232 replies to this topic

[Holmes]

Mchawkeye, on 17 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

Mechassualt didn't do a darn thing to Mechwarrior. Mechwarrior and changing markets did it to Mechwarrior. I am no fan of mechassault, but at least I am sensible enough to realise that just because it was different, it doesn't make it bad. in fact MA1 and 2 got very good reviews, in general.

If it was called "Big Robot Fighting League Lets Fighting Love" I would probably allow myself to enjoy it.

Quote

so, basically, your argument is that you want to live in the past? Servers get shut down because they are not popular any more, or at least not popular enough to warrant the time and money to maintain the servers. that said, your opinions on game servers are valid. but I cannot remember the last time I wanted to play an old game online.

Live in the past? Instagib Quake 3 takes 100x more skill than most games on the market today. You may not play old games, but many people do. Like someone said, I still bust out my NES and SNES sometimes for good gaming fun, rather than always having to have the "latest and greatest" (I know that's ironic considering my obsession with bleeding edge hardware.) Are classic films bad because they aren't new? Don't have the newest special effects? I think not, they are works of art, good ones.

Quote

It's also interesting to note that "less controls and control options" is aimed at machines that bought us Kinect, Wii and Move, arguably some of the biggest advances in controls FOR YEARS. what do PCs get? a 60buck mouse with more buttons on it. Way to push the envelope. Whilst there is no doubting that my Xbox pad has fewer controls than my keyboard, or my X52, I have never played a game i felt they have tried to squeeze to much onto one controller, or that I was missing something.

That.... is an incredibly good point on the Kinect and motion controls. There is definitely a difference for me, as a StarCraft II player and avid flight sim enthusiast. (I have the X52 as well, and can't fit all my functions even with shift keys and the 3 modes. Although the most important ones fit on one mode, such as flap control etc.)

Quote

Halo, if you like it or not, was a watershed moment in the history of FPS. god forbid they did something sensible like suggest carrying around ten massive guns seemed a bit...off. anyway, also they didn't do that because of a lack of control options. They did that because of game balance. and, certainly in game one, the gun balance was excellent.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was because of the controller (unless you have a source for otherwise), and that is perfectly sensible to me. It shouldn't affect PC games though, especially not DUKE NUKEM where it IS ..."off", I mean hes a gun-toting cigar smoking maniac. It's not meant to be realistic. Not all shooters have to be WW2 games. Also, I liked Halo 1, but the series in general I cannot stand. I enjoyed #1 on PC, and playing late in coop on X-Box with my friends.

Quote

Again you are right about your cutting edge PC assesment. but to suggest that modern games on Xbox and PS3 look bad is simply bobbins. They look great on my 48inch telly. they sound fantastic running through my 5.1. what more do I want.
Not a darn thing.

There are PC resolutions much higher than 1920x1080, not to mention the graphical effects high end PCs can push that consoles can't even dream of on these games. Do graphics make a game? Of course not. But if you are a crazy audio-phile (for the $100+ sound card etc.) and want your games to be in the full glory the developers intended.. well... yeah you need a PC in most cases.


Also, a side argument here, lets not forget aim-assist in console FPS games. It is HARD CODED into the engine. I don't mean the option you can turn off in controller settings, I mean the hard-coded **** that affects net-play to make it fair for console users with thumb sticks. That's another example of dumbing down. A reasonable one, to make the game not a complete cluster **** of frustration... but still a "dumbing down."

[Mchawkeye]

Gorith, on 17 December 2011 - 07:21 AM, said:

Examples?

Crysis to Crysis 2
EQ to EQOA
The aforementioned SC port for the 64
dungeon siege
Dragon Age to Dragon Age2 (While the original was on console aswell it did a good job of also catering to the PC players the second one felt like that PC players were all but abandoned)


Other games that you can feel the limitations were put in place just so it could also be on console (note some of these are very good games but you can still feel it)
Skyrim (I love it but it's an obvious Console port)
Rage
Borderlands
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I'm sure theres many more examples that could be made

What I don't get is that all those games are good. Great, even. So what's the problem? The fact that they are on consoles? The fact that they may have changed from one iteration to the next? The fact that developers decided to make games for the bigger, more viable console market? Which, thanks to bigger potential sales could potentially, make the concept of a sequel more reasonable?

I mean, what do you hate more, the consoles or the people that buy the consoles or the simple economics of the situation?

[Mchawkeye]

Holmes, on 17 December 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

If it was called "Big Robot Fighting League Lets Fighting Love" I would probably allow myself to enjoy it.



Live in the past? Instagib Quake 3 takes 100x more skill than most games on the market today. You may not play old games, but many people do. Like someone said, I still bust out my NES and SNES sometimes for good gaming fun, rather than always having to have the "latest and greatest" (I know that's ironic considering my obsession with bleeding edge hardware.) Are classic films bad because they aren't new? Don't have the newest special effects? I think not, they are works of art, good ones.



That.... is an incredibly good point on the Kinect and motion controls. There is definitely a difference for me, as a StarCraft II player and avid flight sim enthusiast. (I have the X52 as well, and can't fit all my functions even with shift keys and the 3 modes. Although the most important ones fit on one mode, such as flap control etc.)



Actually, I'm pretty sure it was because of the controller (unless you have a source for otherwise), and that is perfectly sensible to me. It shouldn't affect PC games though, especially not DUKE NUKEM where it IS ..."off", I mean hes a gun-toting cigar smoking maniac. It's not meant to be realistic. Not all shooters have to be WW2 games. Also, I liked Halo 1, but the series in general I cannot stand. I enjoyed #1 on PC, and playing late in coop on X-Box with my friends.



There are PC resolutions much higher than 1920x1080, not to mention the graphical effects high end PCs can push that consoles can't even dream of on these games. Do graphics make a game? Of course not. But if you are a crazy audio-phile (for the $100+ sound card etc.) and want your games to be in the full glory the developers intended.. well... yeah you need a PC in most cases.


Also, a side argument here, lets not forget aim-assist in console FPS games. It is HARD CODED into the engine. I don't mean the option you can turn off in controller settings, I mean the hard-coded **** that affects net-play to make it fair for console users with thumb sticks. That's another example of dumbing down. A reasonable one, to make the game not a complete cluster **** of frustration... but still a "dumbing down."

I play old games. lots of them. It's just that, when I find out the servers are closed (chrome hounds was a recent one) my attitude is. well, they were live for years. such is life.

As far as halo/guns go, I never felt switching between 10 guns on a controller was an issue. I would agree with the Duke nuke 'em issue though. that game was all about being a maddy, and some things have sadly become standard.

That isn't dumbing down. That's simply common sense.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 17 December 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[Gorith]

Mchawkeye, on 17 December 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

What I don't get is that all those games are good. Great, even. So what's the problem? The fact that they are on consoles? The fact that they may have changed from one iteration to the next? The fact that developers decided to make games for the bigger, more viable console market? Which, thanks to bigger potential sales could potentially, make the concept of a sequel more reasonable?

I mean, what do you hate more, the consoles or the people that buy the consoles or the simple economics of the situation?

Mostly it's the limiting factor of the consoles but a bit of the other two aswell

Yes alot of those are good games. Look at it like this. on a PC I am not limited to 9 or whatever buttons and I have a mouse for navigating UI and because of the controls on a PC the game interface can be made more robust and I can have finite control over what I am doing much easier... when you limit the controls and features to fit a controller you are taking some of the precision control out of it. Imagine how you would feel if Starcraft 2 suddenly came out for the consoles AND blizzard forced the console limitation on the PC players?
Or imagine trying to play X3:TC on a controller?

However I wasn't referring to JUST consoles even within the PC market things get changed and dumbed down to sell to the masses

Yes some if it IS the making games less focused on a target audience and attempting to sell it to EVERYONE but even more of it is the feeling that something has been removed that wasn't a problem (example. DA2 completely did away with the tactical view) or changed the game genre or style completely.

[Mchawkeye]

Gorith, on 17 December 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

Mostly it's the limiting factor of the consoles but a bit of the other two aswell

Yes alot of those are good games. Look at it like this. on a PC I am not limited to 9 or whatever buttons and I have a mouse for navigating UI and because of the controls on a PC the game interface can be made more robust and I can have finite control over what I am doing much easier... when you limit the controls and features to fit a controller you are taking some of the precision control out of it. Imagine how you would feel if Starcraft 2 suddenly came out for the consoles AND blizzard forced the console limitation on the PC players?
Or imagine trying to play X3:TC on a controller?

However I wasn't referring to JUST consoles even within the PC market things get changed and dumbed down to sell to the masses

Yes some if it IS the making games less focused on a target audience and attempting to sell it to EVERYONE but even more of it is the feeling that something has been removed that wasn't a problem (example. DA2 completely did away with the tactical view) or changed the game genre or style completely.

Define 'limiting factor'?

I have never, ever felt limited by a controller. Ever. I do not believe that, for the vast majority of games that is a valid argument. There is no argument that a kayboard simply has more buttons. and that, i suppose, can give you more flexibility. fair enough. but I have never, not once, had a moment whilst playing a game like Fallout 3, for example, where I thought "*** ****. I wish I had more buttons. this would be easier."
And I would have to imagine about starcraft 2. because they haven't ported it onto the console. so using it to compare PC/console seems a bit redundant.
While RTS, like flight sims, are certainly an area where the PC is a preferred platform, neither of these, I think, have suffered at the hands of the console market. They have always been more suited to the keyboard mouse stylings of the PC. I can potentially see that Kinect may change that, at least as far as RTS's go. but that remains to be seen.

The really odd thing is, that I remember playing unreal tournie with a keyboard and mouse on my PS2. with wireless technology being as it is, why isn't there a popular, well supported wireless Keyboard and mouse set up for the consoles these days?

Edited by Mchawkeye, 17 December 2011 - 09:07 AM.

[Raeven]

Anyone that spent 3k on a new computer and didn't get 3-6 giant monitors to link together, spent 1700 too much on a top line computer. 2200 too much if all they were doing was upgrading internals. 2350 too much if they had a large enough PSU already.

As for Consoles being limited by the number of buttons and controls.. well that's not too big a deal anymore either.

http://www.saitek.co...od/fly9360.html
http://www.saitek.co...prod/av360.html

PC's are starting to outpace consoles in graphics at the moment though. Everyone I've spoken with prefer Skyrim on the PC over the consoles because it both looks better and has no loading times compared to the Consoles.

Edited by Raeven, 17 December 2011 - 11:22 AM.

[Dihm]

Did this seriously turn into a console vs PC argument?

[Kristov Kerensky]

Yeah Dihm...it did..bet I know why too..*sigh*

Fact..pick up a copy of CoD for XBox/PS and one for PC. Now, try to play console vs PC online.

What? You can't? But..that's a game that was designed FOR the console and ported to PC, they ARE actually capable of playing together..so..why can't you do that on the console networks?

Simple reason, controller players get roflstomped by kb/mouse players all day long, so they don't allow them to compete with each other on the console networks in any FPS style games. Can you imagine what it would do to sales of the PS3 and XBox if the top selling games on those systems were shown to be halfassed pieces of garbage compared to the PC versions? Seriously, imagine the money Sony and MS would lose in console sales alone..they did..that's why it's not allowed after they did some inhouse testing on this subject years ago. Can't play the original Halo cross platform either..that's how long ago the testing was done and when Sony/MS realized what a fubar mistake it would be to allow cross platform gaming.

So..go on, tell us how good console games are and how great they are and how they are the top of the line..then look at the simple fact that the console MAKERS refuse to let consoles play against PCs because of how badly the consoles are. And don't insult us again.

Some console games are a lot of fun and some of them can have amazing depth and complexity, but those tend to be RPG style games, not real time games, and even those are half the game you'd get with a PC version. Simple fact, consoles are limited by their base hardware and their controller system. XBox 360 and PS3 are using hardware that's multiple generations behind the times currently, so nuff said about consoles.

MW2..great sales, great reviews, awards, massive fan base that's STILL around, TT and canon followed very closely, simulator. MW3..the game was it's own biggest issue, bugs bugs bugs, otherwise, still TT/canon/sim, did ok. MW4..yeah..about that TT and canon stuff..we'll keep the NAMES and words used, but really..that's not going to be the game, hope you don't mind, LOVE MS! Did so well that they stopped making the PC version of the franchise TOTALLY and instead switched to the console. MA..hey..about that BTech..stuff..like, whatever, that's not what the players want! Toss anything related to BTech, use some names and images that look mostly like the BTech stuff, but forget the storylines and lore and all that, NOT needed, this is an ARCADE GAME MAN! WHOOOO POWERUPS! Sold fairly well, got good reviews AS an arcade game with a decent story(not BTech but who cares right) and got GREAT reviews because it was ONLINE on LIVE! WHOO HOO! MS used to pay a lot for good reviews, definately got their money's worth for MA..and yes, I do mean that, it's a fact, they did it, still do. MA was also the death of the franchise, in case you folks missed that...went from a deep, complex lore driven sim to an arcade game that ignored everything BTech..and it killed the franchise. Go on, argue that point..

[MaddMaxx]

And here we are, our hope renewed, our faith in a Dev burning brightly. Now all we need is another Wednesday, a Beta Sign-Up sheet or patients.

I vote for the Wednesday with a sprinkle of patients.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 December 2011 - 01:14 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

MaddMaxx, on 17 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

And here we are, our hope renewed, our faith in a Dev burning brightly. Now all we need is another Wednesday, a Beta Sign-Up sheet or patience.

I vote for the Wednesday with a sprinkle of patients.

I love the intent, but the spelling just cracked me up

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Maybe he's a Dr looking for custom?

[MaddMaxx]

Ha ha I think I fixed it.

[Blastcaps]

Siris, on 11 December 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

I always had a draw to the MA series, and although it did a poor job being loyal to the original intent of games such as MW, it did what it was designed to do well enough- be a relatively simple pick-up-and-play mech fighter that most people could do. In the second installation of MA, they became closer to a multiplayer aspect for the game, and whether or not this is a result of something is beyond me. However, a new MW game would have easily surpassed the multiplayer intent that came with MA2.

As for the original question, the MW series has always been about the mech-sim feel, as it is perhaps it's unique feature above all. However, an amount of arcade should be implemented since MWO will be about everyone duking it out and affecting the world around them in the process. Here meaning little field advantages, a small shooter twist in combat, and that overall MMO feel.

IMO

the differences between mw2, mw2@GBL, mw2:mercs and mw3/4 was the "feel" of the game, mw2 felt like a simulator as a game and wasn't overly complex control wise, mw3/4 very def felt "arcady" and i absolutely HATED that change like a lot of other players, another bug bear for me was the "you can only fit this type of weapon in this slot" approach MS implimented personaly i liked the flexability and CHOICE you had with MW2 which activision did a hell of a good job on in comparrision to M$'s versions, and even as far back as the cresent hawk games you could still customise the mechs to some degree, anyone remember stripping the SRMS out on the commando and sticking more lasers on it? either way MW2 "felt right" mw3/4 "felt VERY WRONG" play wise

[Kristov Kerensky]

pssst..Maxx..second time you used the word..but no worries, we knew the intent..it just really gave me a funny as hell visual

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 17 December 2011 - 01:32 PM.

[Mchawkeye]

Kristov Kerensky, on 17 December 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Yeah Dihm...it did..bet I know why too..*sigh*

Fact..pick up a copy of CoD for XBox/PS and one for PC. Now, try to play console vs PC online.

What? You can't? But..that's a game that was designed FOR the console and ported to PC, they ARE actually capable of playing together..so..why can't you do that on the console networks?

Simple reason, controller players get roflstomped by kb/mouse players all day long, so they don't allow them to compete with each other on the console networks in any FPS style games. Can you imagine what it would do to sales of the PS3 and XBox if the top selling games on those systems were shown to be halfassed pieces of garbage compared to the PC versions? Seriously, imagine the money Sony and MS would lose in console sales alone..they did..that's why it's not allowed after they did some inhouse testing on this subject years ago. Can't play the original Halo cross platform either..that's how long ago the testing was done and when Sony/MS realized what a fubar mistake it would be to allow cross platform gaming.

So..go on, tell us how good console games are and how great they are and how they are the top of the line..then look at the simple fact that the console MAKERS refuse to let consoles play against PCs because of how badly the consoles are. And don't insult us again.

Some console games are a lot of fun and some of them can have amazing depth and complexity, but those tend to be RPG style games, not real time games, and even those are half the game you'd get with a PC version. Simple fact, consoles are limited by their base hardware and their controller system. XBox 360 and PS3 are using hardware that's multiple generations behind the times currently, so nuff said about consoles.

MW2..great sales, great reviews, awards, massive fan base that's STILL around, TT and canon followed very closely, simulator. MW3..the game was it's own biggest issue, bugs bugs bugs, otherwise, still TT/canon/sim, did ok. MW4..yeah..about that TT and canon stuff..we'll keep the NAMES and words used, but really..that's not going to be the game, hope you don't mind, LOVE MS! Did so well that they stopped making the PC version of the franchise TOTALLY and instead switched to the console. MA..hey..about that BTech..stuff..like, whatever, that's not what the players want! Toss anything related to BTech, use some names and images that look mostly like the BTech stuff, but forget the storylines and lore and all that, NOT needed, this is an ARCADE GAME MAN! WHOOOO POWERUPS! Sold fairly well, got good reviews AS an arcade game with a decent story(not BTech but who cares right) and got GREAT reviews because it was ONLINE on LIVE! WHOO HOO! MS used to pay a lot for good reviews, definately got their money's worth for MA..and yes, I do mean that, it's a fact, they did it, still do. MA was also the death of the franchise, in case you folks missed that...went from a deep, complex lore driven sim to an arcade game that ignored everything BTech..and it killed the franchise. Go on, argue that point..

Listen, no one here is arguing the point on hardware, suffice to say we all accept the an advantage PCs have over consoles is the upgradeability. sure. of course games look better. but that isn't to say the games on consoles don't and can't look fantastic.

<sigh>I have also heard, many, many times, about the mouse Vs. controller experiments. and again, no one is arguing that a mouse is a more precise instrument. <\sigh>. so they tried it. It didn't work. so they stopped. I'm sure the 3.3 million people playing MW3 just on xbox live don't mind. Why? because it's all relative; sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik. The odds are even. They recognised this fact and so xbox players don't play against folks on the PC. I'm pretty sure people in both camps are fine with that, even the 56k that play it on Steam.

It's interesting that you say consoles are limited by their hardware, because of you ask any developers they'll tell you, especially of the PS3, but it's true of the Xbox as well, that they are not close to fully using up it's potential. Even at the end of the ps2s life they were still wrangling more power out of it's hardware.

I am still to be convinced that Mechassualt killed the mechwarrior franchise. I think MA is simply a scapegoat for the fact that investors/publishers/developers or whatever, lost faith in the style of mechwarrior. you didn't like MA, which is fine. I never played it my self, but i can understand where you are coming from. but you know, Battletech should only ever produce what you want and what you expect. the number of people that enjoyed MA don;t count for a darn thing. so you fling your poo at them, blame them while your toys get chucked out the pram. fine. I understand that sentiment. at least, I used to.

Do you know what the real kicker is? I love PC games, love them. But not to the oddly loyal point where I fail to understand that the point of games is to have fun. They don't have to have a million controls or graphics that will literally make your eyes bleed from the resolution (though i do like that...). I can understand the attraction to MA, I get MW. Even I think that MWO should be on PC as opposed to the Xbox, as that is more appropriate, as a sim.
I don't get why games have to be so divisive. why isn't it just about games, and about the enjoyment of games as opposed to PC games and console games. they are exactly the same. Neither is actually better or worse.
it is simply a matter of what you prefer.

[Holmes]

Raeven, on 17 December 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Anyone that spent 3k on a new computer and didn't get 3-6 giant monitors to link together, spent 1700 too much on a top line computer. 2200 too much if all they were doing was upgrading internals. 2350 too much if they had a large enough PSU already.

As for Consoles being limited by the number of buttons and controls.. well that's not too big a deal anymore either.

http://www.saitek.co...od/fly9360.html
http://www.saitek.co...prod/av360.html

PC's are starting to outpace consoles in graphics at the moment though. Everyone I've spoken with prefer Skyrim on the PC over the consoles because it both looks better and has no loading times compared to the Consoles.

My motherboard was about $500, the liquid cooling kit about $350, and SLI video cards basically a grand. It adds up quick. Consoles will come out soon with caught up hardware, but a month later ATI and NVidia will have new video card hardware out, literally within a month. Again, graphics don't make a game, just talking specifically to that point.

I do have dual monitor, but I'd like to do triple at some point.. just handling you know... bills right now.

Also, it was built to the ground up to give my brother the old one, so PSU, case, even SATA wires all had to be bought, which is why the price got so high.

[Raeven]

Blastcaps, on 17 December 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

either way MW2 "felt right" mw3/4 "felt VERY WRONG" play wise

Seriously? You guys must have been smoking something that affected your perception when playing those games or your memories are corrupt.

MW3 was no different from MW2 other than they added floating reticles, got rid of skating jumpjets, and made the PPC look like it's suppose to instead of a blue ball of blech.

[Raeven]

Holmes, on 17 December 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

My motherboard was about $500, the liquid cooling kit about $350, and SLI video cards basically a grand. It adds up quick. Consoles will come out soon with caught up hardware, but a month later ATI and NVidia will have new video card hardware out, literally within a month. Again, graphics don't make a game, just talking specifically to that point.

I do have dual monitor, but I'd like to do triple at some point.. just handling you know... bills right now.

Also, it was built to the ground up to give my brother the old one, so PSU, case, even SATA wires all had to be bought, which is why the price got so high.

500 dollar motherboard that didn't come with Sata cables? Yea, you spent too much.

You could have gotten a 200 dollar motherboard and spent the other 300 on monitors that came with cables!

I just did the same thing, completely built a new system and gave my kids my 3 year old, and still rockin, computer. I only spent 1300 dollars and that included OEM windows 7 Pro. 600 of that was the new case, HDD, PSU, Monitor, keyboard, and mouse that I wouldn't have needed otherwise. It's also SLI capable and I will be able to upgrade the gfx card in a year or two when the same card I have goes down to 70 dollars instead of 200. Is it top of the line? No. It's only one or two steps below it though.

I understand the liquid cooling. That's an investment. Something that'll transfer from computer to computer. The rest was an excessive expenditure, imo. Your computer might outlast mine by a year, if upgrade trends keep the same, for more than twice the amount of money. It's simply not worth it to buy the latest and greatest, because as you said, something new is going to be out within 2 months anyway.

[Holmes]

Raeven, on 17 December 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

500 dollar motherboard that didn't come with Sata cables? Yea, you spent too much.

You could have gotten a 200 dollar motherboard and spent the other 300 on monitors that came with cables!

It came with SATA cables and a **** load of other goodies. I just wanted to buy SATA cables that glow blue to match my theme. The motherboard I got has 9 16x PCI-e slots, (it works in 16x up to 3 cards including 1 sound card in 1x, and after that it drops off to 16x/8x/8x/8x etc.) and supports up to 24GB of tripple channel DDR3. The northbridge (or whatever the intel is calling it now) has 3 heatsinks with a liquid "heat pipe" on it, and it still gets to like 180F (I have a case sensor on the hottest one) during regular use. This motherboard is a monster. I'm not trying to defend my purchase in a combative way, but with computer parts it is often "you get what you pay for." It was worth every penny.

Quote

I just did the same thing, completely built a new system and gave my kids my 3 year old, and still rockin, computer. I only spent 1300 dollars and that included OEM windows 7 Pro. 600 of that was the new case, HDD, PSU, Monitor, keyboard, and mouse that I wouldn't have needed otherwise. It's also SLI capable and I will be able to upgrade the gfx card in a year or two when the same card I have goes down to 70 dollars instead of 200. Is it top of the line? No. It's only one or two steps below it though.

My keyboard and mouse totalled about $300 (think G15 and Razor.) My motherboard is capable of 4-way SLI with a 1x card with pipeline scaling barely dropping, although I didn't buy the 4 cards, I don't have THAT kind of money.

Quote

I understand the liquid cooling. That's an investment. Something that'll transfer from computer to computer. The rest was an excessive expenditure, imo. Your computer might outlast mine by a year, if upgrade trends keep the same, for more than twice the amount of money. It's simply not worth it to buy the latest and greatest, because as you said, something new is going to be out within 2 months anyway.

I was in need of an upgrade badly. I mean AGP bad.

[Raeven]

I take it back. You definitely kept an eye towards upgrading. What brand motherboard has 9 fricken PCIE slots?