The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
>
>
> Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a
> fan-base from scratch?
>
> Well Sony managed to crack a huge one right form the beggining,
> stealing millions from Ninty and Sega, if the X-box wa sso good it
> would have done this as well.
What happened was Sony didn't just steal away fans with amazing games or anything. They used marketing to give the Playstation a "cool" image. This brought a new audience of gamers such as people who love to go out clubbing who would usually say that playing games is sad. These people are the type that would sneer at the likes of Mario but at the same time would love to race their dream cars around - Sony delivered these types of games. Realistic racers, gory games, basically more adult orientated material that would appeal to this new audience.
From here, people that would usually buy Nintendo and Sega moved to Sony machines because it was the "in" thing to have. Initially they wouldn't have cared, but because everyone else was buying it as time went on, it was the console to own. Not so much because of its quality games, but because of its reputation. Just look at the PS2, it had the Dreamcast beaten before it even came out - people were waiting for the PS2 with no interest in even looking at the DC. Whys this ? Was there amazing quality games available from launch for the PS2 that just blew away anything that had come before ? Not at all ! In fact, the PS2's games were pretty dire for the first year. But its name alone was enough to get the sales because it was the name that made games "cool".
Now comes the X-Box. There are no other new audiences that can really be cracked, unless you want to try and introduce pensioners to gaming with tons of knitting and bingo sims. So Microsoft have had to enter the videogame industry with a big challenge in front of them. This challenge is enticing hardcore Ninties and people who only know the name Playstation to their X-Box console. Hardcore Ninties of course won't give it a chance as they'll stick with Nintendo no matter what they do (or don't do). As for the people that have embraced the "cool" image of the PS2, this is hard because they see the name Playstation as the only console that brings the games they want and don't want to shop around when they don't feel like they have to. Microsoft have seen the PS2 audience as being the one most likely to be easier to crack though, which explains why your seeing the games you are right now. Eventually, MS plan to expand their range of games to suit all audiences, but right now, they need to concentrate on the games that the majority of players want to play.
Microsoft's big move is online gaming, they want to give the best service in this area and are spending a hell of a lot of money to do so. This is their vision of the direction games should be going as it brings players together from all over the world. Rather than just limiting us to the same thing of playing a single player game with the occasional small multiplayer mode, they want to bring new experiences to console gaming like huge RPG worlds, massive team based FPS games and sport games that consist of teams made up entirely of human players. This is the kind of thing that has drawn me to the X-Box. I love online play so this really appeals to me. But of course at the same time this is the tough situation Microsoft are in and overall, considering this situation, I think they're doing pretty well.
> Gar-J wrote:
>
>
>
> Imagine then, how difficult it would be for Microsoft to crack a
> fan-base from scratch?
>
> Well Sony managed to crack a huge one right form the beggining,
> stealing millions from Ninty and Sega, if the X-box wa sso good it
> would have done this as well.
What happened was Sony didn't just steal away fans with amazing games or anything. They used marketing to give the Playstation a "cool" image. This brought a new audience of gamers such as people who love to go out clubbing who would usually say that playing games is sad. These people are the type that would sneer at the likes of Mario but at the same time would love to race their dream cars around - Sony delivered these types of games. Realistic racers, gory games, basically more adult orientated material that would appeal to this new audience.
From here, people that would usually buy Nintendo and Sega moved to Sony machines because it was the "in" thing to have. Initially they wouldn't have cared, but because everyone else was buying it as time went on, it was the console to own. Not so much because of its quality games, but because of its reputation. Just look at the PS2, it had the Dreamcast beaten before it even came out - people were waiting for the PS2 with no interest in even looking at the DC. Whys this ? Was there amazing quality games available from launch for the PS2 that just blew away anything that had come before ? Not at all ! In fact, the PS2's games were pretty dire for the first year. But its name alone was enough to get the sales because it was the name that made games "cool".
Now comes the X-Box. There are no other new audiences that can really be cracked, unless you want to try and introduce pensioners to gaming with tons of knitting and bingo sims. So Microsoft have had to enter the videogame industry with a big challenge in front of them. This challenge is enticing hardcore Ninties and people who only know the name Playstation to their X-Box console. Hardcore Ninties of course won't give it a chance as they'll stick with Nintendo no matter what they do (or don't do). As for the people that have embraced the "cool" image of the PS2, this is hard because they see the name Playstation as the only console that brings the games they want and don't want to shop around when they don't feel like they have to. Microsoft have seen the PS2 audience as being the one most likely to be easier to crack though, which explains why your seeing the games you are right now. Eventually, MS plan to expand their range of games to suit all audiences, but right now, they need to concentrate on the games that the majority of players want to play.
Microsoft's big move is online gaming, they want to give the best service in this area and are spending a hell of a lot of money to do so. This is their vision of the direction games should be going as it brings players together from all over the world. Rather than just limiting us to the same thing of playing a single player game with the occasional small multiplayer mode, they want to bring new experiences to console gaming like huge RPG worlds, massive team based FPS games and sport games that consist of teams made up entirely of human players. This is the kind of thing that has drawn me to the X-Box. I love online play so this really appeals to me. But of course at the same time this is the tough situation Microsoft are in and overall, considering this situation, I think they're doing pretty well.
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.
> 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.
Gar-J wrote:
>
> I do disagree with your comment on where I get my nifo though - Rogue
> Squadron features this said slowdown, as many GC owners have already
> stated in magazined etc. and I have also seen it myself at a mate's
> house.
I've not come across any slowdown in Rogue Leader yet but I've heard others mention it. It's still rare and barely noticable though (not exactly DOGGED with slowdown) and Factor 5 aren't going to get it right first time.
I'm going to stop there now.
Instead of arguing about how great the Gamecube is, I would simply it instead. The problem is, my mum has the games while until my last exam on thursday! :-D
I'll have to ask if I can have a break tonight.
>
> I do disagree with your comment on where I get my nifo though - Rogue
> Squadron features this said slowdown, as many GC owners have already
> stated in magazined etc. and I have also seen it myself at a mate's
> house.
I've not come across any slowdown in Rogue Leader yet but I've heard others mention it. It's still rare and barely noticable though (not exactly DOGGED with slowdown) and Factor 5 aren't going to get it right first time.
I'm going to stop there now.
Instead of arguing about how great the Gamecube is, I would simply it instead. The problem is, my mum has the games while until my last exam on thursday! :-D
I'll have to ask if I can have a break tonight.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Me'sa like Gamecube, you'sa like X Box end of discussion. Oh and Gar-J
> you better stop swearing all the time or you'll just get banned matey.
Ta for the advice!
Though I have been strategically using '*' wherever possible. :o)
> Me'sa like Gamecube, you'sa like X Box end of discussion. Oh and Gar-J
> you better stop swearing all the time or you'll just get banned matey.
Ta for the advice!
Though I have been strategically using '*' wherever possible. :o)
Me'sa like Gamecube, you'sa like X Box end of discussion. Oh and Gar-J you better stop swearing all the time or you'll just get banned matey.
savatt1668 wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made
> up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
> Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer
> difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the
> Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after
> the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
>
>
> That was me who made that point. ;-)
Respect where respect is due then :oP
> Gar-J wrote:
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made
> up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
> Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer
> difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the
> Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after
> the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
>
>
> That was me who made that point. ;-)
Respect where respect is due then :oP
Gar-J wrote:
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
> Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer
> difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the
> Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after
> the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
That was me who made that point. ;-)
> As someone already went through yesterday (can't remember your name
> whoever it was - sorry!) Nintendo already has a huge fan-base, made up
> partly by f*cking idiots like you who do not understand simple
> things.
> Sony already has a huge fan-base, and it is because of the sheer
> difficulty of having to crack these established fan-bases that the
> Dreamcast failed. Sega lost a lot of fans to the 'other side' after
> the Saturn mess, and was unable to win them back.
That was me who made that point. ;-)
Strafex wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> GC
> Plus points:
> Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not -
> they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so
> that's kewl.
>
> And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that
> makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus
> points.
>
> Negative points:
> Least powerful;
> Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical
> capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
> Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're
> not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues
> to be dealth with; :o/
>
> Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
>
> Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
>
> Nope. Not unbiased. Your sources are obviously biased (MS
> magazines/sites?) as I've yet to play a GC game dogged with
> slowdown.
> It has both original AND unsual games (besides, the Xbox games are
> mostly clones, conversions and updates - not a bad thing because
> they're generally of a very good quality but it does make Nintendo's
> originality a bigger plus), the technical capabilties aren't THE best
> but more or less keep up with the Xbox's (slight difference but most
> differences in current multiformat games are down to optimisation),
> and although Nintendo aren't rushing into going online, by the time
> the majority of gamers in the UK get cheap broadband access to play
> the Xbox through, Nintendo will also be ready with their own online
> strategy.
>
> Also, you mentioned multiplayer.
>
> When it comes to social parties, the Gamecube beats EVERYTHING hands
> down.
> I know that the Xbox does have some very good split screen games (like
> Halo), but Halo is far too difficult for a newbie to control (I can
> play it but most of my friends hate it because of the controls).
>
> The Gamecube's multiplayer games are simple enough for a complete
> beginner to pif**k up but have enough depth to make them games for
> hardcore masters as well.
>
> I would go further into why the Gamecube rules at 4 player games but
> I'm going to make a stand-alone topic.
Ok, I respect this opinion because although it does not agree with me, it is not biased and you have arrived at this opinion simply out of personal experience and preference. NOT, may I add, simply because Nintendo make the GC, as would seem to be the case with whitestripes.............
I do disagree with your comment on where I get my nifo though - Rogue Squadron features this said slowdown, as many GC owners have already stated in magazined etc. and I have also seen it myself at a mate's house.
Before whitestripes has another go telling me how great the game is and that I'm MS-biased etc. etc. (plus whatever else the prat comes up with), yes I know the game is good. It does however feature slowdown, which when returning to my point of technical capability does question those of the GC.
> Gar-J wrote:
> GC
> Plus points:
> Some unusual games, but I won't say original cos they are not -
> they're updates of older Nintendo games. Still unusual though, so
> that's kewl.
>
> And that's it there. It's marginally smaller than a PS2, but that
> makes f*f**k all difference in any way so that's not going under plus
> points.
>
> Negative points:
> Least powerful;
> Already games are dogged by slow-down which show the technical
> capabilities of the machine to be fairly low.
> Although it may have the capability in future, Nintendo say they're
> not going in for multiplayer games yet cos there are too many issues
> to be dealth with; :o/
>
> Now, with a completely UN-BIASED view, that is how it is.
>
> Based on that information, I think the Xbox has the edge.
>
> Nope. Not unbiased. Your sources are obviously biased (MS
> magazines/sites?) as I've yet to play a GC game dogged with
> slowdown.
> It has both original AND unsual games (besides, the Xbox games are
> mostly clones, conversions and updates - not a bad thing because
> they're generally of a very good quality but it does make Nintendo's
> originality a bigger plus), the technical capabilties aren't THE best
> but more or less keep up with the Xbox's (slight difference but most
> differences in current multiformat games are down to optimisation),
> and although Nintendo aren't rushing into going online, by the time
> the majority of gamers in the UK get cheap broadband access to play
> the Xbox through, Nintendo will also be ready with their own online
> strategy.
>
> Also, you mentioned multiplayer.
>
> When it comes to social parties, the Gamecube beats EVERYTHING hands
> down.
> I know that the Xbox does have some very good split screen games (like
> Halo), but Halo is far too difficult for a newbie to control (I can
> play it but most of my friends hate it because of the controls).
>
> The Gamecube's multiplayer games are simple enough for a complete
> beginner to pif**k up but have enough depth to make them games for
> hardcore masters as well.
>
> I would go further into why the Gamecube rules at 4 player games but
> I'm going to make a stand-alone topic.
Ok, I respect this opinion because although it does not agree with me, it is not biased and you have arrived at this opinion simply out of personal experience and preference. NOT, may I add, simply because Nintendo make the GC, as would seem to be the case with whitestripes.............
I do disagree with your comment on where I get my nifo though - Rogue Squadron features this said slowdown, as many GC owners have already stated in magazined etc. and I have also seen it myself at a mate's house.
Before whitestripes has another go telling me how great the game is and that I'm MS-biased etc. etc. (plus whatever else the prat comes up with), yes I know the game is good. It does however feature slowdown, which when returning to my point of technical capability does question those of the GC.
Strafex wrote:
> There's no lack of decent games.
> The current GC games might not be to your taste, but I don't think
> much of most of the Xbox line up either. Each to their own I
> suppose.
Yeah I know. ;-) Was just messing around. I mean that was the reason I got rid of my GC, but at the same time I know that other people enjoy the games. ;-)
> I've a big look at Xbox releases, but Halo is the only one that's
> interested me (and even then, I didn't enjoy playing it because the
> controls - they weren't badly designed, but if you're used to looking
> around with the left analogue stick - like every single FPS before it
> - it'll throw your instincts and give you a head-ache. And there's no
> way of changing it either!).
Did you look at the controls section ? I think a control method called "southpaw" changes the sticks around. Plus I remember other methods being selectable too. ;-) Have a look sometime if you have another chance to play the game (just remember to goto the section before starting the game).
> Not really. If you REALLY nit-pick then you find slight graphical
> enhancements in Xbox versions, but that's only where devellopers
> bother to optimise it.
>
> Gamecube games have to be optimised in a different way.
> That's why some games look better on the Xbox and others on the
> Gamecube.
>
> Optimisation makes such a difference that some PS2 titles have outdone
> their Xbox counterparts.
Not trying to get your back up mate, but I have yet to see a PS2 or GC version of a game that beats an X-Box version of the same title.
> Nintendo are going through this phase where they shout to the world
> that game idea's are more important than graphics.
> While they are right, this also means that they haven't stretched the
> Cubes capabilities as of yet.
>
>
> However, other Gamecube exlcusives like Resident Evil and Starfox show
> what can be achieved if a develloper puts their all into it.
> And they are just as good technically/graphically as any Xbox game.
>
>
>
> And besides, there's more to using power than simply nice graphics.
>
> Halo might LOOK slightly better than Pikmin, but Pikmin shows off
> impressive AI, better animations various other not-so-obvious features
> that utilise a console's power.
To me, as far as graphics in games go, the most amazing game I've seen so far is Steel Battalion on the X-Box. Its amazing stuff. Its not as hard to make a Resident Evil game look amazing as the backgrounds are pre-rendered. :-) Don't get me wrong though - still looks very nice.
As for the Halo vs Pikmin thing, I don't think the AI in Pikmin matches the AI in Halo. In Halo, both friends and foes use clever tactics to get at eachother, they don't simply run at you without fear of the bullets your spraying at them - they will take cover, use empty vehicles, try and trap you in a pincer movement, retreat when things are looking bad, etc. Some pretty impressive stuff overall. Not sure about the animations either really, theres some excellent detail in Halo as far as this goes. Although this will probably sound sad, I was quite impressed (early in playing the game) at how the marine on the gun of the warthog jeep moved. Instead of being just like a motionless statue, he would react to different things. Like say when the warthog would drop a little and bounce from the suspension, the marine on the gun would bend his knees and stuff to keep his balance on the jeep. To me this game was worth every point of the 10/10 because you could see that Bungie had worked very hard on all aspects of the game.
The excellent AI in the game is what keeps me going back for more. The layout of the levels is still the same, but the reactions of the enemy (and your allies) make it seem different all the time. I'm dying to play the sequel now. ;-)
> There's no lack of decent games.
> The current GC games might not be to your taste, but I don't think
> much of most of the Xbox line up either. Each to their own I
> suppose.
Yeah I know. ;-) Was just messing around. I mean that was the reason I got rid of my GC, but at the same time I know that other people enjoy the games. ;-)
> I've a big look at Xbox releases, but Halo is the only one that's
> interested me (and even then, I didn't enjoy playing it because the
> controls - they weren't badly designed, but if you're used to looking
> around with the left analogue stick - like every single FPS before it
> - it'll throw your instincts and give you a head-ache. And there's no
> way of changing it either!).
Did you look at the controls section ? I think a control method called "southpaw" changes the sticks around. Plus I remember other methods being selectable too. ;-) Have a look sometime if you have another chance to play the game (just remember to goto the section before starting the game).
> Not really. If you REALLY nit-pick then you find slight graphical
> enhancements in Xbox versions, but that's only where devellopers
> bother to optimise it.
>
> Gamecube games have to be optimised in a different way.
> That's why some games look better on the Xbox and others on the
> Gamecube.
>
> Optimisation makes such a difference that some PS2 titles have outdone
> their Xbox counterparts.
Not trying to get your back up mate, but I have yet to see a PS2 or GC version of a game that beats an X-Box version of the same title.
> Nintendo are going through this phase where they shout to the world
> that game idea's are more important than graphics.
> While they are right, this also means that they haven't stretched the
> Cubes capabilities as of yet.
>
>
> However, other Gamecube exlcusives like Resident Evil and Starfox show
> what can be achieved if a develloper puts their all into it.
> And they are just as good technically/graphically as any Xbox game.
>
>
>
> And besides, there's more to using power than simply nice graphics.
>
> Halo might LOOK slightly better than Pikmin, but Pikmin shows off
> impressive AI, better animations various other not-so-obvious features
> that utilise a console's power.
To me, as far as graphics in games go, the most amazing game I've seen so far is Steel Battalion on the X-Box. Its amazing stuff. Its not as hard to make a Resident Evil game look amazing as the backgrounds are pre-rendered. :-) Don't get me wrong though - still looks very nice.
As for the Halo vs Pikmin thing, I don't think the AI in Pikmin matches the AI in Halo. In Halo, both friends and foes use clever tactics to get at eachother, they don't simply run at you without fear of the bullets your spraying at them - they will take cover, use empty vehicles, try and trap you in a pincer movement, retreat when things are looking bad, etc. Some pretty impressive stuff overall. Not sure about the animations either really, theres some excellent detail in Halo as far as this goes. Although this will probably sound sad, I was quite impressed (early in playing the game) at how the marine on the gun of the warthog jeep moved. Instead of being just like a motionless statue, he would react to different things. Like say when the warthog would drop a little and bounce from the suspension, the marine on the gun would bend his knees and stuff to keep his balance on the jeep. To me this game was worth every point of the 10/10 because you could see that Bungie had worked very hard on all aspects of the game.
The excellent AI in the game is what keeps me going back for more. The layout of the levels is still the same, but the reactions of the enemy (and your allies) make it seem different all the time. I'm dying to play the sequel now. ;-)
Strafex wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
> If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed
> understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU
> architecture.
>
> Don't worry. I've seen that you understand them, but we get a hell of
> a lot of illiterate chimps trying to quote them too! :-D
True, true. :oP
> Gar-J wrote:
> If you are referring to me there, I warn you that I do indeed
> understand my specifications, and the ins and outs of CPU
> architecture.
>
> Don't worry. I've seen that you understand them, but we get a hell of
> a lot of illiterate chimps trying to quote them too! :-D
True, true. :oP
Page: