JediMasterChief2

Honestly, I don't see the point in discussing it any further. If it happens, then that's great. If not, oh well, life goes on. Maybe someone will create a different SE using completely different methods than what the SE team has used since Morrowind, maybe not.

In response to post #39479635. #39479960, #39480990, #39481605 are all replies on the same post. I just gave you your first kudos. I'm tired of all the fighting, and glad others are, too.

In response to post #36205495. #36206170 is also a reply to the same post. I tried posting a logical explanation for why mods aren't loading properly in the beta (heavy changes to the ESM/P file formats, as Bethesda has alluded to), yet, no one really seemed to care, and continue to say Bethesda is lying on this regard. I think they're telling the truth, but, their refusal to elaborate on what kind of changes they made to the files has people jumping to conclusions. I'm sure once further decoding of the new ESM/P files is done, and FO4Edit updated in response to said decoding, mods will be working just fine again. Even then, mods are not officially supported yet, and this is a beta.

Has anyone ever thought about that maybe the reason mods aren't loading is because of changes to the ESM/P format that makes mod-made files unrecongnized by the new update? I think something similar happened in Fallout 3, which rendered mods made with an older version of the GECK for that game non-functioning. It would explain why loose file mods still work, as well as merging mods into an official file. After all, mods are not officially supported yet.

In response to post #36170555. #36171990, #36173870, #36176205 are all replies on the same post. I think the "phoning home" thing is just going to be what the old version of the Skyrim Launcher did, which was downloading mods from the Steam Workshop. Though in this case, it would be from the Bethesda site instead of the workshop. I'm not too worried about that. I'll start worrying if mod disabling makes it out of Beta.

The solution to that is to deal with it when we become directly threatened. Otherwise, becoming involved too soon will drag us into conflicts that we could of avoided altogether. Sometimes, getting involved from the get-go isn't the best idea.

I just said for the world to stay out of this situation. I hate the idea of countries snooping in eachother's business. It only leads to trouble, because people overreact, sometimes violently, to cultures which are different to there own. The only politices people should get involved in is domestic affairs. International affairs only cause war, at some point or another, because people have not reached a point where they can seamlessly accept other cultures. Edit: I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Isolationist". What I mean is something like the Isolationist policies the United States had for a long time until WWII. I didn't mean completely stay out of politics. I mean just stay out of foreign affairs. In an ideal world, if every country kept to themselves for the most part, besides fighting in self-defense, then the amount of war would be reduced (some dictator may still want to conquer the world every now and them).

Honestly, I say the world just stay out of it and let them fend for themselves. The problem would eventually sort itself out (whether it be one side it destoryed, they somehow come to an agreement, one side leaves the area, or some other scenario I can't come up with). I'm an isolationist at heart, so, my opinion is most likely biased. I would like there to be a peaceful agreement, but, thats likely not going to happen.

In response to post #15900280. #15907070, #15908730, #15919430, #15957195 are all replies on the same post. If they got rid of free memberships, then i would probably go elsewhere. As much as i would like to support the nexus, some of us just don't have the money for a yearly subscription. If i were in a better financial state (not to say its bad right now. I mean better as in rich with plenty of money to spare), then i would glady donate.

In response to post #15636620. I second this.

Maybe someone got banned, and decided to hack the site, either themselves or from hired help (if those are the right words to use), to get payback, and/or to gain access to downloading again, since non-members can't really download much. Maybe an IP ban list is in order, to block certain banned members from doing this sort of stuff (if thats whats going on, of course)?

Greetings. I was wondering, out of all of the Counter-Strike games, which one is the best that includes offline AI bots? I was looking at Counter-Strike Source, but, I'm not sure if it has bots or not. All I am sure of is that the first game doesn't have any bots, and that Condition Zero was the first to include them. Edit: Nevermind, figured it out for myself.

I'm not sure if the retail versions of UT3 require Steam or not. Actually, all versions of Dark Souls use GFWL drm, including the Steam version. None of the versions have stopped working, though I hope Microsoft has a plan in place for when the last bits of GWFL go offline. I guess I'll have to look that up. I know all versions of Dark Souls, including Steam, require GFWL. I was originally going to switch to retail because I wouldn't have to worry about it being connected to Steam as well. But, since the Marketplace shut down, Microsoft said you could not buy new games, which I assumed includes the ability to activate retail games online. Existing games work, but, ones that have yet to be activated, I assume, won't work now. Thats how I interpreted what they said on the Xbox site.

In my opinion, I feel the representative form of democracy is easily suspectible to corruption. I feel an Athenian-style direct democracy, including the requirement by law to participate in votes, combined with limitations on those who can easily influnce the masses (organizations, coperations, the wealthy, the famous), would be less suspectible to corruption. Direct democracy alone would be just as bad as a representative democracy, because people would just be influnced too easily by those who have methods to communicate and manipulate the masses (advertising, most notably). Yes, it is indeed mob rule, but, which is the lesser of the two evils nowadays, being controlled by the minority or by the majority (assuming that majority isn't being manipulated by a minority)? Also, political parties should be abolished.They only divide people and create a group mentality amongt the members of that party. In fact, any group formed for solely political purposes shouldn't be allowed, and those formed for other purposes should not get involved as a group (but are welcomed as individuals). In politics, each should be his/her own, with their own ideas. The only group there should be is every citizen living in the country, all united to work towards a common goal, but, yet, each is still an individual. Personally, here in the states, I believe the states should either all form one country (a country with no states, I mean) or divide and become 50 or so smaller countries. Anything in between creates a group mentality, therefore, destroying the individual thought process. Maybe it is because my Asperger's Syndrome gives me a unique political view that is so different from the rest, that my ideas for government are so, what you people would call "out there", But, I have never conformed to mass culture to a degree that I lose everything that makes me unique. This is my first post in the debates forum because normally I get upset just by reading them (for those of you are familier with AS, or even have it themselves, it is easy to to emotional about certain things).

Alright, thank you for the info. Does the retail version of UT3 require Steam. If it does, I might as well buy that on the Steam Store. I know the retail versions of all of the older games don't require. I try to avoid using Steam if it isn't required as much as legitimately possible (I have ARMA 3, Skyrim, and New Vegas on Steam, since they all require it. Since the GFWL Marketplace closed, I have to stick to the Steam version of Dark Souls, since I assume all disk copies have been rendered useless).

Fair enough. I had UT3 for a while. The single player is pretty much a series of bot matches with objectives tacked on, akin to the campaign of Star Wars Battlefront. It never gathered much of a fan base compared to the other Unreal Tournaments, but I don't think that's indicative of quality, because it had almost no advertising and had to compete with CoD at the apex of its popularity. I've no idea about the previous Unreal Tournaments, as I never played them. :/ I'm more fortunate than I thought in that case; my inability to socialize doesn't extend to the internet. I've no idea how much you plan to spend, but there's an Unreal Deal Pack on Steam that seems to contain every Unreal Tournament game for $40. Hmm, in the demo I played, it was straight up multiplayer with bot support, which is what I prefer. The multiplayer enviorment, for me, doesn't get boring as fast as linear campaigns do (assuming there are bots, of course. If not, then multiplayer is extremely boring for me). I don't mind going to a LAN party or playing co-op with people I know. Its just all of the random strangers playing online that make me feel uncomfortable. Otherwise, bots don't judge you and play fairly (or at least play how you want them to). For Call of Duty 4 and W@W, I use bot mods to play multiplayer in the first place (with W@W, I avoid playing zombies most of the time). In Halo Custom Edition (on PC), I can play modified multiplayer maps with AI added to them (not a true bot system, but, better than nothing. Custom Game modes aliviate limitations of the AI), as well as community-made Firefight maps. Campaign mods keep that portion of the game replayable. In Battlefield 2 (the latest game I play as a Battlefield game. The latest I have is 2142, but, I only play a Star Wars mod with that), I use AIX2 to dramatically enhance the otherwise lackluster singleplayer support. For everything else, the native built-in bot support keeps me entertained. Games like The Elder Scrolls and Mount & Blade (I only play this with a Star Wars mod. No interest in the default game) are open enough to compensate for the lack of a multiplayer enviorment. But, I digress. Thank you for pointing out the Unreal Deal Pack. I will check that out.

I prefer to play with bots. Which I think all of the games have, at least Unreal Tournament 3 (I played the demo in the UDK). I'm not able to play online multiplayer, due to a 25gb limit on our internet per month, which I deserve for downloads and other stuff. Well, I guess I should say I don't want to instead of I can't. My Asperger's disorder makes social activities with anyone other than those I know & trust difficult.

Hey. I was wondering which Unreal Tournament is the best of the lot, because I want to buy at least one of them.

Sorry, didn't see that it was classic games. I should say Rugrats Go to Paris (or whatever it was called). I have no fond memories of it compared to Reptar's Puzzle

Greetings. Today, I am downloading the UDK, to get a feel for the Unreal Engine. But, I want to know if it is possible to develop 64-bit games using it. My plan is to do native 64-bit first, then, if I feel its necessary, will port it over into 32-bit code. Any help will be apprciated.

Alright, I'll try that if updating to the beta drivers doesn't work. I'll let you know how it goes. I'm aware that Firefox is 32-bit only. Which is why I also said "Firefox-Based", because I use Cyberfox at the moment (which I do get faster speeds with, regardless of hardware acceleration). Plus, for a long time, I didn't have this issue, which is why I think it has something do with the latest graphics drivers. Also, thank you for the info on the beta drivers. I'll check them out. Try Cyberfox. Though it isn't as well known as Waterfox, it is much more up-to-date than Waterfox, and is compiled with more up-to-date tools (Windows 8 SDK, most notably. Don't let that put you off, it works perfectly on any 64-bit Windows OS, except XP 64-bit). In my case, like I said before, I get faster speeds than with 32-bit Firefox, even with hardware acceleration disabled. Also, Cyberfox comes in two versions, on optimized for Intel processors, and another for AMD processors. Well, never did a multiquote before.

I already tried creating a new profile for Firefox, and that didn't help. I have the latest stable drivers (320.49), so, unless I move up to the beta drivers, it looks like a roll-back is my only option, but, I'm not sure of how to do that safely and which drivers to roll-back to.

Hey. For the past couple of weeks, in any 64-bit (and perhaps 32-bit as well, haven't tested that) Firefox-based browser, I either get video driver errors (which are recovered from) or full system-lock ups if hardware acceleration is turned on (if not, it works fine). The closest issue I could find that is related to mine is people having these issues (and worse) with the latest Nvidia drivers, though not specific to Firefox. I have an Nvidia Geforce GTX 560m (laptop). Curiously, for me, it only happens with Firefox and Firefox-based (Nightly 64x, Cyberfox, Pale Moon 64x, and perhaps even Waterfox). I have one native 64-bit game (Xonotic, an open-source, old-school first-person shooter), the 64-bit edition of 7-zip, Minecraft running on 64-bit Java, and a few other 64-bit programs I can't quite remember, and none of those incountered issues. The temporary fix I'm using is just simply disabling hardware acceleration (though I have it on right now, because I'm seeing if I had to much cached Java data, whcich I just cleared earlier). Any help would be appriciated.

I say go for it, if you can afford it. I was a console gamer until mid-late 2011. I read an article in the now-defuncted Gamepro magazine before PC World bought them out, and that sent me on my path to working towards a gaming PC (though I will admit, my reasoning back then was very different from my reason for sticking with it. Came for the portiability of a laptop, stayed for the customizablility of the experience). I do offer one piece of advice, though. Your operating system (presumbally Windows) should not be a decision taken lightly. Windows 7 vs. Windows 8. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Windows 7 has a fairly easy-to-use interface for mouse and keyboard without third-party solutions, and is compatiable wiith many legacy games, as well as a gurantee for compatiability for newer games for the next several years. Though performance is still very good, it can be slow at times, especially when turning on. Windows 8 has excellent performance and a super-quick boot time, however, compatiability with legacy games is nowhere near as good as Windows 7, and the interface can take sometime getting use to, unless you go for third-party solutions. I use Stardock's Start8 for my start button, as well as Stardock's ModernMix, which improves mouse usage with modern apps, especially vital ones like PC Settings, which is needed to turn your Wi-Fi radio off without switching airplane mode on, by adding a mouse-friendly menu, as well as the option to run apps in a window. However, both of those cost money. I use Windows 7 on my gaming laptop because I play more than a few legacy games, going back as far as the late 1990's (the reason I know so much about Windows 8 is because my school convertable laptop runs Windows 8. Though my knowledge of game compatiabilty is based on a combination of research, and a side-by-side comparison of Windows 7 and Windows 8 in the Microsoft compatiability center).

That was pretty much my experience on the PS3 as well, but I don't know if most of the people shouting nonsense were actually black, or just idiotic white people feigning terrible slang and having mouth diarrhea. Either way, the race isn't a big concern. PC hasn't been so bad. Like I said, it's mostly just the occasional 10 year old screaming at you. Anyway, I don't know for sure if this means that you *have* to be online, but in order to even get to the options to host a match, it requires you to "Connect to the Online Service". This seems to imply that being truly offline is not possible. I don't know if there's some way to disable that and just have a solo match, however. Well, that was pretty much what Black Ops PC did. Thank you so much for your help. I'll just stick to Call of Duty 4/W@W with PeZBOTS (which, for bots that run on CoD's limited script engine in Multiplayer, are more advanced than the orginal Black Ops and, to a lesser extent, Black Ops II). Besides, I have conversion mods for both of those games (a Star Wars conversion, which has official PeZBOT support, and a Vietnam conversion for W@W, which has PeZBOTS built-in to the latest version). I might even check out Call of Duty 2 for PC (which I only played on Xbox 360, back when I was a console gamer) and the original Call of Duty.