quote:
Hellbender's account was hax0red to write:
You've seriously never heard anyone say, "Man, Mario 64 was a bad ass platform game." or "Damn, Goleneye was such an awesome shooter"? Because I hear it all the time.
Liking those games and keeping a flop of a console around to play them and them alone are two very different things.
Dreamcast and PSX emulation are huge, but everything the N64 had going for it is now on the Gamecube. Sean fucked around with this message on 05-12-2006 at 02:21 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
If these are available on GameCube, I'd love to know! Seriously. 
(the OOT version released with wind waker doesn't count btw)
quote:
Suddar stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Ocarina of Time. Starfox 64.If these are available on GameCube, I'd love to know! Seriously.
(the OOT version released with wind waker doesn't count btw)
How does that not count? You get OOT, and OOT remixed. Hell, I'm actually playing that right now.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about John Romero:
You'd be hard pressed to find that disc go for anything less than like $40, too. I wanted it, but didn't want to buy a second gamecube.
By a fluke, I have 2 of them. 
And the OoT/OoT Master disk as well. Fucking christ I had forgotten how hard Zelda II was comparably speaking...
quote:
Malbi got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
since I never ownded a N64 I have only experienced Majora's mask and OoT via the cube...man I must say I dislike the camera controls on them other than that 5 stars ^_^
Um, what? OoT and its Follow up were the very first games ever to use the Z-Lock system which has been copied by company after company to date regardless of the platform, even though the term "Z-Targeting" is the common one used to refer to it.
Plus First Person view for exploration. The OoT Camera System and Z-Lock was damn near flawless... Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 05-12-2006 at 08:58 PM.
quote:
Densetsu impressed everyone with:
How does that not count? You get OOT, and OOT remixed. Hell, I'm actually playing that right now.
Because it was never really released and I don't have it.
quote:
We were all impressed when Faelynn LeAndris wrote:
Fucking christ I had forgotten how hard Zelda II was comparably speaking...
Once you figure out how to kill knights, Zelda II is really frickin' easy up until the final dungeon and the path to it.
WTH is he smoking?
The Playstation debuted with a $599 pricetag when it first came out, when all it had was the Geko game, and that one fighting game, the name escapes me. It was a rich man's toy, and even the rich guys weren't buying it.
PlayStation was originally on the fast track to industry death. It wasn't until a year after it was released, and the threat of the N64 (Just the threat of it mind you, not the system itself) forced Sony to drop the price by nearly $350 that the system even STARTED to move. No one wanted the thing, it was concidered a novelty, and an overlypriced 3DO.
The only reason PS2 did as well as it did was because of an established System and backwards capability, and feared lack of support on the other two consoles. It also had a serious headstart on the Next-Gen scene of its time, when only the older systems for the others still existed. X-Box was still a Rumor, Nintendo was only barely making headway. What did they expect?
quote:
We were all impressed when Faelynn LeAndris wrote:
The only reason PS2 did as well as it did was because of an established System and backwards capability, and feared lack of support on the other two consoles. It also had a serious headstart on the Next-Gen scene of its time, when only the older systems for the others still existed. X-Box was still a Rumor, Nintendo was only barely making headway.
In my country, this here is what we call superior marketing.
quote:
Asha'man was listening to Cher while typing:
In my country, this here is what we call superior marketing.
It's called timing.
When you are the only choice in the market, unless you want to take a step back, really your choices are limited. Sony also had a habit of buying support fast and early as they did with the original PS when it started to go under.
It was a good system, it was marketed well, but the guy is full of himself when he is talking about how it's "Too Cheap" and that it's worth every penny and more just because it's a PlayStation.
They are also trying to push a new standard in DVD, which no one in the industry really likes as it is (The Standard that is).
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Cuba:
It's called timing.When you are the only choice in the market, unless you want to take a step back, really your choices are limited. Sony also had a habit of buying support fast and early as they did with the original PS when it started to go under.
It was a good system, it was marketed well, but the guy is full of himself when he is talking about how it's "Too Cheap" and that it's worth every penny and more just because it's a PlayStation.
They are also trying to push a new standard in DVD, which no one in the industry really likes as it is (The Standard that is).
Um, Blu-Ray is better then HD-DVD in most regards.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris spewed forth this undeniable truth:
By a fluke, I have 2 of them.
I will give you pie in exchange for one. I am totally 100% serious.
LOL Error fucked around with this message on 05-13-2006 at 03:47 PM.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Naimah!
Um, Blu-Ray is better then HD-DVD in most regards.
I didn't say anything about it being better or worse.
Edit: Speaking of, concidering that, with the $600 pricetag. PS3 won't be able to play any HD-DVDs, if you happen to purchase any. You'll have to get Blu-Ray Movies and whatnot only. Which concidering there is no standard, and studios are split with most of the big Studios hating Blu-Ray and supporting HD-DVD, well.. yeah. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 05-13-2006 at 03:53 PM.
quote:
Verily, Naimah doth proclaim:
Um, Blu-Ray is better then HD-DVD in most regards.
And Betamax was better than VHS. What's your point?
quote:
How.... Faelynn LeAndris.... uughhhhhh:
I didn't say anything about it being better or worse.Edit: Speaking of, concidering that, with the $600 pricetag. PS3 won't be able to play any HD-DVDs, if you happen to purchase anyway. You'll have to get Blu-Ray Movies and whatnot only. Which concidering there is no standard, and studios are split with most of the big Studios hating Blu-Ray and supporting HD-DVD, well.. yeah.
You said 'which no one really likes' which implies that the standard that they are pushing was inferior to what their competition was pushing.
quote:
Naimah stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
You said 'which no one really likes' which implies that the standard that they are pushing was inferior to what their competition was pushing.
No, it means exactly what it says. No one really likes it. There is no mention of superiority or any additional information.
quote:
Naimah - Naimah = 0:
Um, Blu-Ray is better then HD-DVD in most regards.
If by better you mean 400x more expensive and beyond what you'd ever need for a 4 hour movie at 1080p, you're right!
quote:
How.... Error.... uughhhhhh:
Sony claims they have planned motion sensing controller since 1994LOL
Riiiiight, and his statements there wouldn't at ALL conflict with thier 1996 Statements of the N64's controller and how rumble was a gimmick, even though a year and a half later they releases the all wonderful Dual Shock! Nope, not at all.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Cuba:
If by better you mean 400x more expensive and beyond what you'd ever need for a 4 hour movie at 1080p, you're right!
Because having overhead for a data medium is completly silly! Blu-Ray isn't only going to be used for movies. Assuming it hits it will eventually become the standard for distrubuting data just like the DVD/CD-ROMs that we have now. Having twice the capacity will serve to increase the longevity of the medium as data bloat always happens. Both mediums will rapidly decrease in production cost over time until they reach a point of negligable cost, much like the current generation of DVD/CD-ROMs have now. The cost may be an issue now, but in 3-5 years it won't be. In 3-5 years the size limitations of the HD-DVD format will most likely be painfully obvious if that is the way the market goes.
quote:
If only Naimah hadn't said this:
Because having overhead for a data medium is completly silly! Blu-Ray isn't only going to be used for movies. Assuming it hits it will eventually become the standard for distrubuting data just like the DVD/CD-ROMs that we have now. Having twice the capacity will serve to increase the longevity of the medium as data bloat always happens. Both mediums will rapidly decrease in production cost over time until they reach a point of negligable cost, much like the current generation of DVD/CD-ROMs have now. The cost may be an issue now, but in 3-5 years it won't be. In 3-5 years the size limitations of the HD-DVD format will most likely be painfully obvious if that is the way the market goes.
In 5 years people will be downloading more movies than they will be buying.
quote:
Blindy. startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
In 5 years people will be downloading more movies than they will be buying.
I doubt that seriously. In 10-15 years, probably, but not 5. It's still too easy simply to buy a DVD. Why would I want to spend the time downloading a movie--which is a while even on a super-fast connection--then have to burn it to DVD to watch it on anything over 20"? Much a Bill Gates wishes otherwise, computers aren't going to replace home entertainment systems anytime in the near future for the majority of people.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about pies:
I didn't say anything about it being better or worse.Edit: Speaking of, concidering that, with the $600 pricetag. PS3 won't be able to play any HD-DVDs, if you happen to purchase any. You'll have to get Blu-Ray Movies and whatnot only. Which concidering there is no standard, and studios are split with most of the big Studios hating Blu-Ray and supporting HD-DVD, well.. yeah.
According to EGM, the hollywood companies supporting blu ray are Sony (which includes Tristar and MGM), Fox, Disney, Paramount, and Warner Bros. The ones supporting HD DVD are Universal, Paramount, and Warner Bros. So only one company is soley backing HD DVD.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Batty said:
Movie companies are backing Blu-ray because it costs more, thus they can sell for higher amounts and make a bigger profit than off DVD or HD-DVD. Doesn't mean Blu-ray is awesome or anything.
One of the girls in your slideshow has fucked up hair.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Batty's account was hax0red to write:
Movie companies are backing Blu-ray because it costs more, thus they can sell for higher amounts and make a bigger profit than off DVD or HD-DVD. Doesn't mean Blu-ray is awesome or anything.
I didn't say it was awesome. I was responding to Fae saying all the big movie studios hate blu ray.
quote:
Sean attempted to be funny by writing:
One of the girls in your slideshow has fucked up hair.
Don't make me come over there and punch you in the face.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean had this to say about (_|_):
Part of her hair just DISAPPEARS!
Part of your face is going to disappear.
quote:
Batty embraced inferiority and said
Part of your face is going to disappear.
Unlikely. Not when Sean puts the hurt in the dirt.
