Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Aemony

  1. This is simply because I lost track of it after having spent a couple of days reworking the template documentation among other things. I have, for a while now, intended to essentially move/replace/merge the Editing Guide with the actual template documentations so the same stuff is present on both places. This is easier said than done though, as I need to go through all existing information on both pages and consolidate them as they have had a few years to drift away from one another in terms of what they document or the degree of information they provide. While also doing that, especially
  2. Wasn't that what broke the old plugin to begin with? It had a very simple parserfunction-style call that somehow was enough to break stuff that weren't even supposed to run at the same time.
  3. I don’t see why we shouldn’t try it out. I never did understand why we used a custom extension when there were multiple ones available. But perhaps it was a different time back in the day.
  4. That was primarily to prevent the section from taking up huge space on top of the article while still allowing it to grow to whatever space is deemed necessary by editors to properly document the various alternative methods available. I sorta fail to see the relevance of having an entirely new section dedicated to that right now. Does anyone actually choose what game to (re)play based on whether the cutscenes of the game are skippable or not? Right now the mention of that new sections and tracking the cutscenes sounds more like an attempt to validate moving the skip intro sectio
  5. “Essential” as a word is fine IMHO, and attempting to separate it into two is just going to cause more confusion. For patches, only the latest patch is usually the one being included, and it is essential because updating a game to the latest version /is/ essential. It doesn’t matter what the patch itself includes, just that information on how to update an outdated copy is available. Our articles are also meant to reflect the latest patches alone, and so outdated fixes are removed from the article when a patch have fixed them. So to actually read the article properly, an updated copy is
  6. Pretty much what Mirh said. When I was a wee bit newbie just starting out with PCGW editing I also brought it up and was subsequently outvoted. But nowadays I would actually argue to leave it alone over moving it. It is often mentioned as one of the key enjoyments of PCGW, meaning it should be featured more prominently than stuffed away in a rarely seen section. As Mirh mentioned it is also for many games the one fix/improvement we provided. And another, for me critical, reason to retain it as is is that it also serves a triple-purpose in basically: provides a basic and
  7. This, pretty much. The discussion, as short as one would be, could mostly be boiled down to whether a game was released before or after on a platform after said platform received support for achievements. If before, very rare to have support for achievements. If after, rare to not have support for achievements. Provided the game includes achievements on any other platform to begin with, of course.
  8. Yes, that’s how we implemented it at the time. To minimize disruption, the new option would, if implemented, require specifically writing DRM-free* in the GOG row for it to appear. Just typing “DRM-free” would work as it does today, basically. I’ve brought it up with other staff members on the Discord server and we’ll see where the discussion leads us.
  9. Thanks for adding the information to the page. There is a "GOG Galaxy" icon that can be used in the availability table which another user added shortly after your edit, although it normally isn't used. Up until today there's only two games that makes use of said "DRM": this game as well as Gwent: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/User:Aemony/Sandbox/List_of_GOG_Galaxy_games I'd probably prefer a DRM-free* icon instead with a wildcard to indicate there's some specific concerns regarding the supposed DRM-free nature of games, as we're using for e.g. Half-Life 2 on the Steam row: https:
  10. Version 1.0.0


    These are the decrypt tool Gibbed.SpecOpsTheLine.IniDecrypt.exe and encrypt tool Gibbed.SpecOpsTheLine.IniEncrypt.exe created by Rick/Gibbed (Twitter, GitHub) back in 2012 and first made public in this XeNTaX forum thread and retrieved as archived by Wayback Machine in December of 2015. Kudos to LowSpecGamer whom documented the Wayback Machine archive link on his video about the game. Instructions Download the decrypter. Unzip it in a handy folder. Such as %USERPROFILE%\Documents\My Games\SpecOps-TheLine\SRGame\Config\ Open the file you need to edit with Gib
  11. Oh, I actually found a Wayback Machine link that worked, on this YouTube video: You can download the tool from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20151212010138/https://mod.gib.me/specopstheline/inicrypt.zip
  12. Have you tried contacting what seems to be the original author, Rick Gibbed? * Twitter: https://twitter.com/gibbed * GitHub: https://github.com/gibbed It is possible he has an old copy laying around that could possibly be rehosted on PCGW.
  13. MX500 released in 2002 was an optical mouse, and Logitech first introduced "the world's first laser mouse" in 2004 with the MX1000, so you're probably thinking of some other model. I am surprised that people would recommend optical mice as I can't imagine any specific reason why they would be somehow "better" than laser mice. As for Razer, I typically keep away from their products as they have a history of being too costly for what usually ends up being of low quality. Looking into it, I did find this fluff piece on HP's Tech Takes to be illuminating (pun intended): Optical
  14. Do they even make optical mice nowadays still? I usually just goes for a G900 or G902 mouse from Logitech. It's wired and wireless performance is probably the best I've ever used and even its wireless performance beats a ton wired mice I've used over the last decade.
  15. Thanks for the confirmation that it was the case. We have a few changes planned to improve the registration flow that will, among other things, prevent this exact issue from occurring.
  16. Based on your previous display name (which I just changed to "nacho" to match your username here on the forums), I assume you had mistakenly typed in your mail address as your username initially and then changed it? We've had similar issues with users using @ in their username which isn't an allowed character in the wiki and so account creation on that end fails. Our sysadmin should be able to clear the traces from your initial username from the wiki which should solve the issue.
  17. The original upload had a typo in the password, and used 'pgcw' as the password instead of 'pcgw'. I've uploaded a new version that makes use of the correct password pcgw
  18. Based on the teaser they released like half a year ago, in an essence, yes, as it will run on CryEngine 5.6 (see the teaser at the end of the below tech trailer). The primary performance issue of Crysis was always that they optimized the engine for a future that didn't happen, and so it doesn't scale well at all. They solved that issue partially in Warhead, but even more in Crysis 2, and the optimization was what allowed Crysis 1 to eventually arrive to Xbox 360 and PS3 (where it was running on the same engine as Crysis 2 if I remember it correctly). So with CryEngine 5.6 behind the
  19. I've updated the label to say Steam Play (Linux) instead, and expanded the abbreviation somewhat:
  20. No, it's solely based on the architecture of your operating system. x64 versions of Windows require the 64-bit driver, and vice versa.
  21. If I remember it correctly, this was because I ran into various situations like these: The platform specific page didn't exist, or did not include relevant information (e.g. cover, screenshot, credits, etc). The game was available on multiple computer platforms, such as Linux, Macintosh, Windows, and/or Windows Apps, creating a situation where the question of which one to link is not easily answered. Linking to the "combined view" by default ended up being the easier and currently better approach. The current approach is also flexible enough to allows editors to define the sp
  22. That was added by a guest back in February: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Doom_3&type=revision&diff=938814&oldid=926948 I'd in general recommend opening a thread about it on the relevant talk page, https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Doom_3, as that will notify users subscribed to the page in question. Beyond that, no, those sorts of "issues" without proper context or references rarely remain long on the wiki. Without any references or more details about the issue, it's often impossible to validate the existence of the issue. For all we know, the
  23. Should hopefully be improved somewhat now. @snuxoll noticed that the "Most downloaded" widget that was present on the home page of the wiki, and basically the sidebar of every single page on the forum and files section, hammered the community database to kingdom come. I've removed that widget from all pages I could find it at, and immediately noticed a vast improvement in page load speeds across the board for the community site. Instead of waiting 10+ seconds to open even a really old thread, it now displays within a second or two.
  24. It is because of how the tag was introduced, how it relates to the WidescreenGamingForum (WSGF)'s metrics, and because of what the row has for alt text: There have been multiple discussions of how to better handle that row due to "4K" 4:3 games which technically aren't 4K due to not having the approximate horizontal resolution of 4,000 pixels, but still are basically relevant for that "4K" row anyway in all the ways that actually matter (it can run and function on a 4K monitor while still adhering to its original aspect ratio). We've yet reached a proper solution
  • Create New...