lmao where did i say that?

My whole point of using Crysis as an example was to demonstrate the efficient use of hardware resources.

Ppl have been programming for PC for years...therefore running said game on it "Gear of War" for example...can be less resource draining than running it on an xbox 360. Thereby not require a processor as powerful as the xbox 360s. And plus computers have more ram then all consoles. Thats all i was saying about your "800$ machine" comment.

And im not saying Don's computer is not a beast..im sure it is. But Quad Core is like overkill for the average PC game. His comp can probably run teo applications of Gears of War.

My specs are 2.2 Ghz AMD Athlon (single...meh)

vista 32 bit

2 GB ram

Grphx Card Ati Radeon Xpress 1100 (up to 256mb made integrated for laptops...not that great, especially nowadays thats like slightly above average)

and i have 195 gb of hard drive space left

With these specs..i can play this game with damn near everything on high. I know its not gears...but Gears wont be too different.

Oh i can run Gears...especially if i overclock it. Maybe not EXACTLY like a 360..but if i spent as much money as an average 360 owner lmao i could.

Lol at not being able to play Gears at XBox 360 level, but saying your 450 dollar (which is 250 bucks more than an Arcade Xbox) computer can only run it in mediocre fashion.

Arii wrote:

Lol at not being able to play Gears at XBox 360 level, but saying your 450 dollar (which is 250 bucks more than an Arcade Xbox) computer can only run it in mediocre fashion.

*sigh* you're missing the whole point

Your PC money + your xbox money. CAN RUN THOSE GAMES.

I would upgrade my computer over getting a 360 any day.

Lmao at what is mediocre fashion anyway? Just cuz its not equal to 360 DOES NOT mean its mediocre.

Damnit i had a really nice informative post wriiten out and i lost it -_-

Anywho, theres no way youre running Gears on that machine while keeping at least a constant 30FPS on the lowest settings at 800x600. My first PC was almost the same as yours, except i had 1GB of RAM and a geforece 7300 GS. Same CPU, and i could only get 30 FPS while there was nothing going on and i was just moving my mouse.

I understand what youre saying tho, and it is sort of true. But you get what you pay for, there isnt much longevity in a $700 gaming PC.

Crysis is a diff story tho, Crysis is a great example of High texture rendering on a purely unoptimized engine. Maybe the folks at Nasa can play Crysis on enthusiast settings, but not much else. I Surely couldnt. When i tried Crysis Warhead, i got 12FPS with everything on High expect for the resolution since my HDTV is native to only 720p

Da Don Dotta wrote:

Damnit i had a really nice informative post wriiten out and i lost it -_-

Anywho, theres no way youre running Gears on that machine while keeping at least a constant 30FPS on the lowest settings at 800x600. My first PC was almost the same as yours, except i had 1GB of RAM and a geforece 7300 GS. Same CPU, and i could only get 30 FPS while there was nothing going on and i was just moving my mouse.

I understand what youre saying tho, and it is sort of true. But you get what you pay for, there isnt much longevity in a $700 gaming PC.

Crysis is a diff story tho, Crysis is a great example of High texture rendering on a purely unoptimized engine. Maybe the folks at Nasa can play Crysis on enthusiast settings, but not much else. I Surely couldnt. When i tried Crysis Warhead, i got 12FPS with everything on High expect for the resolution since my HDTV is native to only 720p

You had 1 gb of ram?

yep

Have 4 now xD

On vista 1 gb makes a BIGGGG difference lol.

I was on XP. I always hated vista until now. 5.9 index =D

Lol its still recommended two gb of ram though. Not sayin it will run at TOP speeds...but it sure as hell would've helped lol.

And what's 5.9 index?

It runs correctly at 3 Gigs. It's at its best at 4 or higher.

I had it, but I always change my OS to XP Sp 2. I changed my wife's OS to that too.

We'll be waiting for Windows 7 before we do another OS.

It runs Correctly at 1GB and is recommended 2GB. 4GB is overkill.