I got it yesterday, but did not have chance to play it yet. It certainly looks good on those videos, graphically far superior to Supreme Commander, which is probably only comparable RTS to it...however i am not sure if the gameplay is good enough...hopefully it is, cause it cost me 30 euros... [e digicons]:)[/e] Any opinions?
Homeworld 2 is great, though original Homeworld was even better (the single-player at least). Regarding space games i would suggest Conquest Frontier Wars, which is similar to Sins, but is mostly RTS, it used to be competition to Star Trek Armadas and IMHO it was far better....though i liked and played Armada 1 a lot.... And old DOS game Star Command Revolution, it was fantastic funny RTS, which i suggest to everyone, who likes Realtime strategies with starships. It was the on
Thanks everyone for your answers. I do not mind Steam, i already own and play 2 Steam games: Modern Warfare 2 and Supreme Commander 2. However the fact, i wont be able to buy retail copy, worries me...i have mine own account only for 2 years (though i am 26 lol) and never used inet banking or paypal or whatever it is called...everything i bought, even via internet, i paid cash on delivery...and i really hoped to continue, cause i am too lazy to learn how to do it... [e digicon
What´s up with Steamworks? Is it different to Steam? Will the game only be available through it? I hope not ffs, i want the physical copy...
Blizzard do what they do - i mean they split up campaign into 3 games - because they simply can. You can be sure they are going to sell shitload of copies of those expansions. Anyway what do you expect from company (Activision-Blizzard), which is run by Bobby Kotick? They are even worse than EA and that is some feat. IMHO the Ghost of the Past trailer looks pretty good, almost like trailer to a movie. It actually contrasts with the gameplay graphics, which looks like cartoony. And Sar
[quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="15" id="2647499"] Quoting caross73, reply 13Why would you get a caviar green? They are slower than the Caviar black and for a game system, you want a large cache and high speed. You're not trying to minimize power consumption. Edit: Oh, nevermind. Too late. At least you're being nice to the environment. I hate the way they market those drives, right alongside the much faster caviar black. I thought the exact same, myb
This whole thing about cruisers and destroyers is quite interesting and confusing....as far i remember, destroyers were smaller than cruisers...but then Freespace 2 biggest ships were destroyers....babylon 5 - omega class destroyer was bigger than Hyperion côass cruiser...and finally i am not sure about this, but it seems to me that in modern navies destroyers are second biggest ships after aircraft carriers.... wonder why?
Just now i am listening to Mystery: One Among the Living...strongly recommended to anyone who likes progressive rock
Sorry for reviving necro-thread, but yesterday i managed to watch 2 final episodes of first season of Flash Forward and it thought it was really good... however today i found out, the show was canceled!...really WTF? I am so pissed off and disappointed...
[quote who="Orvidos" reply="80" id="2627639"] I miss Conquest: Frontier Wars. I wish they'd made 2.[/quote] Have you tried alpha/beta demo of Conquest:Vyrium Uprising? It looked almost the same like the first game apart few new effects - IIRC specular maps on ships etc... There was a new race called Vyrium, who were in possesion of some cool weapons, planetkiller for example... there was only one mission, where you have to stop them from attacking one of your
Homeworld is best game ever [e digicons]:D[/e] ...however multiplayerwise Sins is better...i remember back in the day i really wished for game like HW but with this 4X feeling to it, colonizing planets, building starbases in different starsystems, bombing enemy homeworld to stoneage like Centauri did to Narn on Babylon 5.... i had to wait for Conquest Frontier Wars for this and then Sins...thank god there are people like Sins developers, who know what kind of game i like, otherwi
Wow, thanks for your advice... [e digicons]k1[/e] i am not really pleased with the RAM thing, i really wanted to avoid overclocking them other way than via those XMP profiles...to be fair since the memory controller is built inside CPU, i am scared to "play" with the voltages...i would like to overclock to CPU itself, but only without the bumping of Vcore...according to TomsHardware, it should be possible to do it to circa 3,7 - 3,8 GHz by upping the multiplier from 25 to 28... so i w
So i finally decided to spend my hard earned cash on a new computer. Specs are following: CPU: Core i7 980x 3,33Ghz MOBO: Gigabyte X58A UD7 RAM: 12GB Kingston HyperX 1333 CL7 HDD: 2TB WD Caviar Green WD20EARS SSD: Intel X25-M 80GB Heatsink: Zalman CNP
[quote who="Star Adder" reply="144" id="2525945"] Are you kidding? No human will ever leave the solar system...![/quote] Hehe, i am sure we will and it might be sooner than anyone thinks.... just wait for the technological singularity and then the things will start to happen really fast [quote who="Star Adder" reply="144" id="2525945"] NO! We must go to Mars! We must wake up that Shadow Ship... ! [/quote] Yes! Shadows FTW!
To Clonmac: (cause the forum is broken for me and i cannot quote [e digicons]:)[/e] ): i would not operate much with Milankovitch cycles and their influence on ice ages, cause it is incomplete theory....just like AGW...
[quote who="clonmac" reply="1022" id="2512846"] Quoting Timmaigh, reply 1021 Sure, no problem. The term cutting emissions is simply a broad term that means the cut back on the emissions we produce. This term does not differentiate between the means to so. A synonym for "cutting emissions" would be to "lower emissions". Cutting emissions could be anything from me (a consumer) purchasing an efficient hybrid vehicle. Or it could be a company heating a n
[quote who="clonmac" reply="1020" id="2512818"] And this is where you fail to see the point in my previous post. You are tunnel-visioned in your ideology, that you failed to see that I was NOT talking about any particular solution. Yet, you went ahead anyway and claimed that I mentioned any sort of emissions capping. I did not. That is why in my previous post I said the following: Quoting clonmac, reply 1013 Explain to me how cutting back on emissions is
[quote who="clonmac" reply="1015" id="2512777"] Quoting Dr Guy, reply 1014 It hasn't!!!!! All of our data shows that CO2 is way higher than it has ever been going back as far as we can with our data. In over 400,000 years, CO2 levels have never risen about 300ppm, and now we are approaching past the 400ppm mark. This isn't even disputed by anyone. So get your facts straight. [/quote] Then tell me why current interglacial period is 2C cooler then th
[quote who="clonmac" reply="1013" id="2512732"] Quoting Timmaigh, reply 1012 And that is where you are wrong . Even if cutting emissions is good for environment (which is not sure until our knowledge about climate is complete), it is not good for economy...therefore it is bad solution. It has to be good for both to be a good solution. Explain to me how cutting back on emissions is a bad thing again? How is it bad for the economy? I never mentioned any specific metho
[quote who="clonmac" reply="1011" id="2512706"] Quoting just_jim, reply 1009 Not only did it NOT work, now we have both a Mosquito and Love Bugs infestation here. Incomplete Science... fixing something you DON'T fully understand because your "Intentions" were good... People like that start screwing with the atmosphere and global climate could end up murdering millions..... Ya, but your comparison isn't quite correct and I hear that a lot from p
[quote who="JuleTron" reply="1005" id="2512434"] his comments were directed at me.. and everyone else that doesn't agree with him: No I was not. I simply voiced what was imo reasonable and in a calm manner. You then attacked me and accused me of attacking you, something that I never had done. Others, understanding my post, tried to reason with you, but you blatantly disregarded their words. I never said that CO2 was pure evil or anything. You are right it is necessary for
[quote who="JuleTron" reply="993" id="2511550"]*Facepalm* Whether climate change is true or not, fossile fuels ARE damaging the environment. Whether climate change is true or not, green technology must replace fossil fuels as a main energy source. Fossil fuels cause acid rain which in turn causes numerous problems. Its simple high-school chemistry. When I see photos of people bulldozing rainforests, buidling coal plants, pumping countless tons of gases into the atmospher
[quote who="psychoak" reply="990" id="2511414"] We'll run out of cars? Out of factories? Out of the need for industry? Are you kidding me? Did you miss all the muttering about peak oil? We've got like 20 years of it if the world keeps growing at the estimated rate to jump 2 degrees in the next century. Coal we have more of, but even then we'll deplete it first. Once the easy access stuff is gone, the problem solves itself as alternative powe
[quote who="Moosetek13" reply="973" id="2509658"]Ya, only 10 years it would take. And I really doubt that a significant decrease in CO2 levels can be reached in that period of time to make much difference. The whole idea of Cap and Trade is stupid, considering they only want to go back to levels of a decade ago. To reverse the warming that they say we have caused over the past century would mean shutting everything down - completely. The smartest
[quote who="Mumblefratz" reply="953" id="2509052"] Quoting Moosetek13, reply 945 It is just half-way down the page: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ You can zoom in an out. as well. It shows the temperature variation for the past 400,000 years - from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core. What I find most interesting is that we are currently in a fairly warm period, relative to the overall cycle, but by no means ar
Sins Forums