Maxy

Strangle enough I don't think they'll do Lesnar Vs The Streak. The angle is there but Lesnar isn't a good opponent for taker for a number of reasons.

1) Undertaker gets his opponents for WM on a strict rehearsal schedule, usually down at his personal gym. It's part of why Taker's WM matches are so good. Lesnar doesn't have the work ethic required to go through it.

 

I don't know if Lesnar has changed, but when he was in the UFC his training was ridiculous.... I remember seeing a few behind the scenes of him back before he was champion there and his work ethic was amazing.

Lmao may need to do that if we get down in the series

Lets do this!!!! 

YUKON DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I used to be a final cut guy but a combination of FCP X and working for a company that doesn't use it has pushed me toward Avid Media Conposer.

It does natively run on both but I find the overall experience to be smoother on a Mac. The program runs smoother, runs faster, and crashes less. Plus OS X, IMO just handles things better than windows. I don't feel like I have to constantly babysit my machines.

Again though, this is me. Not everyone is the same. I, as well as many, will never go back to PC. There are plenty of people though that are adamantly against everything Mac and that's fine too.

I've desperately been looking for a new video editing program and am having problems finding one. I've tried Cyberlink Power Director, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premier and just don't feel comfortable in any of them. Is Avid Media Composer similar to Final Cut in terms of layout and user friendliness? I'm admittedly not proficient in video editing but was able to navigate and use Final Cut pretty well when I did use a Mac

That's great for you, and may very we'll be great for Higgins. I'm simply offering a perspective from the other side. I'm not attempting to kindle up a Mac vs. PC debate I'm simply stating my case, same as anyone on the PC side.

For what Higgins described, I wouldn't suggest a Mac either. I said that in my first post. I'm simply offering an opinion on them because he did bring up an interest and because I would personally never switch back to a PC.

That's just me though. For what I do a Mac works better and the OS X ecosystem makes my personal workflow more efficient.

Definitely some things Macs are great for, and I prefer Final Cut to any video editing program I've used on PC. I'd love to get my hand on Final Cut for Windows as I'm extremely comfortable in it. 

Build quality.

 

Equal parts a mac and a PC will cost roughly the same price, I’ve tested it before. Yes, if you just look at the spec sheet (8GB of RAM, i7, etc) you won’t visibly see a difference but if you look at the actual parts you will. PC manufacturers will ALWAYS cheap out on 1-2 pieces in order to get the price down. They’ll use weaker processors or less reliable RAM or less reliable motherboards. ANYTHING to drop the price point down.

 

That’s not even counting just the quality of screens, Plastic vs. Aluminium, etc. Apple doesn’t charge more “for the name” they charge more for the quality of product. OS X runs stronger and better than windows and the hardware is not only bought to be individually strong but also put together so that it all works in unison. PC’s don’t offer that. They offer the cheapest parts thrown together to function.

 

I’m not saying anyone who doesn’t think they need a mac should buy one, I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is that claiming macs are expensive “for the name” is frankly just being un-informed.

Meh, as someone who's pretty familiar with computers and is quite technically inclined (As it's my job) and someone who's used both new Macs and new windows computers I can say that I don't find that to be true. I saw nothing in a Mac that justified the price difference. The screen is great and all but it's not a selling point for me, I'd prefer to use my own screen. Yes they may use less reliable parts if you're buying a cheap or bargain PC. But most sites allow you to customize your PC down to a tee which I did with mine. I didn't even go all out because it's for work and I've got a great computer that does literally everything I need without any problems. It's all preference. To me I wouldn't shell out the extra because I don't find the actual product to be worth the price point personally 

 

 

Don't make your choice based on Windows 8. Its literally the exact same thing as Windows 7 but with the tiles at the beginning and the start function being at the main screen. 

And with 2-3 programs and setting changes you'll never need to see the tiles again. I haven't seen the tiles since my first day with Windows 8

As someone who's used both Mac and Windows I would never recommend a Mac to someone personally. Macs are overpriced PCs sold at high prices based solely on their names. I don't buy into "It's lasting longer" because I've had PC's for 5+ years with 0 problems with them. There's really nothing to justify the price difference between Mac and PC. I just recently bought a new computer for work strictly and got a relatively up to date computer 8gigs of ram, I5 ect, and it's an HP for under $600. For the same specs you're looking at well over $1000 for an Mac based solely on the name. 

Windows 8 is nothing wrong with it if you're remotely technically inclined. If you're not good with computers at all (And the fact that you're on a sim hockey league says you're at least somewhat inclined on the internet) then Windows 8 is fine. 8.1 made it a bit better too, Win Key+X is the most useful thing I've seen in a long time for what I do for work. For under $1000 you can get a computer that will be able to play really any game you want for years to come comfortably.

That's what I'm talking about! Lets do this boooooys!

For anyone who shops at Amazon, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is the deal of the day, $39.99  and with Prime, free 2 day shipping. Can't beat that price. I picked it up on PS4, never played it on PS3 so stoked to see it on Next Gen

I would argue BF is much more realistic than the other titles, respectively of course.  It's clearly not comparable to joining the armed forces.  CoD is strictly an arcade style FPS in my opinion.

BF in terms of the engine and physics and whatnot is pretty realistic. The bullet drop and wind effects are pretty solid and the map size and whatnot is much but obviously the things like using a drill and assuming it will fix a blown up tank, or that everyone's going to run to one area, lie down and watch a flag raised to call the point there own, isn't exactly realistic. But overall the engine itself is pretty realistic.

Battlefield isn't even remotely realistic either. They're videogames people, the closest you can probably get without actually serving would be ARMA.

Yeah Arma or America's Army is the most realistic by far

Game 5: Iron Eagles vs Royals 

                    3                      1

NA Game 3: Rush vs Wild

EU Game 3: Iron Eagles vs Royal

NA Game 4: Rush vs Wild

EU Game 4: Iron Eagles vs Royals

I dabbled in Hearthstone a little bit, it was okay but I haven't invested much in it yet.  Some of my friends are always playing it when I log onto battle.net.

Yeah starting up is the hardest part because people have such powerful decks and things that make it hard to play for a new person I spent like $10 I think? For a few packs just because I got a late start in the beta, but for $10 (Since the game was free) I've gotten a ton of value out of it. 

It might be the game that finally wipes COD out, but it's not going to become Call of Duty. Respawn is a small team of about 60 developers, is independent and owns the IP. Basically, exactly like Infinity Ward until Activision bought them and screwed the whole deal. And it's sales will be somewhat neutered by Microsoft moneyhatting the PS4/PS3 versions out of existence, especially since the PS4 is just extending an already notable lead on the Xbox One.

 

The game is honestly fantastic. It's just flat out fun to play, and that's what a game should be.

I just don't see myself enjoying it tbh, not my style. I don't like the mech combat and it reminds me too much of halo in the FPS style. (Which I don't like Halo either) I much prefer a game like Last of Us' multiplayer as it's more team based. I despise respawn, takes any skill out of the game imo. Some of my favorite games ever were military shooters but the lack of respawn made the games phenomenal and you actually had to rely on your team and teamwork.

Playing quietly but we're winning so that's all that matters

Kesler is the stupidest person I've seen type on the internet in the last week. Congratulations Kesler.

 

Also for anyone who knows anything, the team that made Titanfall INVENTED Call of Duty. It's a natural progression of those games that went on to do zero innovations and milk that franchise. They added more mobility, and managed to meld mechs and a futuristic setting with balance. The neat thing to me is also how most of the maps at least in the Beta feel middle sized. Enough chaos going on but it isn't small maps ala COD or overly large maps ala Battlefield. Their biggest issue is going to be trying to get sales though. The install bases just aren't that high. Sure it is releasing on 360 later, but with only 3 Million Xbox Ones sold and on PC requiring Origin (which is awful in comparison to Steam) it'll be harder to move units on day one. In a year though this game will likely have tons of sales. 

Titanfall will be the new COD imo. It'll sell tons (Maybe not right away but eventually) a ton of people will play it, after a month it'll be same old, same old. then eventually it'll just be a game that is tired and redundant. 

Thats not real but someone in real life could actually be using a guard dog or calling in a airstrike....

But the whole game is not realistic, the only thing realistic about the game is the fact that they're humans and they're carrying somewhat real guns. That's it. Nothing else, the squads are smaller than a real military squad, the action is incredibly laughably fake, they're running around not using cover, they're just throwing grenades out pretty much anywhere... And the biggest unrealistic thing, the biggest ever. It's fucking respawn. Lol

If you want a real military sim, that's realistic, play ARMA 3 or America's Army. That's as close as we're going to get to military simulation. With games like Operation Flashpoint being probably the closest thing on consoles. 

The one thing COD has is, it is real and could potentially happen (subtract allien mode and zombies), Titanfall is as fake as it gets being all futuristic and all.

Yeah because when soldiers kill 5 people they get to call in a guard dog who will just kill people. Then when you get 3 more you can call in precision air strikes at will. And soldiers spend the majority of their time sprinting around and jump sniping with bolt action rifles. COD is as unrealistic as any game out there. But I'm not interested in Titanfall either I think it looks pretty awful myself. I don't like mechs. 

But has anyone played Hearthstone? Open beta from Blizzard and not something I would normally be interested in but it's incredibly fun. Also been playing Outlast on the PS4 which is incredibly creepy, and Minecraft on PS4 is great fun.

Alex Semin's Purse  and I'd put Lemieux over Jagr too

I'm gonna not continue with Semin because fuck him

Sedin Sisters or Staal Brothers for better duo (Fuck Mark Staal... Jordan and Eric are the ones I'm referring to)

Stamkos but I love them both

Stamkos or Perry as a goal scorer

Marty St. Louis ainec.

Marty St. Louis or Theo Fleury for better little guy