leandrro's comments

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

@ChillingSky that is exactly what sony and microsoft claim, but is far from the truth, just compare any pc running crysis with the x1950 gpu (xbox 360 gpu) the pc version looks better, same goes with a pc on crysis with the 7900gs (ps3 gpu) the pc look and runs better, its just an example but it proves there is no real gain in console optmization, go righ now on youtube and check videos for crisis and x1900 or 7900gs, these old pcs had costed in 2007 less than a 600 dollar ps3

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

i build a game pc that costed me 300 dollars, the gpu is a 7750, it cost 99 dollars, consumes 55W, it is more powerfull than the ps4 and the xbox 720, and will be more silent than the xbox, this gamming pc mine is 3 times more powerfull than ps3

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

Edited By leandrro

you should use a gpu that costs 2 times the cpu, a cpu that cost more than that is a waste of power, there is no need for 8gb, in fact battlefild3 runs pretty well on 2gb and is recommended only 4gb, tha case should be the cheapest, and any standart power suply with 250w can runs a 7750 card wich consumes only 55w,

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

@Nexrad think about the cost and profit math, nobody thinks that cod fanboys are stupid as much as activision thinks, they are laughing everyday about it in their ferraris and lamborginis

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

bf3 could push 45 frames on 600p, its so not important to have 60fps that they sacrificed that to have 720p

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

think about the cost per unit, 30 million copies and a development cost of less than U$3 millions, 1 tenth of dollar per copy, they could sell these games at 0,20 dollar (20 cents) and have a 50% profit as DLC

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

in truth cod is so inferior in any aspec to any modern multiplayer fps that they have to appeal to something as stupid as giving value to the fact the game is so old it runs at 60fps on 7 years old console hardware

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

CALL OF DUTY DONT HAVE 60 FPS, it is reaches 60 fps in some moments but most of the time the fps count is very near bf3 console frame rate, check digital foundry frame rate analisys on black ops

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

@Curarai you´re saying that you are not stupid to give 100% of your money to cod, you play a lot of diffent games, but these stupid people im talking about give 100% of their money to cod, giving activision a 90% market share of shooters before bf3, just like you i play a lot of shooters including cod wich was my top favorite until they insisted on using cod2 engine

Avatar image for leandrro
leandrro

1644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: -2

User Lists: 0

some americans are stupid, some teenage americans are really stupid, teenage american console players are super stupid, teenage americans console players that never played a fps before 2007 are incredibly stupid, so when they released a "go be a super soldier in iraq" game in 2007 all these bunch of stupid people bought it, despite the fact that there was better shooters out there, with keyboard and mouse, for 32 plus players etc etc, activision released the right garbage in the right moment for the right stupid people, now they must stick with it to not disapoint the stupid