The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Gar-J give these guys a chance, when most of these guys read they're used to having large pictures and illustrations and sometimes if they're luck they get to colour stuff in.
:D
:D
Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be
> told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
>
> For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
>
> Although that is hardly impressive, I suppose it's higher than
> normal.
>
> So... why do you need to be told things so many times before you
> understand man? Is it just you emulating a village idiot then?
Yup ;0)
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be
> told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
>
> For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
>
> Although that is hardly impressive, I suppose it's higher than
> normal.
>
> So... why do you need to be told things so many times before you
> understand man? Is it just you emulating a village idiot then?
Yup ;0)
davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be
> told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
>
> For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
Although that is hardly impressive, I suppose it's higher than normal.
So... why do you need to be told things so many times before you understand man? Is it just you emulating a village idiot then?
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be
> told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
>
> For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
Although that is hardly impressive, I suppose it's higher than normal.
So... why do you need to be told things so many times before you understand man? Is it just you emulating a village idiot then?
There are 2 types of Ninty's, the intelligent kind who know what they're talking about and can form decent arguments and the not so intelligent kind that type with their faces and will make any old rubbish if it means they're defending their console. You just gotta work out who's who...
Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
> davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
>
> If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be told
> 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your
> peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along
> much more freely.
For you Infomation I have an IQ of 120 so P~~~~~~
davyboy wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be told 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along much more freely.
> Gar-J wrote:
> davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
>
> Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for
> Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
>
> HaHaHaha !! its almost as bad as the repeats on tv
If it wasn't for the likes of you and whitestripe who need to be told 5,000 times before any given point actually sinks in to your peanut-sized brains, then the conversation in here would move along much more freely.
Strafex wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> Though I have been strategically using '*' wherever possible. :o)
>
> That won't stop the site moderators from being annoyed.
> Instead of censoring swearing (which doesn't do much because we all
> know what you mean and it still sort of shows aggression), use
> substitute words.
>
> Instead of f*cking tw@t!!!
> Try sodding idiot or intelligible chimp!
>
> It lets you be more creative and imaginative too.
Very well, next time the gimp whitestripe annoys me beyond belief, I will simply remove my being of any anger and irritation and refrain myself from tarnishing these fine SR pages with foulness. I will instead conjure up some imaginative, descriptive and blatant posts that display my anger and dismay in a way that laves no doubt, but, are still suitable to be read by even the youngest, purest, and most easily-offended of SR visitors. :oP
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> Though I have been strategically using '*' wherever possible. :o)
>
> That won't stop the site moderators from being annoyed.
> Instead of censoring swearing (which doesn't do much because we all
> know what you mean and it still sort of shows aggression), use
> substitute words.
>
> Instead of f*cking tw@t!!!
> Try sodding idiot or intelligible chimp!
>
> It lets you be more creative and imaginative too.
Very well, next time the gimp whitestripe annoys me beyond belief, I will simply remove my being of any anger and irritation and refrain myself from tarnishing these fine SR pages with foulness. I will instead conjure up some imaginative, descriptive and blatant posts that display my anger and dismay in a way that laves no doubt, but, are still suitable to be read by even the youngest, purest, and most easily-offended of SR visitors. :oP
davyboy wrote:
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
> Cor blimy !! dont that Gar J go on and on and on and . see and no
> sweary words either. ;0)
Yea, it's amazing how many times one has to repeat one's-self for Ninties to understand a given point! :oP
Page: