This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 610611612 613614 ... 633
18331
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:43:11 PM »
Is it locked at 30FPS? Don't feel like looking at link.
If it's locked, I'm in support. 1080p30FPS(Locked)>900p60FPS(locked)
It doesn't say. It's undoubtedly locked though.
Also, framerate>resolution
Yeah, sure, in multiplayer games. But in a single player game like W3, Arkham Knight, Second Son, etc. I'd rather my games look pretty.
Games can look pretty at 900p and 720p.
Yeah, of course. Halo 5 looked great. Snake Eater HD looked great.
Framerate > Resolution. Always. Obviously. But that's not what I said.
High texture quality + 60fps 900p > High texture quality + 30fps 1080p
Again, obviously. But that's not really relevant.
i don't even
are you legitimately stupid?
That's debatable. I think I have my moments of stupidity, but I don't regard this as one of them.
All I said is that I prefer my single player games to be LOCKED at 30FPS if the tradeoff is gorgeous 1080p. I do NOT want 1080p if the framerate is going to all over the place (ala Crysis 2).
>wanting lower framerate in favour of resolution
seriously what
You can "what" all you want but the fact of the matter is that I prefer lower, consistent frame rates with high resolution for my single player games. Deal with it.
18332
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:35:38 PM »
Is it locked at 30FPS? Don't feel like looking at link.
If it's locked, I'm in support. 1080p30FPS(Locked)>900p60FPS(locked)
It doesn't say. It's undoubtedly locked though.
Also, framerate>resolution
Yeah, sure, in multiplayer games. But in a single player game like W3, Arkham Knight, Second Son, etc. I'd rather my games look pretty.
Games can look pretty at 900p and 720p.
Yeah, of course. Halo 5 looked great. Snake Eater HD looked great.
Framerate > Resolution. Always. Obviously. But that's not what I said.
High texture quality + 60fps 900p > High texture quality + 30fps 1080p
Again, obviously. But that's not really relevant.
i don't even
are you legitimately stupid?
That's debatable. I think I have my moments of stupidity, but I don't regard this as one of them. All I said is that I prefer my single player games to be LOCKED at 30FPS if the tradeoff is gorgeous 1080p. I do NOT want 1080p if the framerate is going to all over the place (ala Crysis 2).
18333
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:29:11 PM »
Is it locked at 30FPS? Don't feel like looking at link.
If it's locked, I'm in support. 1080p30FPS(Locked)>900p60FPS(locked)
It doesn't say. It's undoubtedly locked though.
Also, framerate>resolution
Yeah, sure, in multiplayer games. But in a single player game like W3, Arkham Knight, Second Son, etc. I'd rather my games look pretty.
Games can look pretty at 900p and 720p.
Yeah, of course. Halo 5 looked great. Snake Eater HD looked great. Framerate > Resolution. Always. Obviously. But that's not what I said. High texture quality + 60fps 900p > High texture quality + 30fps 1080p
Again, obviously. But that's not really relevant.
18334
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:20:24 PM »
Is it locked at 30FPS? Don't feel like looking at link.
If it's locked, I'm in support. 1080p30FPS(Locked)>900p60FPS(locked)
It doesn't say. It's undoubtedly locked though.
Also, framerate>resolution
Yeah, sure, in multiplayer games. But in a single player game like W3, Arkham Knight, Second Son, etc. I'd rather my games look pretty.
18335
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:15:51 PM »
Is it locked at 30FPS? Don't feel like looking at link.
If it's locked, I'm in support. 1080p30FPS(Locked)>900p60FPS(locked)
18336
« on: February 03, 2015, 02:56:23 PM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.
I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.
In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.
It's a personal choice in that regard.
"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.
I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".
Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind.
If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.
I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.
Sorry to derail more.
Blame my rampant weebism.
I'm sorry, you confused me. You're saying that if you met someone who could be "the one", you wouldn't be with them?
[While I do enjoy the deralied conversation topic, but it's not relevant to the OP. I'm sure we're bound to get some more romance-themed threads as we near VDay.]
If I met this dream person I'd be happy having a relationship with them, but if they don't actually exist I'm okay with being solitary.
I think I'll be making a few of those threads soon enough.
This is me in a nutshell. I don't think I'd settle for anything less than what I thought could be one of "the few". Anyway, I'll ask something relevant to the topic.
Do gender roles in marriage retain importance?
Like Challenger said, having a mother during infancy for a biological child is necessary. Fortunately for me, I plan to adopt at the age of 3, so does having two fathers matter? No. (Personally I see myself being with a woman, but you never know.)
18337
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:52:03 AM »
The Portugal sun
Heh. This got [somehow] got me.
18338
« on: February 03, 2015, 06:22:45 AM »
Sure. Why not?
18339
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:34:13 AM »
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.
Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child.
The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.
Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children?
[Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]
No. The mother being around full time during infancy is the way we've always done it. I mean the kid can't suck on your nipples. A mother is a mother. There's no substitute.
Now, when they aren't infants? A loving parent is a loving parent. Doesn't matter.
Now that's interesting. I was considering adopting kids instead of "creating" them (odd word choice, I know) from ages 3-upward. This definitely gives me something to contemplate... What happens if there are two fathers, though?
18340
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:28:22 AM »
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.
Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child.
The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.
Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children? [Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]
18341
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:26:02 AM »
dark skin
I don't know why but this made me giggle uncontrollably.
18342
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:22:27 AM »
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.
Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
18343
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:20:48 AM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.
I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.
In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.
It's a personal choice in that regard.
"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.
I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".
Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind.
If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.
I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.
Sorry to derail more.
Blame my rampant weebism.
I'm sorry, you confused me. You're saying that if you met someone who could be "the one", you wouldn't be with them? [While I do enjoy the deralied conversation topic, but it's not relevant to the OP. I'm sure we're bound to get some more romance-themed threads as we near VDay.]
18344
« on: February 03, 2015, 02:35:35 AM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.
I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.
In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.
It's a personal choice in that regard.
"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.
I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one". Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
18345
« on: February 03, 2015, 01:43:09 AM »
When they took away the dark theme. That was the catalyst. I literally have to wear sunglasses when browsing B.lind.
18346
« on: February 03, 2015, 12:47:09 AM »
I really need to play these fucking games.
Isn't DS2 coming to current gen?
Yeah it is 2nd of April
Heh, that's right around my birthday. I love planning out my gaming schedule in advance, and there's pretty much nothing coming out around April (although I was planning on buying a Wii U then...)
But the first DS is better, no?
The first one has better variety of bosses, and the world all links back into itself with secret shortcuts. Doesn't do that nearly as much in the second game. But I still like 2 a lot as well. Some people don't though.
Well, just in case, if I play DS2 before DS1, would I be ruining anything? Story moments, or gameplay improvements? [Kind of like if you went from Arkham City to Asylum, how relearning the outdated combat system would be tedious.]
Dark Souls 1 definitely plays more clunky, but you would get used to it pretty quickly. It's mostly the same with minor changes on the mechanics side of things.
And since the way Dark Souls story works you wont really spoil anything because you have to be reading all the item descriptions and listening to character dialogue, so you wouldn't know a reference if you saw one.
Would you recommend I play the first one before I purchase the second one, though?
Yeah it would make for a better experience overall.
I'll probably end up doing that, then.
Plus if you're going in fresh to Dark Souls 1 you will have something to do for awhile till 2 comes out on 8th gen hah.
I have so many games to play in so little time, though.
I have to finish Witcher 2, Jet Set Radio Future (? I think that's what it's called, Gatsby told me to try it), Dark Souls... I need to finish these before Dragon Ball Xenoverse comes out (which I might not get depending on reviews.)
I mean, it's better than the alternative of not having any games to play. Looking forward to the following months.
hey what if I disconnected all my credit cards/person information from my Xbox live account and then let you liscsense transfer? I downloaded dark souls 1 on 360
You'd do that?
18347
« on: February 03, 2015, 12:45:26 AM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.
I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.
In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.
18348
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:21:32 PM »
On average, at least once a day.
Sometimes it'll be more than that, other times I won't even do it.
18349
« on: February 02, 2015, 08:25:25 PM »
Just in time for Anarchy to end, lol.
18350
« on: February 02, 2015, 08:24:39 PM »
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.
Why wouldn't it be financially sound?
Because trying to support two adults and several kids on one salary is difficult.
I added to the OP that she makes enough money to support us comfortably. Sorry about that.
18351
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:58:20 PM »
I was about to make a serious response but then I saw your avatar.
That was on my mind too, but I decided to post anyways because I know a lot of people go through stuff like this. My post was more of an open-ended response to everyone who is feeling this way.
18352
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:47:17 PM »
If you want to kill yourself, there's nothing wrong with that. It's your right by life that you can choose death.
Just remember that by ending your suffering, you push it onto others. There are always people you care about, and IMO, it's quite selfish to end your life when life will do it for you eventually.
George RR Martin said it best, "Death is so final, but life is full of possibilities."
I understand where you're coming from. I'm in a somewhat similar situation, (this feeling of being lost, not sure what's the point of living anymore, etc.) What keeps me alive is those who care about me. Yeah, your mom may yell at you and be abusive, but think how painful it would be when she realises that you killed yourself because of her? That might cause her to kill herself, which affects so many more people (her parents, significant other, perhaps other children, etc.)
We all have our burdens to bear. Some more than others. That's all I'm going to say.
18353
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:40:04 PM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling
Unless the wife makes big bucks.
I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.
Gold digger huh
No, ahaha. I just don't see myself making too much money, based on the education decisions I'm making ATM. So my other would have to make quite a bit more money than me for us to support an ideal family. [I mean, obviously if I fall in love with someone who doesn't meet that criteria, I'll still be with them. Having children might be out of the question, but that's okay.]
18354
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:36:32 PM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling
Unless the wife makes big bucks.
I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.
18355
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:34:31 PM »
I really need to play these fucking games.
Isn't DS2 coming to current gen?
Yeah it is 2nd of April
Heh, that's right around my birthday. I love planning out my gaming schedule in advance, and there's pretty much nothing coming out around April (although I was planning on buying a Wii U then...)
But the first DS is better, no?
The first one has better variety of bosses, and the world all links back into itself with secret shortcuts. Doesn't do that nearly as much in the second game. But I still like 2 a lot as well. Some people don't though.
Well, just in case, if I play DS2 before DS1, would I be ruining anything? Story moments, or gameplay improvements? [Kind of like if you went from Arkham City to Asylum, how relearning the outdated combat system would be tedious.]
Dark Souls 1 definitely plays more clunky, but you would get used to it pretty quickly. It's mostly the same with minor changes on the mechanics side of things.
And since the way Dark Souls story works you wont really spoil anything because you have to be reading all the item descriptions and listening to character dialogue, so you wouldn't know a reference if you saw one.
Would you recommend I play the first one before I purchase the second one, though?
Yeah it would make for a better experience overall.
I'll probably end up doing that, then.
Plus if you're going in fresh to Dark Souls 1 you will have something to do for awhile till 2 comes out on 8th gen hah.
I have so many games to play in so little time, though. I have to finish Witcher 2, Jet Set Radio Future (? I think that's what it's called, Gatsby told me to try it), Dark Souls... I need to finish these before Dragon Ball Xenoverse comes out (which I might not get depending on reviews.) I mean, it's better than the alternative of not having any games to play. Looking forward to the following months.
18356
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:32:57 PM »
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.
Why wouldn't it be financially sound?
18357
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PM »
But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
18358
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:29:17 PM »
Looks a lot like Dark Souls, though it looks fun, too bad it's a ps4 exclusive.
You should get PS4, tho...
I'm kinda on the fence on which system I should get
I have both Xbox One and PS4, and considering that Ty only has PS4 and isn't that big a fan of Halo, I think you should get PS4 to play with us.
There'll be lots of games for us to play in the future, I think.
oh and you never accepted my friend request on xbl >:c
WHAT?!
I swear I did. I'll go on right now to make sure.
Wait, nvm, you did. I just never saw you online
Yeah, I rarely play on Xbox because all my friends moved to PS4/X1 and there aren't any games for me to play. I also lost my mic, so the few friends I do have I can't speak to.
18359
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:24:50 PM »
Yeah, I know. But they said early 2015, which has got me bummed out.
I'm really looking forward to it.
18360
« on: February 02, 2015, 07:23:45 PM »
Dude, this made laugh so hard.
"Okay, now all we have to do is plug this controller into the console over here."
Hahahahaha. Subscribed.
Pages: 1 ... 610611612 613614 ... 633
|
Show Posts