Here's a bug: My latest video(s) have made it to the top 15. I have a ton of power points, beyond maxed out (that's not the bug, leave it alone)...when my video made it to the top 15 siftbot said he gave me a power point (which under the new rules, I am not capable of receiving more power points). That's fine and all, but I think it'd be better if you weren't capable of receiving power points, siftbot shouldn't say you got one. Just a minor programming thing, probably.

YAY! That worked AND I was able to post an "extra" video to my maxed out unsifted queue using two power points with that method. [I wasn't able to do that before]. Thanks Jen

That was som superb and *quality software engineering in there. If this one opens up just like Crysis 1 (the one truly meant for computers, and it's older but smaller brother Far Cry REALLY showed you what this engine has to offer in open-ended gameplay), if you pull down walls, open all the buildings, and truly force you to think outside the box again (back when your gun was usually the LAST thing you would resort too as everything else--every other option was FAR more fun. You felt like a demi-God that was dropped off in a hot zone to deal with insects, until you meet the aliens and the ante is brought up. All that fun you had, NOW it really gets tested.

But, with consoles some of the scope has been killed, like in Cnrysis 2. I hate to say that, but it pisses a lot of PC Gamers off. But, luckily they are still developing basically everything on the PC. But, some changesg I'D like to see are: huge, unlimited outdoor areas (like Crysis UNO), up to and over 100 objects--that is aliens and people plus moving vehicles and things like this that are active in the frame--are supported (with the computing power we have I'm sure they could max out your field of vision), drastically increased object A.I. From enemies to super-graphic-froggies, further increases and even more (as I do know they've added some, like the "smart crumpling" of cars--making crashes FAR more realistic and neat) to the overall Physics system--inevitably I hope it would be the core component to every program element in the game before ANYTHING else happens (basically, it is the tried and true foundational component for the whole show, I would hope with some programmers that know Physics and Engineering--being able to reproduce in-game MACHINES and inventions of their own...--well AND enjoy it, and more programmers that like Physics too, but they are fans of very well done science fiction and comics--that way you have an aggressive "baseline" controlling everything except for a small section which the science fiction and comics crew can come up--I mean if they really get ambitious, eventually, they could add Biology; The sky is the limit!--and they'd add in elements for all the nano-technology, possibly genetic modification (which is just a few lines of code right now), everything the aliens need ( which means there would. Have to be a "theoretical Physics add-on to the full Physics component...

In the future if they just kept developing this Engine to say Cry Engine ver 15.0, just imagine the literal mind-blowing capabilities this thing could do and produce. You might have scientists from every field, even the military, involved in it's development--people from jobs and different walks of life (like a cancer survivor)--across the world inputting their most-valuable lifetime of experiences.

The game may not be Crysis anymore, but maybe a lot of people will finally realize that not only does your game get better with more infomation... But, if you have an accurate enough simulator to life, AMAZING things can be done. We can, all day create craft to fly in, see what fails IMMEDIATLY and the others that produce Hypersonic flight with LOW fuel usage. The possibilities would be endless, and the frog could become a virtual pet.

So I really hope they come full throttle to the PC and create a secondary division dealing with the consoles from the barebones PC Realese. Thus allowing them to push the technology to it's boundaries!

None-the-less I love the CryEngine out of any other for playing a game--a modern game.

There are still a lot of computers out there that have 100Mb NICs in them. There are even more household routers and switches that max out at 100Mb.

I am chuckling at the thought of the support calls that will be generated by people who run bandwidth tests and find out they're only getting 1/10th of what they signed up for.

It won't be Google's fault, but it will be Google's problem.

I've maxed out my Google powers and can't find the car's ET for the mile, but going by the video seems to be around 16.5 seconds. Crazy.

Some very pretty shots, like at 2:50.

However... rarely does music make a thing more boring... I had to mute it.

Also the color contrast is really maxed out on a lot of these segments... looks weird and unnatural.

>> ^spoco2:

I gotta say... that looks quite unfun. I don't see the enjoyment of them going that fast myself. When slower, but still fast, it feels more like a miniature race of real cars, this just looks insane and twitchy, no enjoyment for me.


I'd guess that a lot of the enjoyment comes from designing and manufacturing the cars to stay on the track at high speed -- they looked custom built from the intro to this video. The race itself looked like the power was just maxed out all the time, rather than requiring any skill, but it's hard to tell.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^therealblankman:
As for consoles vs PCs, you're right of course. At least partially- I frankly got sick of spending $400 every year or so to upgrade my graphics card to be able to even play the latest and greatest, so I've given up and joined the PS3 darkside. But you know what, there's hope for that as well. Valve software is bridging that divide in the right way. I bought Portal 2 for PS3 but using a code I can also play it on my PC, and if I want to play Co-op with someone it doesn't matter whether they're on a PC or PS3 either! Maybe other publishers will do the same going forward, but I doubt it.

You know, I constantly hear that being used as an argument against PC gaming, but unless you're obsessive about getting 100+ FPS with every single setting maxed out, it's just not true. I bought the PC I'm using right now in 2007 -- a decent system, not even top of the line at the time, with a high-end video card. For the last five years or so I've been playing the latest and greatest with the settings mostly maxed out, and I've never had any major issues. I probably won't upgrade for another year or so. So I definitely call BS on the old "you have to upgrade every year!" argument.


I'll second that. As long as you build your PC with a slight thought to the future, you can go years between upgrades without losing out on gaming (especially these days with all of the ports from thousand year old consoles). Even then, if you feel that you must upgrade because you refuse to use anything other than maximum settings (in which case--why are you on a console?), a new $200-$250 video card every couple of years is generally more than sufficient to keep you near the top.

>> ^therealblankman:

As for consoles vs PCs, you're right of course. At least partially- I frankly got sick of spending $400 every year or so to upgrade my graphics card to be able to even play the latest and greatest, so I've given up and joined the PS3 darkside. But you know what, there's hope for that as well. Valve software is bridging that divide in the right way. I bought Portal 2 for PS3 but using a code I can also play it on my PC, and if I want to play Co-op with someone it doesn't matter whether they're on a PC or PS3 either! Maybe other publishers will do the same going forward, but I doubt it.


You know, I constantly hear that being used as an argument against PC gaming, but unless you're obsessive about getting 100+ FPS with every single setting maxed out, it's just not true. I bought the PC I'm using right now in 2007 -- a decent system, not even top of the line at the time, with a high-end video card. For the last five years or so I've been playing the latest and greatest with the settings mostly maxed out, and I've never had any major issues. I probably won't upgrade for another year or so. So I definitely call BS on the old "you have to upgrade every year!" argument.

This guy is most definitely a LVL 85, full epic, TROLL Rogue.....He has maxed out his profession points in as an expert in TROLLING and I'm Fairly certain he is wearing a disguise. OPD FTW!!! LFG to run daily "TROLL the OPD" quest....need TANK & MAX DPS PLS

>> ^Deano:

You have to be maxing out the psychopath tests to do something like that to an animal. But I don't know how neighbours could let that go for so long despite reporting it. I'd be campaigning to get the animal released asap, not shrugging my shoulders because Animal Control still hadn't shown up.


Exactly!!! Ski-masks, gloves, pistols, and shotguns under the cover of night if needs be.

You have to be maxing out the psychopath tests to do something like that to an animal. But I don't know how neighbours could let that go for so long despite reporting it. I'd be campaigning to get the animal released asap, not shrugging my shoulders because Animal Control still hadn't shown up.

>> ^ForgedReality:

This belongs in terrible


Sure, but I can't add it since I max out for seven channels.

>> ^deathcow:

> Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.
All the ISP's I'm aware of have RADICALLY increased bandwidth and package offerings. It's called survival.


Sorry, you're way outta line here, deathcow.

What are they surviving from? The deadly competitive world of telecommunications? What a joke. There are TWO networks in Canada, TWO. That's a duopoly. Bell and Rogers. That's it. They don't need to have illegal closed door meetings whereby they can be accused of collusion. No, all Bell needs to do is release a statement saying hey, we're capping our lines at 25g/b a month, Rogers will quickly follow suit.

Furthermore, they've only slightly increased the speed of their lines. And what's the point of increasing the speed of your lines if you put in place a deterrent so strong that no one maxes out their speed. It's a fucking joke,

"Oh good news insects! We've increased the speed of your lines from 750kB/s to 3MB/s! We're so first world, we make Ugandans faint. Oh, but remember, though we've quadrupled your speed, if you actually use your connection at the speed we've sold you, for more than 12 hours in a month, your bill will increase eightfold." That's just spitting in our faces.

Lastly, increasing the number of available packages is a scam. I know firsthand it's a scam, because when they first started rolling out UBB about a year ago, they unsolicitously called my mother to discuss some new plans.

You see, it turns out that even though they were allowed to go forward with UBB, they weren't allowed to impose it upon customers who already had agreements.

So they called my mother and told her they have greatly improved plans, they told her they could switch her to a plan where her connection would be more reliable, faster and her computer would get infected with fewer viruses. You tell me of an ISP who can eliminate viruses from the internet. Yeah, that's right, they threatened her with viruses. So, she says,

"Why thank you kind sir, I really appreciate the time you've taken to call me with the aim of improving my internet experience. I'd love this new package."

The scum never told her that in doing so she forfeits her "grandfathered" unlimited account and would go from an infinite amount of download, to 60gb/month. I haven't yet succeeded in calculating infinity, but I can say with infrangible certainty that it is A LOT more than 60gb/month.

My mother has lived in Canada her whole life, and thus has been a paying customer of Bell for over 40 years. They spit in their customers' faces as if we should be writing them thank you notes for providing us with phone and internet, when we subsidized the infrastructure they now dangle in front of us.

And you wanna talk about surviving competition? Businesses that are in competition for customers, don't shit in their customers' faces.

Bell's Motto? "You don't like it? Fuck you, we'll cancel your shit. You can write a fucking letter to Rogers.

I don't see why they should force extra costs onto the ISP's that are leasing the bandwidth. It's their bandwidth and that amount should always be available to them. The amount of data coming across to a user over a month shouldn't matter to the line owner. If the ISP is maxing out the bandwidth on the leased line, then they can make the decision to either lease more bandwidth or attempt lame "curtailing" measures on their own.