Most of the bans are actually just warnings.

Mods was online at the time since i seen Conegamer in here already, and i reported that comment well before he came in as well.  And the person who started it should have been banned yet the blame was put on Goatseye which is the person who was baited.  The person who started it got off with a warning.  Im not blaming all the mods but both Conegamer and Carl i believe didnt handle it the way it should have been.  Conegamer should have eliminated it immediately asnd decided not to.  Carl banned the wrong person, and gave a warning to the perpetrator.  Either both gets banned, both gets warned, but at most you at least ban the perpetrator and not the one who was baited.

This isn't the place for such discussion, PM the relevant moderators (in this case Carl and I) or the head mod (Axum) with your questions. There's already been warnings in the thread from two other mods, so stay on topic or risk moderation yourself.

Having said that, we were discussing it before and you've got to take into account moderation history. Goatseye has been moderated many times before so gets a ban, whereas 2008Procharged has had no moderations on file so gets a warning. That was the decision we came to, and it is the fairest all-round.

Consider this; two users post the exact same flaming comment but one has a history of bans (up to 7 days let's say) and the other has no history. For the first user, they'd get a 10 day ban most likely, but the secondary user would get a warning only. That's similar to the scenario we have here, hence the judgement made.

If you'd like to discuss further, as I said please PM us (and don't make the title "???" either as you can't open those) rather than derailing the thread further.

Gears always had good graphics, no reason to suspect it won't be the same in the future.

I was hoping for Gears to become a multiplat :/ Pity MS still has its fingers on the franchise. I've finished Gears 1 on my PC and loved the game.

Each eye, in principle sees 30fps in a 60fps film. 30fps is 15 fps per eye. But from your experience i'm sure you realised that a 60 fps game looks better and more fluid than a 30fps one. I saw some articles saying we can see up to 200fps oddly enough, but i never managed to see much of a difference past 60, except that the game ran faster.

I just noticed zekkyo gave a very detailed and correct post on the issue, so consider this one just my personal experience.

we dont have a set frame rate, thats the issue, the number of individual frames you can percieve is different for everyone and the duration each frame takes in time is entirely fluid too, as such we percieve differences in framerate between 30 and 60 quite easilly, and many people can tell the difference between 60 and 120, some even 120-200, reliably.

best way to imagine it is, imagining using 3d glasses with a dodgy IR unit on your display, not quite syncing to the glasses, so even though the shutter on the glasses is doing its job, its not quite in sync, some frames are lost, some are seen but the overall wouldnt be 100%

that lack of sync is why we can tell the difference, even for people who in technical terms can only "SEE 30fps"

Good, now that Clusterfuck-22/04/2014 is over, we can probably get a discussion in here.

I always liked gears on 360 not for the visuals which were pretty damn good, but dat chainsaw gun! I like making things go into pieces >:)

Also, has any other studio gotten the AAA label without ever making a game other than Black Tusk?

Wow... 3 pages of this?

It's ok people. The game will be talked up by the people making it, no matter who made it. Go pick on Aliens: Colonial Marines or something that actually known to suck. Not a game to be released in 2015 or 2016...

Respawn?