Quake3World

Ok.. Gamespot says 7.5, IGN says 6.8, gameworld says 80%, acegames says 7/10, metacridict says 9/10..

basicly anywhere from a 91 to a 30.. so is it honestly worth me installing and playing?

id like to "hope" so.. but id rather not waste the hard drive space, nor the fragmentation if im just going to be uninstalling if it totally blows ass..

*throws nosferatu's cape on the roof*

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:*throws nosferatu's cape on the roof*

Could you try to be serious

thanks

as serious as a goth? i doubt it.

goth

rolls off the tongue

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:as serious as a goth? i doubt it.

Dont EVER joke about pc games... it's serious stuff damn it! :icon33:

reefsurfer wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:as serious as a goth? i doubt it.

Dont EVER joke about pc games... it's serious stuff damn it! :icon33:

Figured you would at least have an answer :icon23:

SOAPboy wrote: Figured you would at least have an answer :icon23:

well, i tried the demo back when it was just released.. and frankly i dident like it at all... maybe it was because Clive barker's Undying was similar and i dident feel for another early 1900 game.

It might be awsome once ya get started with it.. i dident get further than testing the demo so dont listen to me.

SOAPboy wrote:Ok.. Gamespot says 7.5, IGN says 6.8, gameworld says 80%, acegames says 7/10, metacridict says 9/10..

basicly anywhere from a 91 to a 30.. so is it honestly worth me installing and playing?

id like to "hope" so.. but id rather not waste the hard drive space, nor the fragmentation if im just going to be uninstalling if it totally blows ass..

for someone that has so much time on their hands, you sure are one lazy son of a bitch.

aw, what happened to your old icon? that temper tantrum .gif suited you perfectly.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

SOAPboy wrote:Ok.. Gamespot says 7.5, IGN says 6.8, gameworld says 80%, acegames says 7/10, metacridict says 9/10..

basicly anywhere from a 91 to a 30.. so is it honestly worth me installing and playing?

id like to "hope" so.. but id rather not waste the hard drive space, nor the fragmentation if im just going to be uninstalling if it totally blows ass..

for someone that has so much time on their hands, you sure are one lazy son of a bitch.

Nah, i just didnt wanna instal it if it sucks.. fuck it ill install it tomorrow and pray for a good creepy game..

reefsurfer wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:as serious as a goth? i doubt it.

Dont EVER joke about pc games... it's serious stuff damn it! :icon33:

like you can take games like will rock or doa beach volley serious

SOAPboy wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

SOAPboy wrote:Ok.. Gamespot says 7.5, IGN says 6.8, gameworld says 80%, acegames says 7/10, metacridict says 9/10..

basicly anywhere from a 91 to a 30.. so is it honestly worth me installing and playing?

id like to "hope" so.. but id rather not waste the hard drive space, nor the fragmentation if im just going to be uninstalling if it totally blows ass..

for someone that has so much time on their hands, you sure are one lazy son of a bitch.

Nah, i just didnt wanna instal it if it sucks.. fuck it ill install it tomorrow and pray for a good creepy game..

there ya go

Repeat after me: on modern hard drives, fragmentation is not a problem.

Geebs wrote:Repeat after me: on modern hard drives, fragmentation is not a problem.

Incorrect. On modern file systems, fragmentation is not a problem. Still an issue w/ performance related to the physical HD however.

Basically, FAT and FAT32 performed like crap on a fragmented drive. NTFS doesn't care. However, you will reduce seeking and trashing on the physical level on a drive with fewer fragments.

Nosferatu vs. Endymion - Broken rules.mp3

Fender wrote:

Geebs wrote:Repeat after me: on modern hard drives, fragmentation is not a problem.

Incorrect. On modern file systems, fragmentation is not a problem. Still an issue w/ performance related to the physical HD however.

Basically, FAT and FAT32 performed like crap on a fragmented drive. NTFS doesn't care. However, you will reduce seeking and trashing on the physical level on a drive with fewer fragments.

depends on the heads. I'll qualify the above: not a problem if you're using a modern opearating system.....like osx

I don't think the head scheduling algorithm is specified by the OS or the driver. That's in the drive firmware, IIRC, so the OS has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, if the head has to move more, then it negatively impacts performance. Granted head scheduling algorithms have come a long way and on-drive drive caches really help, but you can't eliminate the base problem on a mechanical storage system.