Dec 13th 2010 9:28PM The only way they could meet your demands would be to implement far more extensive character customization options along the lines of Champions Online, allowing you to modify your waist size, breast size, height, and so on with a thousand different sliders.
But I've played Champions Online. I've seen a lot of the female avatars people make there. I haven't seen many "ugly" ones.
The question is whether or not it would make sense for them to invest the substantial time and effort into developing those sort of features. If the vast majority of the population is going to choose tall, skinny, pretty females and big, bulky guys (and they do know what percentage of their players choose these options) then it wouldn't be worth the resources necessary to develop those features to appeal to a very small portion of the fan base.
You don't help your argument any by trying to project your opinion onto everyone else. If you personally want a fat, nasty, troll woman with three nipples and back acne that's perfectly fine but it's apparent that you are in the minority and most people would never choose those kinds of physical traits even if they were available.
Dec 13th 2010 9:14PM @roseclown
The fact you don't have a personal affinity for the design of this model makes you lose faith in humanity? Either you're exaggerating for dramatic effect or you need to take a step back and seriously reconsider your priorities.
Dec 6th 2010 10:47PM I love lamp.
Dec 6th 2010 7:00PM Wulf, you're a funny guy.
"What does availability have to do with the price of tea in China? If they can't provide enough cards, the uninformed public should pay the price?"
If suddenly tea became very hard to come by in China the price would go up. The more unavailable a desirable thing is the more it will cost. This almost always happens with video cards right after a product launch, and it's usually not the fault of the manufacturer. The initial supply is sold for roughly the MSRP and when that supply starts to dry up retailers start charging more because the MSRP is a *suggested* price. When more supply is available the prices come back down. That's how the market works.
The rest of your post is just a joke. You're by far the biggest "fanboy" posting in these comments, going to great lengths to skew facts and spread FUD to shine a more favorable light on Nvidia. Calling everyone else names for not sharing your obvious preference is a sad move by a desperate man. Or woman. Or child. You could really be any of the three.
Dec 6th 2010 5:44PM You didn't even link to anything specific, but the benchmark summary chart for the 2009 High Quality rankings has an AMD card in the top position and the same summary in the 2010 HQ chart has AMD solution taking the top 4 positions. You've also said elsewhere in these comments that the 5970 is hundreds of dollars more than a 580 GTX which is false.
AMD had the top performing single GPU, dual-GPU, and multi-card solutions for over a year, only being dethroned less than a month ago by the 580 GTX. They've been winning the price:performance battle for much longer than that.
The 580 GTX seems to be an excellent card and it may even be worth the price premium for people who want the absolute best performance and to whom expense is no obstacle so I don't really understand why you feel the need to spread misinformation and reinvent history. Unless of course you just actually don't have any idea what you're talking about, which I'm starting to believe.
Dec 6th 2010 4:20PM Wulf must be collecting a nice fat green paycheck.
AMD cards held the performance crown for ages, starting way back with the 4800 line. Only very recently (the 580 GTX you referenced was just released last month) did Nvidia take the single-GPU crown over an AMD line that had been around for over a year, and even that won't last as the 6900 release is just around the corner.
If you factor price into the equation AMD comes out even better. A GTX 580 is retailing for over $500 whereas you can get a 5970 for almost $100 less or a 5870 for $200-$300 less.
Nov 30th 2010 1:31PM I postulate that your speculation is mistaken.
Nov 18th 2010 11:07PM So much hate and hostility here. I feel like I'm watching Glenn Beck. Why does everyone who feels differently than you or had a different experience or maybe just remembers things differently have to be a fool or a liar? Why can't you just be two people who disagree?
For my part, I played all the way through vanilla, TBC, and WotLK from beginning to end and I can honestly say that with a combination of non-Sunwell level 70 raid epics, quest rewards, craftables, and rep rewards our guild had tanks, healers, and DPS capable of running Wrath heroics without issue as SOON as we hit 80.
Wrath heroics may have been, relatively speaking, far more difficult then than they are now. But they were also, relatively speaking, far easier then than TBC heroics or level 60 dungeons were when being run by players just hitting the appropriate level cap.
My point being that Wrath heroics don't just seem easier due to gear inflation. They were designed to be more forgiving than 5-man content had been previously. Whether you think it's a good thing that they were tuned to be less challenging or not is a matter of personal opinion that doesn't really warrant trying to reinvent the past or insulting others who didn't have an experience identical to yours.
Nov 17th 2010 4:44PM @Noyou
I must be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that if they had said and done absolutely nothing at all you would be perfectly happy, but because they are *only* giving you a free feat of strength you're upset? I understand feeling some disappointment if you were looking forward to a pet but to be angry over not being given something you were never promised in the first place makes me question your sanity.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty mad at you. I never received that large sum of cash and BMW you didn't say you were going to give me. If you keep this up I'll have to stop being your friend.