Megaman Legends.

There are some very reasonably priced gaming-ready laptops available from both Asus and Gateway -- don't have time to link you, but I'm sure you can easily google those laptops. I believe Best Buy stocks the Gateway, it's from the FX series or something like that.

You're going to get a lot of unhelpful replies, like "sell your Mac", "PC is cheaper and more powerful", etc. Whether or not the Mac is a better choice is, in my opinion, a null argument seeing as how it is what you have and in all likelihood you are going to simply deal with what you have in the best way you can.

Now to answer your question: yes, if you run boot camp to dual-boot Windows there is in fact no extra-slowdown with a macbook pro as opposed to some other laptop. If you used Parallels or something to run Windows, then you would experience some slowdown. But you should have no problem running most modern PC games on your macbook pro on slightly lower resolutions and medium-ish settings, if you have the 8600 card. Also, you do need to purchase the Windows OS to run it, obviously.

MGS4 was probably the lowest point of gaming for me. It just wasn't fun and the story didn't hook me. Very boring. The best game ever made is Deus Ex or Planescape Torment.

BioShockOwnz

I agree that Planescape: Torment was a brilliant game, never really played Deus Ex though.  I have to say though, MGS4 was an amazing game for me, and I only very recently went through MGS1 and MGS2.  I also played through on the Big Boss Hard though, with the goal of not killing any enemies, so maybe that made the gameplay more interesting for me?  I can see how if you just shoot your way through the game it could get stale.

Question though -- do you at least consider MGS4 a well-made game, though one that is perhaps not suited to your particular tastes?

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

[QUOTE="ng1234"]Because you're in for a risky business trying to compete with Nintendo's super quality line-up. Zhengi

ok first of all :lol: at that comment

The real reason is power;

The big devs have a vision of what they want to do, they want to make games with in depth story, a huge scope and preferably good graphics to tie this altogether. Devs tend to have vision, rightly or wrongly they see this as their art, their baby. To be frank they don't want to strangle its potential at birth;

The wii has the graphical power of a lemon, we all know this. Devs like to push bounderies;

the wii can't have realistic expressive character models that can help bring a story to life (see mass effect ot MGS4);

they can't really have big detailed immersive enviroments that put you in the right mood and give a grand scale (see fallout 3, STALKER etc).

They can't have that many enimies on screen so can't achive a sense of being assaulted by an army (see heavenly swrond or Gears of war2 or RE5 (hehe the wii can't even handel the title screen capcom has said:P)).

They can't have great physics so you wont be ablt to swing rag-dolls gayly (as in happily) through the air like you can in HL2 or Bioshock.

and least but not least they will never look as pretty as HD games, which is important in a next-gen console. 

Devs also like to have great online play (see CoD4, Halo3, RE2, TF2) and thwe wii uses 'freind codes' (shudders) and has n overall laughable online compared to PSN or XBL

Overall the Wii is just to constricting to a big Dev, they did all this last gen minus the waggle, if you look at wii ports of HD games like F.U. you will see just how gimped wii games can be. 

But if devs think innovatively about how best to use the controls, you'll get gems like Pro Evo 2008, Godfather, and No More Heroes.  This isn't to say that graphics aren't important, but immersive controls that have been well thought out does bring a different experience.

@ Zhengi

Sure, I'd agree with that statement, but I don't think that even well-thought out and implemented controls change the experience enough to sacrifice great online + good physics/graphics/immersive atmosphere.  I also am not convinced that for games besides FPS, RTS (maybe), and a 1:1 fighter that the Wii's control scheme would be superior, thus negating the one advantage it is supposed to have.  I think that we're putting way too much emphasis on control scheme, when to be perfectly honest, it shouldn't make that much of a difference.  Sure, a 1:1 star wars lightsabre game would be really cool, but when is that going to happen (and NOT suck, at that)?  I'm not saying that the Wii has bad games or that it will never have good games, but the platform itself is inherently gimped when it comes to things that most game developers would LIKE to take advantage of.  I honestly feel that a lot of development for the Wii is more often than not a waste of resources that could have been spent on a better 360/PS3/PC version (excluding games that rely heavily on the Wii's control scheme for core gameplay -- of which there are very few). Atmosphere and immersiveness, online gameplay, physics -- these are all important to me, and a lot of other gamers, which is why I have strayed away from the Wii so far.

I'll say this -- it's going to be really weird for her if you just suddenly walk up to her while she's with her group of friends and try to awkwardly start a conversation, especially if her friends don't really know much about you.  If you're friendly acquaintances with her friends, then it would make it a lot easier.  To be frank, however, the best way to approach this situation is to just ask if she wants to hang out sometime, using the medium of communication that you two are used to for the moment, in this case internet and text.  Ask her if she wants to see a movie/hang out somewhere and get to know her in an environment not linked to cell phone text and internet messaging.  This will lead to her being more comfortable with you in real life, and the rest will flow from there.  That's really the most natural way to approach this situation in my opinion. 

[QUOTE="tskeeve"]

To make it a little bit more clear: you initially tried to argue the absolute superiority of the 360 version over the PC version based on a feature set advantage (Splitscreen vs. Not Splitscreen).  When it was shown that the PC version HAS splitscreen, you then tried to argue the RELATIVE superiority of the 360 version over the PC version based on the supposed accessibility of the feature set (menu screen vs. launched from somewhere else).  The best part about your relative argument, however, is that for a gamer like yourself -- an informed gamer aware that the PC version has splitscreen -- is that it is in no way relevant to you.  Not only is the PC version ABSOLUTELY superior in every way to the 360 version, with better graphics, multiple control schemes, mods, AND splitscreen as opposed to just splitscreen, but it is also RELATIVELY superior for you. 

lowe0

In the same vein, I'm perfectly capable of editing a config file.  It's much easier for me, however, to have a friend hit a couple buttons on a controller and join a game. 

I understand your argument, but I think it has significantly less weight in this example.  Left4Dead is the type of game where lifetime play will probably extend into dozens of hours.  Spending those 30 minutes editing a config file for someone who is knowledgeable enough to do it is not such a waste of time when it will improve your experience for hundreds of hours.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]People who consider themselves lemmings aren't even going to read that article and claim it's nothing.SpruceCaboose

I've got a better response: Who cares?

Um, I care, as would anyone who reads previews of games that they are or might be interested in.  Don't you think this is a serious lack of professionalism if the guy writing the preview doesn't even play the game enough to see that it has movable objects and destructible environments?  It's certainly another smear to add to Gamespot's journalistic reputation.  It's not even something you have to play for very long to notice.  Boot the beta up and play for a few minutes, it should be readily apparent.