The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
so what will be best? PS3 XBOX REVOLOUTION DS or PSP?
Page:
chatterbox wrote:
> I think the X box 2 will be exactly the same as the x box just maybe
> smaller, i mean can you get better graphics without making it bigger.
> If they did make it bigger they should be ashamed to call it a games
> console its more like an acarde machine totaly not portable.
You do realise graphics cards/processors/memory are virtually all the same size?
> I think the X box 2 will be exactly the same as the x box just maybe
> smaller, i mean can you get better graphics without making it bigger.
> If they did make it bigger they should be ashamed to call it a games
> console its more like an acarde machine totaly not portable.
You do realise graphics cards/processors/memory are virtually all the same size?
I think the X box 2 will be exactly the same as the x box just maybe smaller, i mean can you get better graphics without making it bigger. If they did make it bigger they should be ashamed to call it a games console its more like an acarde machine totaly not portable.
*Dons raincoat*
Dringo wrote:
> That was it though, I was being clever by pointing it out but you
> didn't seem to "get it".
I was being cleverer but I dunno how.
*Wooshes everybody*
> That was it though, I was being clever by pointing it out but you
> didn't seem to "get it".
I was being cleverer but I dunno how.
*Wooshes everybody*
Is it an all-round *woosh* then?
Tphi wrote:
> Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning..
> It's one of those crazy things some of us are clever enough not to
> need to point out. :P
That was it though, I was being clever by pointing it out but you didn't seem to "get it".
> Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning..
> It's one of those crazy things some of us are clever enough not to
> need to point out. :P
That was it though, I was being clever by pointing it out but you didn't seem to "get it".
Tphi wrote:
>
> Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning..
Commie.
>
> Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning..
Commie.
Dringo wrote:
> I said yeah, oh and the fact it is a Zelda game.
>
> Because believe it or not, Final Fantasy and Zelda are not the same
> game.
Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning.. It's one of those crazy things some of us are clever enough not to need to point out. :P
> I said yeah, oh and the fact it is a Zelda game.
>
> Because believe it or not, Final Fantasy and Zelda are not the same
> game.
Funnily enough I was kinda taking that as red from the beginning.. It's one of those crazy things some of us are clever enough not to need to point out. :P
You said "I gather the only difference is that Four Swords is fun in single player"... or something similar.
I said yeah, oh and the fact it is a Zelda game.
Because believe it or not, Final Fantasy and Zelda are not the same game.
I said yeah, oh and the fact it is a Zelda game.
Because believe it or not, Final Fantasy and Zelda are not the same game.
Dringo wrote:
> I didn't mean that. What I mean is that it is like a Zelda game and
> not a Final Fantasy game.
Nah mate, Zelda games are actually fun in single-player.
We're going round in circles here. :S
> I didn't mean that. What I mean is that it is like a Zelda game and
> not a Final Fantasy game.
Nah mate, Zelda games are actually fun in single-player.
We're going round in circles here. :S
Page: