gameguy6700's forum posts

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="nooblet69"]

Hi all, I'm thinking about buying a new tv as my old one has a scratch on it and is only 720p and pretty old. Will be using it mostly for movies, tv and a little gaming. My budget is 500-1000 bucks. Picture quality is my main concern so LED, LCD, Plasma or whatever doesn't matter too much also looking for around 40 to 47 inches. Any help here ? Thanks in advance.

nooblet69
What kind of gaming? Console or PC? What kind of films? Blu-Ray or DVD?

I have an xbox 360 that I use for netflix and haven't gamed on it in a long time. I have some blu rays but my ps3 is broken so might get a new blu ray player. I play pc on my 24" monitor and never really considered hooking it up to a big tv though that would be awesome. My pc is definitely capable of handling it. Also is the 3d feature really worth it in new tvs ? Not sure I'm really sold on the whole 3d thing. Thanks again for all the replies.

If you're going to use the TV as a giant PC monitor and watch mostly blu-rays on it, 1080p is what you should go with. If you're going to mainly play console games and DVDs or Netflix streams and HDTV on it though then stick with 720p. Reason being that the vast majority of console games render at 720p or lower, and HDTV channels all display at 720p or 1080i. Viewing all of that stuff on a 1080p screen actually makes the picture quality worse, although most TVs are good at upscaling. Anyway, I'd say 3D is worth getting. Paying $1000+ for a mere 1080p screen (even if its a really awesome panel) just doesn't seem justifiable to me anymore now that you can get a kickass 30" 1600p monitor for the same price or less. Likewise, an eyefinity setup also costs less than most 1080p HDTVs, even if you get IPS panels, and it gives you a much higher resolution and much greater field of view. However, a 3DTV does let you use 3D with your consoles, movies, and some TV channels, which is a feature you don't get with monitors. Granted you can play PC games in 3D on a 120hz monitor with a powerful enough GPU, but since the 3D is powered by your PC's GPU any consoles or blu-ray players you hook up won't be able to do it. And granted you can watch 3D blu-rays on a PC as well (I think) but personal experience has taught me that blu-ray movies and gaming PCs do not get along at all. Long story short, if you're going to get a 1080p HDTV, you may as well make it a 3D set.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="SystemsGO"]

[QUOTE="Raxzor"] I disagree it's not worth anything, it's just pretentious crap. Just go for a walk around your local coast line and that's pretty much it, and I am sure you will enjoy the walk more.WizardGlass

Seconded, if I lived near a coastline I would be ecstatic, if I had Dear Esther I wouldn't care much. Either way, Dear Esther is garbage...

i unfortunately agree. the game makes absolutely no sense at all. nothing that is said or seen in the game could be formed into anything resembling a coherent narrative. the visuals are indeed amazing though.

There is a story there, it's just that you have to be actively trying to piece it together instead of expecting the game to spoonfeed it to you like COD. [spoiler] Esther is his daughter, she died in a car wreck he caused when he was driving drunk. He's dead too, you're playing as his ghost who's stuck committing suicide in a loop until he can forgive himself. [/spoiler] Anyway, $5 is the most I'd recommend paying for this game. The only game-like thing about it is that the more areas you explore the more narrative sequences you unlock and thus the more of the story you can piece together. Essentially you just play this game for the scenery porn which, to be fair to the game, does get very impressive.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"](world population went from 1 billion in 1950 to 7 billion now).coolbeans90

It was 1 billion in 1800 and was 2.5 billion in 1950.

Point being it still jumped by a ridiculous amount in a short period of time.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
This is stupid. The world is far too overpopulated as it is already, mostly thanks to an explosion in population over the last half century or so (world population went from 1 billion in 1950 to 7 billion now). While birthrates in developed countries may be declining, they're still sky high in undeveloped and developing nations. The intelligent, rational thing to for a developed country to do is to encourage immigration. This allows the population to continue to increase while allowing the world birth rate to slow down so that we don't wind up with a catastrophe when there aren't even enough resources to go around for all developed nations. The only reason why people would be against this is because they're xenophobic and don't want foreigners in their country. Compare and contrast a country like Japan to the US. Japan, like all other developed countries, has a declining birth rate. Unlike most developed countries though it also has extremely strict immigration policies that make it very difficult for foreigners to enter, and a culture that makes the foreigners who do get in want to leave. As a result their population is expected to halve in the next 50 years. The US also has a declining birth rate but its population is actually increasing due to its far laxer immigration policies and a culture more accepting of immigrants than most others.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]having to write what stuff means makes long papers even easier because you can just BS your way through with "opinions". Serraph105
the BS has to be supported by the evidence that you research. It would be easy as hell to just to BS. Or maybe, next time I do a research paper, I should do it on John Cage's 4:33 (4 mins, and 33 sec of silence) and just hand in 15 blank pages. It is in the spirit of the piece.....

:roll: or you could do the intelligent thing and make it a careful balance of BS and evidence supported fact so that the BS part doesn't stick out like a sore thumb when read by a professor.

You've either never been in an upper level writing-intensive class, or you went to a shlt-tier university. If the professor who's reading your paper actually holds you to some kind of standard they'll tear you apart for any unsupported or illogical claims you make. I remember I took a writing intensive neuroscience class where a lot of the kids tried to do the same stuff they did to pass their freshman writing classes and damn near failed the class as a result because spouting BS in a paper was no longer tolerated.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]It's a sound clip. It has nothing to do with FN. kingkong0124
It's hosted on FN. Thus, me clicking on the link gives them another page visit to their site and further encourages them to continue posting vapid, grossly misrepresented, tabloid-quality "news" on their site. That isn't something I'm willing to do.

Yes, because one view is going to change something. You're not special.

Obviously one view isn't going to do anything, but it's the principle of the matter. Same reason why people do any other number of things that don't make any difference on an individual basis but do add up when lots of people do the same thing (reducing carbon footprint, voting, etc).
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Depends on how much info there is out there. Research papers are already written for you. You just have to regurgitate everything you read back in your own words.

Pirate700

That is, if you're an undergraduate student or earlier. Grad school....you're expected to say what it *means*. I dread writing my thesis...........First, I have to get an idea, which is the hard part.

having to write what stuff means makes long papers even easier because you can just BS your way through with "opinions".

Maybe if you're doing a program like English or philosophy, but try getting away with that in science and see how long you last. Anyway, longest research paper I've written was 90 pages for my neuroscience thesis. If we only count papers written for classes, then my longest one was 20 pages for a grad class I took on the neuroanatomy and function of the cerebral cortex (paper was specifically about the connectivity and function of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex).
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Fox Nation Sorry OP, not gonna click the link. I don't feel like losing 30 IQ points today.Pirate700

It's a sound clip. It has nothing to do with FN.

It's hosted on FN. Thus, me clicking on the link gives them another page visit to their site and further encourages them to continue posting vapid, grossly misrepresented, tabloid-quality "news" on their site. That isn't something I'm willing to do.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
Considering there isn't even a residential internet connection out there that can come close to exceeding wireless-N speeds (and the vast majority of residential connections can't even exceed wireless-G speeds, and yes I'm talking about the whole world when I say this), I don't see any point in getting excited about this. Maybe if you have four HDTVs and four computers in your house and a wife and kids who all want to watch 1080P movies from the HTPC you put into your home network as well as do a bunch of heavy downloading at the same time you'd be excited about this, but for everyone else even wireless-N is overkill.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
Fox Nation Sorry OP, not gonna click the link. I don't feel like losing 30 IQ points today.