The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Its like a mathematical formula that won't ever be worked out. I have my dad for example.
He will always tell me that I should stop playing games and go and collect a social life. I tell him I have one. To prove this point wrong I invited many of my friends around to show him. He was impressed at me (as Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling place...
...does this prove a point. No not really one I can mention to do with gaming, however he admitted that he will begin to think I am gay unless I got with the one in the red top.
Sorry... drifting from the topic. Back to the point.
I reckon as a statistic 90% of parents have never played their sons/daughters console with them for a period of time (a couple of hours).
Its not the fact that they don't have the time. Its the fact they don't want to have the time because they simply see it as a waste of any time they could have to spend doing housework or work.
Parents and games have always been what many have seen as a definate 'no' or maybe even an 'er-no'. Maybe we have been looking at it all wrong. I wouldn't have all my original NES and SNES games without my parent/s.
Its what we didn't see that makes it so uninteresting:
A child will use a parent to get a game through presents and bribing,
'but Mummy, if you buy this I will be the bestest boy ever'.
And a parent will use a game to bribe a child,
'unless you do your homework now you will not play Nintendo for a whole week'.
Now, in terms of maths, they cancel each other out. What do we have left from the original equation?
Parents + Games + Childen= ?
Now is:
Games= ?
so:
Games=Games
Games are left, that means games can never be cancelled from this scenario, games will be around forever... muhahahaha
That was probably the most useless thing you have ever read. Why I wrote it? because I am bored, looking for originality but can't find it in this groundhog infested place.
Thanks for...erm... reading?
er-yes
{The Regular Notable}
He will always tell me that I should stop playing games and go and collect a social life. I tell him I have one. To prove this point wrong I invited many of my friends around to show him. He was impressed at me (as Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling place...
...does this prove a point. No not really one I can mention to do with gaming, however he admitted that he will begin to think I am gay unless I got with the one in the red top.
Sorry... drifting from the topic. Back to the point.
I reckon as a statistic 90% of parents have never played their sons/daughters console with them for a period of time (a couple of hours).
Its not the fact that they don't have the time. Its the fact they don't want to have the time because they simply see it as a waste of any time they could have to spend doing housework or work.
Parents and games have always been what many have seen as a definate 'no' or maybe even an 'er-no'. Maybe we have been looking at it all wrong. I wouldn't have all my original NES and SNES games without my parent/s.
Its what we didn't see that makes it so uninteresting:
A child will use a parent to get a game through presents and bribing,
'but Mummy, if you buy this I will be the bestest boy ever'.
And a parent will use a game to bribe a child,
'unless you do your homework now you will not play Nintendo for a whole week'.
Now, in terms of maths, they cancel each other out. What do we have left from the original equation?
Parents + Games + Childen= ?
Now is:
Games= ?
so:
Games=Games
Games are left, that means games can never be cancelled from this scenario, games will be around forever... muhahahaha
That was probably the most useless thing you have ever read. Why I wrote it? because I am bored, looking for originality but can't find it in this groundhog infested place.
Thanks for...erm... reading?
er-yes
{The Regular Notable}
My mum used to play my Nes and Snes with me. Now thats something that you don't see everyday.
Nowadays you see parents telling their children not to do this and do that. They say donít spend all that time on the Internet, its no good for you. Dad/Mum I donít see you having fun chatting and finding out loads of cool stuff and playing games with people in Australia.
They say donít do this because they read all this crap in the papers saying its bad its all bad. It all an infested pile of rubbish. Now who write this sort of stuff? Writers. Why? Because they are told to write a statement saying the internet is a bad cruel place. No no no no no no no!
They say ìDonít play that, its too violentî Dad/Mum do you see me trying to kill the rest of the family because a game has influenced me? No. I bet when we all go to school the parents all phone each other up and have a massive N64, DC, PS2 party! I bet they do!
Then they say that if we want a game, we have to pay for it. ONLY because you want to play on it while we are slaving away at school!
Say, a motorbike. ìNoî You canít have one. ìWhat?!î You reply ìNo, they are to dangerousî
(Convo ends)
Why? Have they ever owned a motorbike? Probably not. They read about the young 17 year old who just passed his test has died because he fell off his motorbike. Yes. Granted. But you donít hear about the other 1000+ 17 year olds who didnít, do you?
They (Parents :D) Always see the bad sides of things. I bet when they were younger they wanted something. Just like we do right now.
Then we have the cool parents/relatives. I asked my Grandpa who is nearing 80 and runs 2 miles a day about a motorcycle, He said that they are cheaper to insure, run, tax and buy. Basically he gave the good points of a motorbike. He didnít mention getting wet on rainy days though :D
He would almost for definite help me out in buying a motorbike and giving me tips (He has had a few in his time) and servicing it. He is one cool guy. My Dad on the other hand, would not. He has never owned a motorbike and never will. He sees them as dangerous speed machines. ìSHUT UP!î I told him :D Being the rood boy that I am. If he had a motorbike maybe if would have been different.
That the difference between my dad and me gramps. My gramps will tell me the good things and the bad. Like falling off etc but my dad would just argue the toss about saying that I couldnít have one.
The point is, not many parents have experienced a motorbike, games console etc so they donít want to know but if they had, I bet it would be a whole different storyÖ
Like we would be telling them to go to bed because they have work tomorrow, and they will just ignore us because of the sound of a Porsche in GT3 :D
Nowadays you see parents telling their children not to do this and do that. They say donít spend all that time on the Internet, its no good for you. Dad/Mum I donít see you having fun chatting and finding out loads of cool stuff and playing games with people in Australia.
They say donít do this because they read all this crap in the papers saying its bad its all bad. It all an infested pile of rubbish. Now who write this sort of stuff? Writers. Why? Because they are told to write a statement saying the internet is a bad cruel place. No no no no no no no!
They say ìDonít play that, its too violentî Dad/Mum do you see me trying to kill the rest of the family because a game has influenced me? No. I bet when we all go to school the parents all phone each other up and have a massive N64, DC, PS2 party! I bet they do!
Then they say that if we want a game, we have to pay for it. ONLY because you want to play on it while we are slaving away at school!
Say, a motorbike. ìNoî You canít have one. ìWhat?!î You reply ìNo, they are to dangerousî
(Convo ends)
Why? Have they ever owned a motorbike? Probably not. They read about the young 17 year old who just passed his test has died because he fell off his motorbike. Yes. Granted. But you donít hear about the other 1000+ 17 year olds who didnít, do you?
They (Parents :D) Always see the bad sides of things. I bet when they were younger they wanted something. Just like we do right now.
Then we have the cool parents/relatives. I asked my Grandpa who is nearing 80 and runs 2 miles a day about a motorcycle, He said that they are cheaper to insure, run, tax and buy. Basically he gave the good points of a motorbike. He didnít mention getting wet on rainy days though :D
He would almost for definite help me out in buying a motorbike and giving me tips (He has had a few in his time) and servicing it. He is one cool guy. My Dad on the other hand, would not. He has never owned a motorbike and never will. He sees them as dangerous speed machines. ìSHUT UP!î I told him :D Being the rood boy that I am. If he had a motorbike maybe if would have been different.
That the difference between my dad and me gramps. My gramps will tell me the good things and the bad. Like falling off etc but my dad would just argue the toss about saying that I couldnít have one.
The point is, not many parents have experienced a motorbike, games console etc so they donít want to know but if they had, I bet it would be a whole different storyÖ
Like we would be telling them to go to bed because they have work tomorrow, and they will just ignore us because of the sound of a Porsche in GT3 :D
Gangster Hamster wrote:
> I agree with the virtual reality thing - the other one would be a little
> expensive as only 1 person could do it a time.
Hmmm... Not neccesarily
How about matrix style? Maybe
> not with a needle deep into the back of your head but some way to make your
> brain think you are doing something you are not. If your really believe you are
> doing something then it simply cannot get any more realistic. imagine what
> people will be able to do in 10 years!
Heh.
> I agree with the virtual reality thing - the other one would be a little
> expensive as only 1 person could do it a time.
Hmmm... Not neccesarily
How about matrix style? Maybe
> not with a needle deep into the back of your head but some way to make your
> brain think you are doing something you are not. If your really believe you are
> doing something then it simply cannot get any more realistic. imagine what
> people will be able to do in 10 years!
Heh.
I agree with the virtual reality thing - the other one would be a little expensive as only 1 person could do it a time.
How about matrix style? Maybe not with a needle deep into the back of your head but some way to make your brain think you are doing something you are not. If your really believe you are doing something then it simply cannot get any more realistic. imagine what people will be able to do in 10 years!
How about matrix style? Maybe not with a needle deep into the back of your head but some way to make your brain think you are doing something you are not. If your really believe you are doing something then it simply cannot get any more realistic. imagine what people will be able to do in 10 years!
Gangster Hamster wrote:
You really believe this? Wouldnt you
> have said the same when you saw the SNES then the playstation and then the N64?
How many ëstepsí do you think that gaming has taken since it began? Well the first step was (obviously enough) the birth of the home entertainment system. What was that? Well there are many answers to this. The Sinclair ZX81 is the one that springs to my mind but if you picked A) the Atari or B) the Commodore 64Ö then you have just won £16,000. Er, right. Well yes those three answers are all correct
So what was the next step? Well that would have to be the NES. Or Nintendo Entertainment System. This console revolutionised gaming as we (as a race) knew it. It also saw Mario brought forward from arcades to home consoles. Yep the NES was definitely where proper gaming began. What next? PCís. Yes they were built primarily for work etc but game manufacturers took advantage of the sheer power of the PC and re-revolutionised gaming. Actual flight simulations were made, Theme Park was born and gaming entered its Bronze Age.
Soon after PCs arrived and colonised the world, the SNES, Nintendoís follow up to the NES, was revealed to the world. The graphics were considered to be the best in the business and the all round playability of games was raised. I consider the SNES to home my favourite all time game. The Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening. The SNES had competition though. The Sega Megadrive was being sold worldwide on a massive scale and the Great Console Wars began. Who would have guessed that they would go on for more than a decade?
Then, gaming came to itís silver age. The PlayStation, N64 and Dreamcast. The PlayStation was the first ënext gení console. With games like Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto and Die Hard, the PlayStation hyped, advertised and pirated itís way to the position of king of consoles. The N64, released in 1997 brought us GoldenEye. The next step was then taken with the release of GoldenEye. A new playability level was reached. The graphics were silky smooth, the gameplay slick andÖ well it was James Bond!
The Dreamcast opened up a new window for the great lumbering giant of gaming to fall through. The Dreamcast of course brought us internet gaming. Yeah I know this was already available on PCs but it was a first for consoles. Unfortunately Sega have now spluttered and died. So, the final step that gaming is going to take will be completed with the release of the Xbox and the GameCube.
At this point I believe that gaming canít get any better. The periphilon will have been reached. Gaming will go into its golden stage. The graphics will look stunningly realistic and wonít be able to be improved. So, after gaming has reached its pinnacle, where the hell is it going to go next?
Well that question is one I have been pondering for a long time and I have come up with only two answers. Virtual Reality, this can be the only way that gaming can get any BETTER. The feeling of actually being there, being in game physically DOING the puzzle, swimming through the lakeÖetc. This is one way or the other is slightly more interesting. Or haywire. BizarreÖ. Call it what the hell you want. The other answer I came up with is slightly better than reality. Actual role-play. The scenery could be made or projected, the enemies would be played by people or employees of the company who are running the game. And you could take the title role. Costume and everything, sword shieldÖ everything. Obviously Iím describing how an adventure game would be. Shoot em ups would be twice as fun. Exactly the same, scenery enemies but with paintball guns. How fun would that be? Legging it around pretending to be James Bond with a paintball gun, catching Trevelyn and Jaws. Strategy games would be much more fun this way round. Imagine commanding a team of SWAT soldiers. Having maps and paintball guns, trying to work your way into a building. It would be bloominí brilliant!
Also this way, new genres could be introduced. Decent war games could be played. With proper scenarios. Played in woodland with certain obstacles and tasks it would be superb. Obviously though you couldnít go in with the heavy artillery. Like tanks, planes and the such, but it would still be brilliant.
Obviously not all game genres could be played like this though. Racing games would be impossible (Well, not impossible but very hard and very expensive to do) as would puzzlers. But I think that this is a small price to pay forÖ well, for what? Not Virtual Reality... It would be Reality Gaming. No computers would be involved so some may argue that it wouldnít be gaming. True it wouldnít be gaming, itíd be better than that. Itíd be real.
You really believe this? Wouldnt you
> have said the same when you saw the SNES then the playstation and then the N64?
How many ëstepsí do you think that gaming has taken since it began? Well the first step was (obviously enough) the birth of the home entertainment system. What was that? Well there are many answers to this. The Sinclair ZX81 is the one that springs to my mind but if you picked A) the Atari or B) the Commodore 64Ö then you have just won £16,000. Er, right. Well yes those three answers are all correct
So what was the next step? Well that would have to be the NES. Or Nintendo Entertainment System. This console revolutionised gaming as we (as a race) knew it. It also saw Mario brought forward from arcades to home consoles. Yep the NES was definitely where proper gaming began. What next? PCís. Yes they were built primarily for work etc but game manufacturers took advantage of the sheer power of the PC and re-revolutionised gaming. Actual flight simulations were made, Theme Park was born and gaming entered its Bronze Age.
Soon after PCs arrived and colonised the world, the SNES, Nintendoís follow up to the NES, was revealed to the world. The graphics were considered to be the best in the business and the all round playability of games was raised. I consider the SNES to home my favourite all time game. The Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening. The SNES had competition though. The Sega Megadrive was being sold worldwide on a massive scale and the Great Console Wars began. Who would have guessed that they would go on for more than a decade?
Then, gaming came to itís silver age. The PlayStation, N64 and Dreamcast. The PlayStation was the first ënext gení console. With games like Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto and Die Hard, the PlayStation hyped, advertised and pirated itís way to the position of king of consoles. The N64, released in 1997 brought us GoldenEye. The next step was then taken with the release of GoldenEye. A new playability level was reached. The graphics were silky smooth, the gameplay slick andÖ well it was James Bond!
The Dreamcast opened up a new window for the great lumbering giant of gaming to fall through. The Dreamcast of course brought us internet gaming. Yeah I know this was already available on PCs but it was a first for consoles. Unfortunately Sega have now spluttered and died. So, the final step that gaming is going to take will be completed with the release of the Xbox and the GameCube.
At this point I believe that gaming canít get any better. The periphilon will have been reached. Gaming will go into its golden stage. The graphics will look stunningly realistic and wonít be able to be improved. So, after gaming has reached its pinnacle, where the hell is it going to go next?
Well that question is one I have been pondering for a long time and I have come up with only two answers. Virtual Reality, this can be the only way that gaming can get any BETTER. The feeling of actually being there, being in game physically DOING the puzzle, swimming through the lakeÖetc. This is one way or the other is slightly more interesting. Or haywire. BizarreÖ. Call it what the hell you want. The other answer I came up with is slightly better than reality. Actual role-play. The scenery could be made or projected, the enemies would be played by people or employees of the company who are running the game. And you could take the title role. Costume and everything, sword shieldÖ everything. Obviously Iím describing how an adventure game would be. Shoot em ups would be twice as fun. Exactly the same, scenery enemies but with paintball guns. How fun would that be? Legging it around pretending to be James Bond with a paintball gun, catching Trevelyn and Jaws. Strategy games would be much more fun this way round. Imagine commanding a team of SWAT soldiers. Having maps and paintball guns, trying to work your way into a building. It would be bloominí brilliant!
Also this way, new genres could be introduced. Decent war games could be played. With proper scenarios. Played in woodland with certain obstacles and tasks it would be superb. Obviously though you couldnít go in with the heavy artillery. Like tanks, planes and the such, but it would still be brilliant.
Obviously not all game genres could be played like this though. Racing games would be impossible (Well, not impossible but very hard and very expensive to do) as would puzzlers. But I think that this is a small price to pay forÖ well, for what? Not Virtual Reality... It would be Reality Gaming. No computers would be involved so some may argue that it wouldnít be gaming. True it wouldnít be gaming, itíd be better than that. Itíd be real.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
For me, the release of the GameCube and the X-Box will be the
> end. In my mind, unless we create a piece of mind-blowing technology within the
> next few years, the launch of these two consoles will be as far as we can
> go.
You really believe this? Wouldnt you have said the same when you saw the SNES then the playstation and then the N64?
For me, the release of the GameCube and the X-Box will be the
> end. In my mind, unless we create a piece of mind-blowing technology within the
> next few years, the launch of these two consoles will be as far as we can
> go.
You really believe this? Wouldnt you have said the same when you saw the SNES then the playstation and then the N64?
People often speculate about The End. The proverbial "It". Usually itís talked about in context as to the end of the world. Other times about the end of the football season, or about the end of school. But what about the end of gaming?
Everything begins, so logically, everything must end. Life must end, The season must end, the day must end... Everything must end. Thereís no avoiding it. But when and howís the gaming world going to end?
Iíve been thinking about this for quite a while and, for once, I have actually come to a conclusion.
In my mind, gaming is almost at an end. Itís been going since the ZX81 and has progressed over the time itís been in existence. Weíve gone from 2D sprites to photo-realistic landscapes and gorgeously textured characters.
For me, the release of the GameCube and the X-Box will be the end. In my mind, unless we create a piece of mind-blowing technology within the next few years, the launch of these two consoles will be as far as we can go.
Graphics will be awesome, the gameplay will be as addictive as chewits and the games themselves will keep you entertained for longer than poking assorted objects with a pointy stick can.
If you want proof then look at the amount of original games being released. I donít mean original in the sense of a new game, I mean original in the sense of a totally new genre. I mean original in the sense of a completely new style of game being created. Innovative, inspired and fun. How many have their been in the past 3 years? Not many.
Game developers just arenít able to think up new ideas as theyíve all been done! Whatís the developers solution to this? "Just stick together another shooter to keep ëem happy"
Well, sooner of later, the gaming public are going to notice that the ames being thrown at them are just spin-offs or the same game as that other one but with different graphics and a different name.
If you want further proof look at these very forums!
How many original topics are posted? I can count 4 in the past month. 4 original topics on subjects that Iíve never heard discussed on here before.
Itís quite scary, but the gaming world is coming to an end.
Weíll just be clinging on to our memories until someone discovers a new dimension and a new console can be made. I donít know about you, but I donít see that happening any time soon.
Whether we like it or not, the end of the gaming world is nigh... For us anyway.
Iím sure that in 50 years time some people will find an old NES or something similar and say "Hey, thatís not a bad idea. Letís make one!" Then theyíll get up to the stage where weíre at now. Someone will be posting a topic just like this one on these very forums. Someone called ChristianBobPhat I shouldnít wonderÖ :-D
Then theyíll be at the stage weíll be at in a few months. The end of their gaming. And this will keep going on. A paradox will keep gaming alive until the end of the world itself. But for us... Itís nearly over.
RBS
(Iím in a bleak mood :-D)
Everything begins, so logically, everything must end. Life must end, The season must end, the day must end... Everything must end. Thereís no avoiding it. But when and howís the gaming world going to end?
Iíve been thinking about this for quite a while and, for once, I have actually come to a conclusion.
In my mind, gaming is almost at an end. Itís been going since the ZX81 and has progressed over the time itís been in existence. Weíve gone from 2D sprites to photo-realistic landscapes and gorgeously textured characters.
For me, the release of the GameCube and the X-Box will be the end. In my mind, unless we create a piece of mind-blowing technology within the next few years, the launch of these two consoles will be as far as we can go.
Graphics will be awesome, the gameplay will be as addictive as chewits and the games themselves will keep you entertained for longer than poking assorted objects with a pointy stick can.
If you want proof then look at the amount of original games being released. I donít mean original in the sense of a new game, I mean original in the sense of a totally new genre. I mean original in the sense of a completely new style of game being created. Innovative, inspired and fun. How many have their been in the past 3 years? Not many.
Game developers just arenít able to think up new ideas as theyíve all been done! Whatís the developers solution to this? "Just stick together another shooter to keep ëem happy"
Well, sooner of later, the gaming public are going to notice that the ames being thrown at them are just spin-offs or the same game as that other one but with different graphics and a different name.
If you want further proof look at these very forums!
How many original topics are posted? I can count 4 in the past month. 4 original topics on subjects that Iíve never heard discussed on here before.
Itís quite scary, but the gaming world is coming to an end.
Weíll just be clinging on to our memories until someone discovers a new dimension and a new console can be made. I donít know about you, but I donít see that happening any time soon.
Whether we like it or not, the end of the gaming world is nigh... For us anyway.
Iím sure that in 50 years time some people will find an old NES or something similar and say "Hey, thatís not a bad idea. Letís make one!" Then theyíll get up to the stage where weíre at now. Someone will be posting a topic just like this one on these very forums. Someone called ChristianBobPhat I shouldnít wonderÖ :-D
Then theyíll be at the stage weíll be at in a few months. The end of their gaming. And this will keep going on. A paradox will keep gaming alive until the end of the world itself. But for us... Itís nearly over.
RBS
(Iím in a bleak mood :-D)
Goatboy wrote:
> er-yes wrote:
He was impressed at me (as
> Goatboy would be) when twelve
> 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling
> place...
Bless you my son,
> you have done well.
*Bows. and leaves*
> er-yes wrote:
He was impressed at me (as
> Goatboy would be) when twelve
> 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling
> place...
Bless you my son,
> you have done well.
*Bows. and leaves*
er-yes wrote:
He was impressed at me (as
> Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling
> place...
Bless you my son, you have done well.
He was impressed at me (as
> Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling
> place...
Bless you my son, you have done well.
I am quite impressed you managed to get some algebra into the post. Appart from that i agree totally with, this was the most useless thing i ever read (except Far from the madding crowd which i read for GCSE)
Its like a mathematical formula that won't ever be worked out. I have my dad for example.
He will always tell me that I should stop playing games and go and collect a social life. I tell him I have one. To prove this point wrong I invited many of my friends around to show him. He was impressed at me (as Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling place...
...does this prove a point. No not really one I can mention to do with gaming, however he admitted that he will begin to think I am gay unless I got with the one in the red top.
Sorry... drifting from the topic. Back to the point.
I reckon as a statistic 90% of parents have never played their sons/daughters console with them for a period of time (a couple of hours).
Its not the fact that they don't have the time. Its the fact they don't want to have the time because they simply see it as a waste of any time they could have to spend doing housework or work.
Parents and games have always been what many have seen as a definate 'no' or maybe even an 'er-no'. Maybe we have been looking at it all wrong. I wouldn't have all my original NES and SNES games without my parent/s.
Its what we didn't see that makes it so uninteresting:
A child will use a parent to get a game through presents and bribing,
'but Mummy, if you buy this I will be the bestest boy ever'.
And a parent will use a game to bribe a child,
'unless you do your homework now you will not play Nintendo for a whole week'.
Now, in terms of maths, they cancel each other out. What do we have left from the original equation?
Parents + Games + Childen= ?
Now is:
Games= ?
so:
Games=Games
Games are left, that means games can never be cancelled from this scenario, games will be around forever... muhahahaha
That was probably the most useless thing you have ever read. Why I wrote it? because I am bored, looking for originality but can't find it in this groundhog infested place.
Thanks for...erm... reading?
er-yes
{The Regular Notable}
He will always tell me that I should stop playing games and go and collect a social life. I tell him I have one. To prove this point wrong I invited many of my friends around to show him. He was impressed at me (as Goatboy would be) when twelve 'lady friends' came around to my dwelling place...
...does this prove a point. No not really one I can mention to do with gaming, however he admitted that he will begin to think I am gay unless I got with the one in the red top.
Sorry... drifting from the topic. Back to the point.
I reckon as a statistic 90% of parents have never played their sons/daughters console with them for a period of time (a couple of hours).
Its not the fact that they don't have the time. Its the fact they don't want to have the time because they simply see it as a waste of any time they could have to spend doing housework or work.
Parents and games have always been what many have seen as a definate 'no' or maybe even an 'er-no'. Maybe we have been looking at it all wrong. I wouldn't have all my original NES and SNES games without my parent/s.
Its what we didn't see that makes it so uninteresting:
A child will use a parent to get a game through presents and bribing,
'but Mummy, if you buy this I will be the bestest boy ever'.
And a parent will use a game to bribe a child,
'unless you do your homework now you will not play Nintendo for a whole week'.
Now, in terms of maths, they cancel each other out. What do we have left from the original equation?
Parents + Games + Childen= ?
Now is:
Games= ?
so:
Games=Games
Games are left, that means games can never be cancelled from this scenario, games will be around forever... muhahahaha
That was probably the most useless thing you have ever read. Why I wrote it? because I am bored, looking for originality but can't find it in this groundhog infested place.
Thanks for...erm... reading?
er-yes
{The Regular Notable}