http://phait-accompli.com/crap/d3cinema/

D3_cinema_2_b.zip, rest of the thumbnails there. 

gibberish spam nonsense... who fucking knows. 

more nonsense. 

Shambler is in good mood today :D 

OK, so I broke down and got myself a GameCube. This is my first console since the SEGA MegaDrive/Genesis so I am quite excited. For the price of 55 euro I got myself a Gamecube with 2 controllers, 251 slot memory card, NFSU2 and Tony Hawk's Underground which was simple too good of a deal to pass. I am now looking for some game suggestions. So far, these games are on my "must get" list:

Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Resident Evil 0 & 4, Ikaruga, Tales of Symphonia, Baten Kaitos, POP: Sands of Time and POP: Warrior Within, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, Viewtiful Joe (and maybe 2).

From this list you can gather what kind of my taste for GC games is, but I am wondering if this list is missing any good titles? I am not interested in the Mario/LuigiP/Pikmin/Pokemon games. 

View certain areas/screenshots from quake4 in a panoramic 360 degree view. (left click, move to view manually)

http://vrway.com/vr_q4/ 

you need quick time installed 

I don't recommend Tales of Symphonia, except if you can get it for really cheap... It's an ok game I guess, but just very average, Baten Kaitos definatly looks more interesting (haven't tried it yet though, TV blew up). Oh, and get Zelda Windwaker you bastid. =) 

Look into Killer 7, too. I haven't played much of it, but it's very trippy. 

Eternal Darkness
Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes 

Mario Sunshine is good if you don't mind it not being as good as the other big Mario platform titles. Lots of really beautiful touches, only marginally spoiled by the dodgy camera, slightly twitchy controls at times, and stupid and pointless continue system.

F-Zero GX owns, but gets a bit too hard later on - in particular unlocking the arcade tracks and completing the story mode are a near impossibility unless you are the don of futuristic racing games.

How about a Monkey Ball title? A good idea if you expect to have mates around to play games.

Hmm, I don't really remember any games I had that haven't been listed. I would say that MGS isn't to all tastes. I wanted to love it, but it bored and frustrated the fuck out of me. Viewtiful Joe was pretty awesome at first, but I got a bit bored after a while, and it's pretty hard unless you play on the embarassing 'kids' mode. Hmm, there was Billy Hatcher, which was fun (I actually 100%ed it) but very quirky and not to the taste of everyone. Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat looks like fun. 

If you just want to play something in the style of Viewtiful Joe and aren't attached to the story or anything, you might want to get Viewtiful Joe 2 first, since I think it's supposed to be balanced better. Then if you really like it you can get VF1, and you'll be properly prepared for the challenge. 

I just tried the Classic Doom mod. I enjoyed it more than Doom 3 itself. It's quite an update - although it certainly could be expanded upon layout wise, but then where do you compromise... 

That was supposed to go here
http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=23795&start=275 

I've just purchased Metroid Prime and spent a few hours playing it. IT WAS RIDICULOUSLY AWESOME! I was/am a huge fan of Super Metroid and never got a chance to properly play MP beyond the first level before this. I can't believe this console only has a 405 Mhz CPU, because MP definately looks way better than some computer games ment for CPUs 200-300% faster. 

What do you mean, only 405 mhz... thats a pretty damn beefy cpu for a games system (GC is the most powerful system around at the moment, if I'm not wrong).

You have to remember that the system is built for games... and you can talk directly to the hardware (I assume, note that I don't really know much about GC).

PC gaming? One word: WINDOWS. You're automatically at least 200-300% slower just by virtue of the fact that you have to get through windows to talk to the hardware. You also have to support a variety of hardware, so some performance may be sacrificed for the sake of compatibility.

Besides which, the actual clock speed of the CPU isn't the only factor of course, you have to consider the CPU architecture and stuff. Why is an Athlon64 CPU at 2.0ghz faster than an AthlonXP CPU at 2.0ghz? 

The more versatile you want your system the more complex it becomes, which slows it down and adds a lot of things necessary for that versatility which means drag on your system. I think the GC is the most powerful of the big 3 right now, it definitely has the best graphics I've seen on any of the systems (Xbox is too grainy whenever I see it, GC is nice and clean.)

I'm gonna wait until GC is like $20 before I buy it. 

You are wrong actually. XBOX is using a 733 mhz CPU. When it comes to the current generation of consoles, PS2 has the weakest hardware, XBOX has the fastest and GC falls in-between. 

there's a game shop at the bus station where I walk by each day and they have big screens showing console games and demos all the time... they have driving and fight games and whatnot. They look really crap compared to pc stuff because the framerate is horribly low. That is most visible when stuff is moving quickly. Driving games suffer most from this. I don't know if it's the limitation of tv technology or the console hw/sw developers' choice. 

Has anyone noticed that WHATEVER the spec of their pc, windows never seems to run any faster. Since Win 95, Windows has always been about the same speed on my various pcs. p200 64mb (win95/98), athlon 700 512mb(win 98), athlonxp 1800 256mb (win 98/2k), intel fancy 2ghz laptop 512mb (win xp).

Obviously if I tried running all the stuff I run on my current pc on my first system, it would just fall on its arse, but the general speed of windows just seems constant.

Windows 95 - shit. Windows 98 - better, but shit, Windows 2k - a lot better, but still shit, Windows XP - not really noticebly better than 2k, but looks a bit prettier and gets more support. Still shit.

Grr, I wish they didn't have such a fucking huge monopoly, then maybe they would try and do something about Windows being shit.

I bet Linux, BeOS and all the others are just as shit. 

I mean Windows never FEELS like its running any faster. I still get long pauses when opening simple apps like windows explorer from time to time, there are still huge bugs with displaying folders (like when you delete one and it stays there, then you click on it and Windows says that it has been deleted and does nothing about it. refresh doesn't clear it either. WTF) and trying to connect to a network that isn't avilable pretty much hangs explorer for 5 minutes (at least it doesn't take windows with it these days).

Basically it's still a piece of shit. The improvements that have been made between the various verions feel so small to me. God knows how much money I have spent on this crap, but requisite software. It sucks. 

their graphical user interfaces are a bit slower... and don't even start about the mac, even the mouse lags there! 

Hi, resident Mac zealot (not) chiming in.

and don't even start about the mac, even the mouse lags there!

I think OS X is a bit over-the-top in the GUI but not so much. If you're witnessing mouse lag I'm guessing the comp is running OS X with less than optimal RAM. OS X 10.2.8 runs quite fine on 256 MB for me, but when several apps are open, CPU priority* gets fuzzy and things start to take longer. Haven't really experienced mouse problems, though.

*I've read of a UNIX command that will improve this by dedicating the CPU to whichever particular app is in focus, being used - rather than it tailoring to all the crap in the background unnecessarily. 

i partly disagree.
windows95 was good at the time. innovative and much better than 3.1.
windows98 was shit, indeed. always. nevertheless i used it for a long time (yeah, i know....).
now, they are just antiques that shouldn't be installed on any computer any more.
xp was the first operation system that i felt more or less comfortable with (once it was configured correctly) and compared to the others it really is (feels) faster imho.
i know what you mean, though, and i think the problem is not the os itself - at least not solely - but the additional software. hardware is constantly improved, operation systems can handle more and more stuff at once, so the software companies release programs that are hardly optimised for speed. good examples are the norton tools - they eat ressources like crazy and still don't offer better service than other programs.
and, naturally, the more of that non-optimised software runs simultaneously the slower everything becomes.

i think it's still a long way to an ultimately satisfying computer experience concerning the problems you mentioned... 

In my opinion, there is no question that XP was/is a significant improvement over previous windows builds.