The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It amazes me every time I see someone say how the Gamecube is kewl because it is 'small and portable', and that none of the other consoles are. What planet are you on?
Every console is portable. PCs with their monitors and cables are not portable, but consoles are. The fact that the Gamecube is marginally smaller than other consoles does not mean it's the only portable console - it means it is marginally smaller, and that's all. They are all still very portable.
You seem to class the smallest console as the only console that is portable.
It's like saying only cars that can go over 200mph can move.
What will you lot say when someone releases a console that is smaller than the Gamecube? Will the Gamecube all of a sudden not be portable, just like the Xbox and PS2 now? The Dreamcast was also very small, yet no-one claimed that as a selling point. Why not? Because it already had enough selling points that were much more valid - first 128-bit console, only console with working online games, first true next-gen console etc. etc.
The Dreamcast didn't need half-@rsed pointless and trivial selling points like 'it's so small you can take it anywhere!' because that is true of ALL consoles.
Perhaps the fact that Nintendo fans claim the size of the console makes it portable or not and then claim this as a selling point should not come as a surprise, as the majority of Nintendo fans are aged to suit the console? If Nintendo build a console to look like a dinky toy, and then make games to suit my little sisters, I suppose they can't complain when their fan-base is so young that they come up with lame positive points like the size of the console.
Step over the the Microsoft, Sony or Sega forums and you see things like 'specifications' and 'hardware' being talked about. This is because these are in fact adult consoles. No-one expects Nintendo fans to care about such things, as they are too obsessed with their cutesy little fluffy game characters to notice 'frame rate' or 'polygon count', but what they DO expect is that you appreciate that some people actually care about the POWER inside their console, and not just if it's small enough to fit down your Jap's eye or not.
At the end of the day if you lot want to sit there and get erections over your small consoles then you can do that, but don't try using it as a reason behind 'mine is better than yours' as it just makes you look stupid.
How many people have been unable to take their Xbox to another room because it was too big? None. Do you hang your Gamecubes on your eye-lashes to play on it, or do you stick it under your TV, exactly where you would stick an Xbox? How many people can take their Gamecube to places an Xbox cannot go? None. Why is this? Because SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.
Every console is portable. PCs with their monitors and cables are not portable, but consoles are. The fact that the Gamecube is marginally smaller than other consoles does not mean it's the only portable console - it means it is marginally smaller, and that's all. They are all still very portable.
You seem to class the smallest console as the only console that is portable.
It's like saying only cars that can go over 200mph can move.
What will you lot say when someone releases a console that is smaller than the Gamecube? Will the Gamecube all of a sudden not be portable, just like the Xbox and PS2 now? The Dreamcast was also very small, yet no-one claimed that as a selling point. Why not? Because it already had enough selling points that were much more valid - first 128-bit console, only console with working online games, first true next-gen console etc. etc.
The Dreamcast didn't need half-@rsed pointless and trivial selling points like 'it's so small you can take it anywhere!' because that is true of ALL consoles.
Perhaps the fact that Nintendo fans claim the size of the console makes it portable or not and then claim this as a selling point should not come as a surprise, as the majority of Nintendo fans are aged to suit the console? If Nintendo build a console to look like a dinky toy, and then make games to suit my little sisters, I suppose they can't complain when their fan-base is so young that they come up with lame positive points like the size of the console.
Step over the the Microsoft, Sony or Sega forums and you see things like 'specifications' and 'hardware' being talked about. This is because these are in fact adult consoles. No-one expects Nintendo fans to care about such things, as they are too obsessed with their cutesy little fluffy game characters to notice 'frame rate' or 'polygon count', but what they DO expect is that you appreciate that some people actually care about the POWER inside their console, and not just if it's small enough to fit down your Jap's eye or not.
At the end of the day if you lot want to sit there and get erections over your small consoles then you can do that, but don't try using it as a reason behind 'mine is better than yours' as it just makes you look stupid.
How many people have been unable to take their Xbox to another room because it was too big? None. Do you hang your Gamecubes on your eye-lashes to play on it, or do you stick it under your TV, exactly where you would stick an Xbox? How many people can take their Gamecube to places an Xbox cannot go? None. Why is this? Because SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.
Page:
Whitestripes wrote:
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS,
>
> Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than graphics,
> which is a good start.
If you had the intelligence/ability to look back through the posts you would see I've been stating this all along, about once every 5 posts. Sadly it takes inbreeds about 20 times before something sinks in, so I celebrate - the 15th time I stated this you understood. HALLELUJAH!!!!
> BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an
> important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will, be
> many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and
> vice-versa.
Blind faith/stupidity is still rife though mate, but I'm sure a few months down the line and after shed-loads of inferior versions you will agree with me. When you do, kiss my @rse.
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS,
>
> Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than graphics,
> which is a good start.
If you had the intelligence/ability to look back through the posts you would see I've been stating this all along, about once every 5 posts. Sadly it takes inbreeds about 20 times before something sinks in, so I celebrate - the 15th time I stated this you understood. HALLELUJAH!!!!
> BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an
> important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will, be
> many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and
> vice-versa.
Blind faith/stupidity is still rife though mate, but I'm sure a few months down the line and after shed-loads of inferior versions you will agree with me. When you do, kiss my @rse.
I don't remember the story very much, but when I see the game running it shows things that bring back memories of the old games. ;-)) Like springy shoes and presents, etc. Can't wait till it comes out. Its gonna bring the 2 player co-op mode what the old games had too. It was always best in 2 player. :-)
Gar-J wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> Game design/play is much more important.
>
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS,
Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than graphics, which is a good start.
you
> STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are
> expecting today.
BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will, be many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and vice-versa. Someone mentioned earlier (Strafex?) that it all comes down to the people who are making it, and how bothered they can be to get the best of the machines. And I can assure that not all developers will.
> Strafex wrote:
> Game design/play is much more important.
>
> Agreed, and that's something I've been saying since the very start
> (yes you can go and look if you want). What you fail to see is that
> although YES, GAME DESIGN/PLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GRAPHICS,
Right so you've admited that gameplay is more important than graphics, which is a good start.
you
> STILL need power to produce the state of the art games that we are
> expecting today.
BUT, the X-box's superior power is so slight, that it isn't an important factor at all regarding this issue. There can, and will, be many games on the GC with better graphics than X-box games, and vice-versa. Someone mentioned earlier (Strafex?) that it all comes down to the people who are making it, and how bothered they can be to get the best of the machines. And I can assure that not all developers will.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Well I think your incredibly sad for coming into the Nintendo forum
> ranting about the size of the GC compared to the X-box. Your the
> typical example of why a lot of regulars hate newbies so much, they
> come on starting spam topics about stupid things such as this, without
> making a single decent post and refusing to accept anything except
> what you beleived when you started it. Newbies shouldn't be allowed to
> start topics...
If you take a look at our stats, I've posted about twice as many words as you and have been a member for over a longer. The only difference is you've posted more than 300 posts (on average about 10 words long) and I'm on about 298.
So no, I wouldn't call myself a newbie. YOU are the newbie, and it shows.
> Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used it
> *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
I don't need to insult you. You do it yourself every time you post.
> And once again you've missed the point of my post.. blah blah blah
Look. Your stupidity angers me. I see now why guns were invented. You claim you haven't seen any Ninties w@nking about the size of the GC. I have already stated about 4 times, and other people have said so too, that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SEE THIS is go to a Sony or Microsoft forum. Now, do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d? Go there and L-O-O-K you I-D-I-O-T.
> Well I think your incredibly sad for coming into the Nintendo forum
> ranting about the size of the GC compared to the X-box. Your the
> typical example of why a lot of regulars hate newbies so much, they
> come on starting spam topics about stupid things such as this, without
> making a single decent post and refusing to accept anything except
> what you beleived when you started it. Newbies shouldn't be allowed to
> start topics...
If you take a look at our stats, I've posted about twice as many words as you and have been a member for over a longer. The only difference is you've posted more than 300 posts (on average about 10 words long) and I'm on about 298.
So no, I wouldn't call myself a newbie. YOU are the newbie, and it shows.
> Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used it
> *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
I don't need to insult you. You do it yourself every time you post.
> And once again you've missed the point of my post.. blah blah blah
Look. Your stupidity angers me. I see now why guns were invented. You claim you haven't seen any Ninties w@nking about the size of the GC. I have already stated about 4 times, and other people have said so too, that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO SEE THIS is go to a Sony or Microsoft forum. Now, do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d? Go there and L-O-O-K you I-D-I-O-T.
savatt1668 wrote:
> Whitestripes wrote:
> I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the
> Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
>
> I think it was going to be a Dreamcast game, but with that console
> going out the window, Microsoft quickly got in and got it as an
> exclusive to the X-Box.
Oh I see, it's something about them in a junkyard or something isn't it?
> Whitestripes wrote:
> I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the
> Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
>
> I think it was going to be a Dreamcast game, but with that console
> going out the window, Microsoft quickly got in and got it as an
> exclusive to the X-Box.
Oh I see, it's something about them in a junkyard or something isn't it?
Tyla wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as
> there
> were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
>
> Can you remeber the thread?
It was something like 'post your portfolio'.
> Gar-J wrote:
> Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as
> there
> were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
>
> Can you remeber the thread?
It was something like 'post your portfolio'.
Gar-J wrote:
>
>
> Although I no longer expect you to understand even the simplest
> English, I have already said about 50,000 times that I am not an Xbox
> fanboy. You don't need to be an Xbox fanboy to know that an Xbox has
> more raw power then the GC. The very fact that I have come here and
> said that has upset a lot of you, but whitestripes, you really are the
> saddest tw*t I've ever seen in a forum.
Well I think your incredibly sad for coming into the Nintendo forum ranting about the size of the GC compared to the X-box. Your the typical example of why a lot of regulars hate newbies so much, they come on starting spam topics about stupid things such as this, without making a single decent post and refusing to accept anything except what you beleived when you started it. Newbies shouldn't be allowed to start topics...
>
> And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread
> in
> the world' topic is.
>
> I pointed out that my string was most popular because it had reached
> over 100 in SO VERY FEW DAYS. Not because of pure numbers of posts.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, you cretin, (if you are able to grasp the
> concept of time that is) that my string was started MUCH more recently
> than the longest string? And, in such a few number of days to have
> reached over 100 means that this string has had a higher concentration
> of posts within this very short time?
I am willing to bet that when the longest thread was started it easily reached the same amount or more in two days than this one did.
>
> Thus, by deduction, if this was to carry on for a set time, this
> string would soon overtake the longest thread.
Bet you it won't.
> You pointed out that I swore at you earlier. You said that was to make
> me feel big. Unfortunately, your minute brain failed to recall that in
> the post I was replying to (from you) you swore at me...
Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used it *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
>
> Another thing that ping-pong ball on a piece of string inside your
> head that you call a brain forgot, was that I wasn't here claiming the
> Xbox has the most original games. I was here to claim that the Xbox is
> technically the superior machine. And it is. So I was right. So you
> are a tw*t.
And once again you've missed the point of my post, I did try explaining it in the one after, but it seems you still can't grasp it so i'll try again. You said Nintendo's games weren't the most original out there, so I provided a list of games on the X-box, complete with annotation, showing that they weren't as original as Nintendo's games, therefore dissproving your original statement. Do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d now? I'm afraid it can't be made much simpler.
And the second thing, you seem to have forgotten a lot as well. Your original post was about how you think it's stupid that Ninty's claim their machine is better because it's smaller (something I haven't seen anyone do yet), not about the technically superiority of one console over another. I'm quite happy to admit that the X-box has the best specs, but that doesn't make it the best console. In fact, it must be seriously lacking in decent games if all you ever do is say your console is better because it's specs are better, where as PS2 and GC owners will claim their's is better because it has better games. Get with the program you fool, it's games that make a console, not it's technical ability. Or a do I need to remind you of the sales figures?
>
>
> Although I no longer expect you to understand even the simplest
> English, I have already said about 50,000 times that I am not an Xbox
> fanboy. You don't need to be an Xbox fanboy to know that an Xbox has
> more raw power then the GC. The very fact that I have come here and
> said that has upset a lot of you, but whitestripes, you really are the
> saddest tw*t I've ever seen in a forum.
Well I think your incredibly sad for coming into the Nintendo forum ranting about the size of the GC compared to the X-box. Your the typical example of why a lot of regulars hate newbies so much, they come on starting spam topics about stupid things such as this, without making a single decent post and refusing to accept anything except what you beleived when you started it. Newbies shouldn't be allowed to start topics...
>
> And this isn't the most popular string either, the 'longest thread
> in
> the world' topic is.
>
> I pointed out that my string was most popular because it had reached
> over 100 in SO VERY FEW DAYS. Not because of pure numbers of posts.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, you cretin, (if you are able to grasp the
> concept of time that is) that my string was started MUCH more recently
> than the longest string? And, in such a few number of days to have
> reached over 100 means that this string has had a higher concentration
> of posts within this very short time?
I am willing to bet that when the longest thread was started it easily reached the same amount or more in two days than this one did.
>
> Thus, by deduction, if this was to carry on for a set time, this
> string would soon overtake the longest thread.
Bet you it won't.
> You pointed out that I swore at you earlier. You said that was to make
> me feel big. Unfortunately, your minute brain failed to recall that in
> the post I was replying to (from you) you swore at me...
Yes but I used it to put emphasis on your stupidity, you just used it *repeatidly* as lame attempts to insult me.
>
> Another thing that ping-pong ball on a piece of string inside your
> head that you call a brain forgot, was that I wasn't here claiming the
> Xbox has the most original games. I was here to claim that the Xbox is
> technically the superior machine. And it is. So I was right. So you
> are a tw*t.
And once again you've missed the point of my post, I did try explaining it in the one after, but it seems you still can't grasp it so i'll try again. You said Nintendo's games weren't the most original out there, so I provided a list of games on the X-box, complete with annotation, showing that they weren't as original as Nintendo's games, therefore dissproving your original statement. Do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d now? I'm afraid it can't be made much simpler.
And the second thing, you seem to have forgotten a lot as well. Your original post was about how you think it's stupid that Ninty's claim their machine is better because it's smaller (something I haven't seen anyone do yet), not about the technically superiority of one console over another. I'm quite happy to admit that the X-box has the best specs, but that doesn't make it the best console. In fact, it must be seriously lacking in decent games if all you ever do is say your console is better because it's specs are better, where as PS2 and GC owners will claim their's is better because it has better games. Get with the program you fool, it's games that make a console, not it's technical ability. Or a do I need to remind you of the sales figures?
Whitestripes wrote:
> I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the
> Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
I think it was going to be a Dreamcast game, but with that console going out the window, Microsoft quickly got in and got it as an exclusive to the X-Box.
> I'm pretty certain I saw a Toejam and Earl game on the
> Dreamcast...near the end, I might be wrong though, I'll look it up.
I think it was going to be a Dreamcast game, but with that console going out the window, Microsoft quickly got in and got it as an exclusive to the X-Box.
Gar-J wrote:
> Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as there
> were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
Can you remeber the thread?
> Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as there
> were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
Can you remeber the thread?
Tyla wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for
> starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts. I had something similar on the
> web
> design forum too but that was just full of people telling me they
> *were* actually web designers even though their work said otherwise.
>
>
> Ohh! I missed that one... (Off to hunt through the Web forum to find
> and seek)
Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as there were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
> Gar-J wrote:
> On a different note, I think I should get a game from SR for
> starting
> the most popular string in the Nintendo forum. It's only a few days
> old and already has over 100 posts. I had something similar on the
> web
> design forum too but that was just full of people telling me they
> *were* actually web designers even though their work said otherwise.
>
>
> Ohh! I missed that one... (Off to hunt through the Web forum to find
> and seek)
Yea, it's pretty kewl. :o) Not for the faint-hearted though as there were loads of missing-link people like whitestripes there.
Page: