Anyone expecting this one? Should be released in March, for PC . I've only discover the series myself in the last year or so, and I find the game-play very addictive, it must be the inner conquer/ruling instinct man has.
Expecting it to be good as Medieval II I'm playing at the moment, where the only thing I hate (so far) is the Pope, as he doesn't let me teach the damn French some manners, I made you Pope show some respect and be a puppet! Well, the AI is a bit passive in battles, but it just might be me being impatient.
More than a Pope free environment, and maybe a better AI. I'm really really interested to see how firearms and unit formations work (or worked) on the battlefield, I've always thought it as the silliest way to have a fight, standing there waiting to be shot at. I just can't wait to see how it's like. Also, as a totally new feature it has naval battles, as those were a important aspect on 18th to 19th century warfare, should also be interesting and spectacular, and very heavy on your machine I guess.
Well, it's good for people who don't have the experience or knowledge about computers and don't have the time or mind to learn all that stuff you might bump into and only use it for Internet and paying bills. My parents have a Mac so I don't need to be taking care of that computer, it has been working flawlessly with no hassles since it was out of the box.
Oh, could think another reason to like Mac, battery time. My HP can barely do 2 hours while the Macbook does almost 3 times that. That just might be worth paying twice the money.
Only good feature Macs have is the trackpad and that they suit for old people as they are rather idiot proof.
If you don't want to have a Mac, I'd pick the HP. You get the most hardware for your money and don't end up with an Acer which always feel a bit cheap, and apparently have reliability and warranty (at least here) issues. That Packard Bell is not an option either, 1 GB memory and 80 GB hard drive just doesn't cut it these days, even if it was dirt cheap.
It's surprising how many people think that slow steady acceleration means smaller fuel consumption. Even more people seem to be in hurry to go fast to stop on red lights, which is just silly, as getting to move again always takes the most fuel.
Driving economically can be fun and not as dreadfully boring as it may sound. It's a game of not trying to stop, reading the traffic and sportish accelerations.
I really doubt that. Now that the designs are more restricted there's less variables to get wrong, so I'd suspect the cars will be more closer. Only team which could have advantage early on the season might be Williams as they started their car development earlier, but it's hard to say how that will last if at all. Keep in mind that the lap time difference between the front runners and backmarkers were between just 1-2 seconds per lap last year, when Minardi used to be 4 seconds behind at it's best. If the new regulations do what they are supposed to, that gap should be even closer now.
I don't understand why they should ban the shark fin. It does something but also exposes the handling to side winds, so you gain but lose some.
Besides, it's always interesting to see what each team thinks as the best solution and regulations are already making the cars look more the same. Rules making them look even more the same would be silly.