VG Docs

I saw a couple episodes of Darker than Black a couple years back. It didn't catch my interest immediately so I didn't watch more of it, but I might need to considering how many recommendations I've received for it.

Most of the things in the show - characters, story, surprisingly dark moments from time to time, and the servants are pretty epic. 

I wish someone told me how awesome the fate series was O: It's so good. Also, got some bad news: I have returned. ... doubt anyone remembers though.

I wish someone told me how awesome the fate series was O: It's so good. Also, got some bad news: I have returned. ... doubt anyone remembers though.

I wish someone told me how awesome the fate series was O: It's so good. Also, got some bad news: I have returned. ... doubt anyone remembers though.

Could say the same about you coming in the console subforum O: I do dress like that regularly though.

I am not a Bethesda fanboy, I enjoy some of their tittles but not all of them. One thing that has always bugged me in PC gaming is the rather simplistic way PC Gamers compare graphics. The general consensus from what I have read is fallout 4 graphics are not great, and lack in a lot of area's I tend to disagree and we are all aloud to have opinions but I wanted to start a discussion on graphics and how the PC community views them.
 
I personally believe that we are at a stage with graphics that art style is a far bigger factor in the look and feel of a game over polygon count or using the latest technique of tessellation etc. Comparing games from yesteryear is no longer needed or beneficial in terms of gaming, in terms of engines and technology sure there is but purely from a gaming perspective I think there is little to gain from comparing tittles graphics in a black and white fashion... i.e this is a game from 2014 and this is from 2015.
 
Most people that do however fail to approach the complex subject of graphics with any coherent methodology, I forever see posts (not on this forum) saying look at this... Pictures/video of game from 2012 and comparing it too a game from 2015. Then complain about how the games graphics are lacking (Fallout 4 being the prime example recently).
 
A golden example of this is a post I saw recently on the PC community reddit PCMASTERRACE. With the line, "The difference 8 years can make...?" it compared 2007 crysis in a picturesque setting and Fallout 4 with a bugged out NPC floating in a semi indoor area. Firstly Crysis was a buggy mess so thats like the pot calling the kettle black. Secondly I know this post was clearly a troll as Fallout is massive right now but it still highlights what most of the community do when comparing games.
 
For me, many factors need to be considered before even beginning to compare graphic between tittles, its not an even playing field and handicaps need to be given (not talking in the negative sense, but like horse racing horses are given weights and its called a handicap to even the field). In no particular order...
 
Company - This is pretty simply and not to do with budget, just because a company can afford to make a 100 million dollar game does not mean the 20 million dollar game they made should be marked as if it cost 100 million. Also the company itself lets look at Crytek and Bethesda, Crysis made by Crytek was made as a showcase displaying the latest power of their new Crytek engine they were a game engine company who made a game for PC only. Crysis 2 had nowhere near the impact as it was a multi-platform game and more restrictions applied of course. Meanwhile Bethesda is prominently a gaming company and always has been, they make games and while they make engines its not the same... To try and articulate my point better its like comparing a thirty thousand dollar sports car to a Ferrari, while they are both cars that's where the similarities stop they are made with two totally different goals in mind.
 
Budget - Pretty simple, a 250 million dollar + behemoth say GTA 5 will never be beaten but a smaller game like saints row.
 
Generation - A new release or fresh start takes a lot of  assets meanwhile long running series that sometimes reuse assets like Dead Space or uncharted not only reuse assets but their engines are built upon with each game Comparing XXX 4 with BBB 1 is a little unfair as the tittle has not had time to develop and also would not have the same budget as new IP's are extremely hard to get of the ground.
 
Gameplay - look at the refined experience of Dark souls, where the controls are brilliant... Then compare it too say the Witcher 3 at times sluggish controls.. These games are impossible to compare for many reasons and this is just an example but obviously more time was spent with Dark Souls controls over the Witchers, time management is important so games have to factor in do we spend time on X or A...
 
Content - This is the major point about comparing games for me, most times if not every time people compare the latest RPG that has over 50+ hours of content to with a game that has insane graphics and takes only 8 hours to beat, its a no-brainer where the money went for development.
 
So only when considering these things is a game comparable, and I believe most games are not comparable, a better example would be the Witcher 3 with Fallout 4, both have large amounts of content, are both RPGS, and released with 12 months of each other. Does Fallout live up to the hype well I think overall the graphics are great, I am not blind however and some textures are just plain shameful. I certainly hope their attitude was not let the modding community do the HD pack.
 
This was a long post. It has covers quite a bit and I am not sure if anyone will read it lol, but if you do I didn't post it just to rant but want your opinion... Can games be compared easily in terms of graphics? Or do games need to be carefully looked at in a broad sense before comparing? and do you think are we past comparing graphics, like we use to when the gaps in generations where larger? i.e I believe the art style of a game dictates a game look and feel more then what latest technology they are using.

I first loved PCs with my 9500 GT (uber overclocker mine was for some reason). 
I first hated PCs with my GT 440. 
I first hated my uncle for upgrading my GT 440 to a radeon 6670.
I first "banged" my PC with my radeon 6950.
 
I first angrily threw my fist in the air when I realized it's an extremely low chance of me winning the GTX 970.
So many firsts though... 

Semantics. You can call an HDD a sata drive and still be correct

Yeah, it could. Still, with USB we'd know what he's talking about even though there are plenty of USB peripherals.

Sounds like a good deal as long as the previous owner didn't abuse his time with it. Good to hear you are making something from youtube though

It doesn't really, not by itself. With a die shrink, you can either make the same thing with less silicon (higher yields, more chips per wafer, so overall lower production cost, and lower power consumption per chip) or you can put more transistors in the same amount of silicon, improving performance.

If your mobo's decent, you could sell your FX 6300 and your mobo for a 4690k and a mobo. Intel mobos are cheap.

Isn't the iGPU better than the GT 520 though?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/353960-33-4000-gt520

But the real question is, why a GT 520 + i7 3770(K?)

Quick correction: 660 > 750 Ti  ~ equal to 650 ti boost (trades blows) > 650 Ti.

As long as you OC the PSU first. jk
 
Assuming you can achieve that OC, the PSU will be no issue. 

Don't get the GTX 960 with 4 GB of VRAM, that's a pure waste of money. You will get way better performance out of those other cards

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Totally different thread to what I though it was gonna be.

I agree. I actually really like intel and nvidia. However, without competition I'm afraid those companies will start to get too comfortable and not push the envelope like they have the past few years.
Unfortunately they're going to have to think of something other than hyperthreading for a cheap performance boost for their CPUs, but hopefully they'll improvise well.

I agree. I actually really like intel and nvidia. However, without competition I'm afraid those companies will start to get too comfortable and not push the envelope like they have the past few years.
Unfortunately they're going to have to think of something other than hyperthreading for a cheap performance boost for their CPUs, but hopefully they'll improvise well.

Just pre-ordered Fallout 4. The hype got me. I love Fallout games. As the last person said, pre-order games if you are dying to play them ^^ 

Nah, as long as you don't have serious overclocks, overvolting, overheating and stuff you'll be fine for a long time. It's not a console
The only thing you should really be keeping an eye on if you're safe elsewhere is your HDD. Even then it should take at least a couple years for it to start failing. That's sort of the nature of HDDs though.

Nah, as long as you don't have serious overclocks, overvolting, overheating and stuff you'll be fine for a long time. It's not a console
The only thing you should really be keeping an eye on if you're safe elsewhere is your HDD. Even then it should take at least a couple years for it to start failing. That's sort of the nature of HDDs though.