Wan't to write something regarding game franchises or upcomming games? Here you can. Just make sure to obey the rules and reply to all editorials in the "Discussion" forum of the editorial section.
Games, Games, and Additional Games
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Uptown slimJim |
Games, Games, and Additional Games |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 15:11:57)
 Awesome Member |
|
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Cell-abrate good times, c'mon!: Zelda's new look | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 15:15:20)
Awesome Member |
Going back to Spaceworld 2001, the biggest controversy in gamming since Metroid would be a FPS was in the making. The new Zelda was to be cell shaded and despite rummors that it was a cover up or that a better looking Zelda was after it, it soon seemed that the next Zelda game was to be deemed Cell-da. So I thought I'd take some time out from the angry cursing that so many people have grown accustom to assosiated with this to say this: Who cares?
The reason most people are upset about this is because Zelda games have a history for being a dark and forboding mature game with a kids licence. With realistic environments and horendouse creatures, people were expecting something out of a Stephen King novel for the future of Link on GC. I'll admit that I too was shoocked at first, and I was a little upset that the awsome realistic fight scene between Link and Ganondorf at the 2000 Spaceworld had me geared up for a great Zelda game and the best reason to buy a GC. Hell, the visuals in that demo had Microsoft sweating bullets. But once the new video was revieled I was almost crest fallen. Then it hit me, since when has the Zelda franchise have anything to do with reality? You've got a little kid who runs around in tights, swingin' swords twice his size, he hangs around with fairies and he wins the hearts of girls with fins. Not to mention the 7ft tall bulldog goons that lurk around that no one seems to mind being there. Zelda has never been truley 100% realistic. And if your still poo-pooing the cell shaded graphics, take a look at other cell shaded games and see how there graphics compair to the ones shown in Zelda. Im exited about playing a cartoon in realtime, I think the artwork for the game is fantastic, look at the door ways or the motions of the bad guys. Forget how real it looks, take a gander and the swaying and movements! And between you and me, I never did truley believe that thresholds in a cave were even and meant to be works of art. The old 2D graphics didn't really try to look great at all, and we all gobbeled up the cartoon characters running from left to right. So why is it we adore cartoons on a horizontal scale, yet only like realistic games when it's on the Y,Z and X axis? For people who say that the GC and Nintendo are the greatest in the world, you sure do have a problem with fantasy in your games. It'll be an adjustment sure, and I will have always have taken the realitic looking Zelda I saw back in 2000. But im not complaining. Here's the way I see it: The graphics we saw for the old Zelda demo back in 2000, awsome, right? Well that's the power the GC can bring. So what if Zelda's not going to be the one to showcase what the GC can do, maybe another game can. But if your truley in need for some realistic looking visuals and still need the Zelda genre, pick up Starfox Adventures, it's awsome. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Remakes, rehashes and ripoffs: The rest of the year | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 15:25:16)
Awesome Member |
Recently I started thinking about E3 and all of the great games I saw comming out on other systems. There is no doubt in my mind that future titles such as Brute force, Project ego, Metroid prime, Mario Sunshine, LA conflict and GTA4: Vice city will be great games. But the problem is that most of these games will be great because they're sequels or ripoffs of other games that were released a year before.
Look at LA conflict and Getaway for example on the Ps2, Im sure that they'll be fine games, but is it just me or do they seem a bit too much like GTA3 for anyones liking? I wouldn't have cared so much if those games were showcased at next years E3, but it hasn't even been a whole year since GTA3 came out and already it's looking like we have another case of Simpson's road rage. Even Mario sunshine, the game I can't sleep at nights (Not literally of course) because I keep thinking about it has it's doubts. The gameplay is said to be like Mario 64, and you actually start off the game with all of Mario's moves from the N64 version (Excluding the crouch). It's been nearly 6 years since the last real Mario game, and now in 2002 we get almost the same game with some minor tweaks? Even though the game is on my most wanted list, Im not expecting much from it. And what about the holidays? Last years holidays were crucial to the companies, and it was proven around December when Xbox and GC came out, showed us there games and then it was add after add for the games. This year? All the consoles are out, most major games are being released in late September to early November, nothing really has me jazzed up for any console this winter. The best games at E3 reportivley were Doom III for the PC, and Legend of Zelda: Legend reborn (I should really stop calling it that, I doubt that's the real tag) for the GC. I think they were the greatest games too But they won't be out until next year so again all we have to look forward to are GTA3 ripoffs, Mario 64 advanced, games based on movies that came out before summer and a Morrowind-ish feel of Ego. It's not all bad, some games may pull through, I have a feeling every key game at this years E3 will bask in glory. But it's not like last years E3 when you had two consoles comming out together, showing what games could be made on those systems and whatnot. This years E3 you knew what would be comming out, you'e seen what the systems can do with those games, all it is now is a matter of time before the remakes and rehashes of last years titles come out to play. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Mario isn't missing: Let's talk recent Mario | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 15:37:01)
Awesome Member |
I was playing some more Mario Sunshine last night and I started thinking about the bad review that guy at Gamespot gave the game out of the blue. I thought to myself that this guy must have been on heavy drugs at the time there was nothing wrong with the game I thought. He wrote that for it's own merrits the game is good, well Mario Sunshines merrits are graphics, gameplay, music, camera control, fun factor, length... yet the reviewer didn't say a single good thing about any of those merrits.
Then I got to thinking about how many people (Even GC owners) say that Mario's time is up, that Miyamoto has reacehd his limmits and that Mario games have lost the flare they once have. I couldn't dissagree more. If fans of the franchise wanted innovation to the series why are they critisizing the two games that are the biggest break from the Mario norm? Im talking of course about Luigi's Mansion and Super Mario Sunshine. Long after Mario Party 3, people were growing resistance to Mario's charm and began critisizing that the games are the same as they've always been and that they were expecting the first GC game to star Mario doing exactly what Mario did in the last game... jump to a higher platform, take out a slow moving monster and get a star. Miyamoto heard there cries and decided to make a game staring Luigi, but rather than make it a platformer that people seemed to be tired of, he made the game a puzzle game, removed some of the classic Mario elements and voila! A completely new game starring Mario characters. But then the fans complained that it wasn't Mario, it needed platforms, outdoor action, bigger and badder bosses, and jumping! They felt Luigi's Mansion wasn't Mario. But long before Luigi's Mansion hit the shelves Miyamoto was half-way done Mario Sunshine, a game that gave the players what they wanted and (Still listening to there requests for something new to the Mario franchise) added a water-pack, a tropical backdrop and new levels never before seen in a Mario game. Miyamoto gave the fans what they wanted and it still wasn't engouh. No one liked the island setting, the water-pack or the total lack of goombas and koopas. Funny how when the gamers get something innovative they complain it's not true to the franchise and when they get something true to the franchise it's not innovating enough. Give me a break! Shigeru Miyamoto is a game designer, not a mind reader. He works to the best of his knowledge. And to those saying he's out of ideas, go play Luigi's Mansion or Mario Sunshine, He's full of them! The vacuum and water pack show that he can take something simple, work it into a game and still do some re-tooling to make it a game like wich you've never seen before and still have it stay true to his original creations. What, are you upset that Mario has the same control as he had six years ago? Majora's mask had the same controls as Ocarina of time and they were two years apart. Yet people played Majora's mask and many loved it better than Ocarina. So don't tell me that having the same moves prooves that Shiggy's lost the innovation. He sticks to what works and adds to it. Gamers should be thankful they can play Mario Sunshine. There are children in this world that have never heard of the name Mario and care more about when there next meal will come... if it ever does. You want a better Mario game? You need more innovation? Forget what you want in your games. There are starving, orphaned children out there who have real wants and needs. Don't start complaining just because you feel it's the same game as six years ago, be thankful that you actually do get to live in a free enough country and have enough money to at the least play video games. Don't be selfish. Okay that was a little off topic but the fact remains that most people don't know what they want. You want innovation but you say it lacks the foundation, you wanted the foundtation back and you say it lacks innovation. To anyone who has said Mario Sunshine or Luigi's Mansion aren't true to the Mario bros franchise, kiss my goombas and figure out what it is you really want. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Exploitation explosion: Nintendo's not the only one doing it | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 15:52:22)
Awesome Member |
Recently, many people have criticized Nintendo for just feeding there fans with games like Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, StarFox Adventures and Legend Of Zelda to look forward to. Simply for the fans of the games and nothing for the people who like to keep there options open. Doing nothing to attract new people and simply making sure they keep there fans.
That's a dumb thing to do. Sure Nintendo's trying new things like Animal Crossing and PIKMIN, but it's not enough most people say. I'll admit that Nintendo is focusing on it's franchises this year more than anything else, but I don't let it bother me. I'll have fun playing these games again just like I had fun playing them 3, 4, 5, 6 years ago. Nintendo's getting criticized for feeding there already devoted fans. But what I think would get the most flack is being ignored. Im talking about Sony's next RPG Kingdom Hearts. If you haven't heared of this before let me give you the run down. It's Final Fantasy meets Disney, and Im not kidding when I say Disney. Mickey Mouse has been kidnapped and it's up to you along with your helpers Donald Duck and Goofy to rescue him from a legion of famous Dinsney villains. Travelling to places like Never land, Wonderland, Halloween town, Toon town. Along the way you get help from Peter Pan, Hercules, Tarzan, Dumbo, Bambi, the little mermain, Winnie the pooh ect. Just think what would happen if Disney land were a country and not an amusement park and you've got Kingdom of hearts. A lot of people will be caught up in a game were Disney characters they grew up with use spells and traverse through all your childhood memories in a game that resembles one of the greatest franchises known to man. Am I the only one outragged by this? Take away the Disney lisence and what do you get? Final Fantasy, it'll just be hard to tell with all the Disney mush they throw at you. Now they're attracting two fanbases with an unfair advantage. The RPG and Final Fantasy fans Squaresoft has, and the diehard Mickey Mouse club fans who need to own everything Disney. It happens in music too. Have you seen Weezer's 'Keep Fishin' ' video? If you haven't here's the premise: Weezer sings the song on the Mupet show while many of the most beloved and adored mupets from the show provide zanny antics during the song. Now I like it because it's original and it reminds me of all the fun I used to have watching the mupets as a child (And you can't say no to Animal on the drums) but personally I hate the song. I only tollerate it because of the Mupet lisence. Same with Kingdom Hearts. It might be a horrible game that resembels Final Fantasy to a 'T'. But as long as it can attract another fanbase and potentially hardcore gammers for the fact of kicking ass while riddin' Dumbo would be cool. It'll distract people from the real problem. But then again I could be wrong. It might turn out to be the greatest RPG of all time, but if it does I hope it gets it's credit for the gameplay and advancing plotline and not because of the Disney lisence. Mario Sunsine is released the same week as Kingdom Hearts (In North America, that is) and Mario has quite the task ahead of them (Taking on fans of both Squaresoft AND Disney) so it might be an unfair advantage if Kingdom Hearts turns out to be a total bomb. Then again calling on fans is a good way to sell games and rake in the numbers. Im not sure if Mario will be a better buy as Kingdom Hearts and Im sure Sqare will try and make KH as good as possible. But I do hope that KH is the last of colaberations between franchises. It should have stopped after the 1st McDonalds game and before any Simpson's game. And im not looking forward to anything along the lines of 'The Legend of Daffy: Orcarina of Quack' Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Man vs nature: What makes a better franchise? | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (09/11/02 16:16:48)
Awesome Member |
Back on the simple days of the 2D platforms, it wasn't hard to come up with a winning franchise, all you needed to do was come up with an animal, give it some Mario, Contra, Sonic inspired gameplay, have them rescure a friend from a giant something or other and BAM, you got a franchise. And the list of famous characters that got started like this goes on and on. Names that come to mind are: Sonic, Earthworm Jim, Donkey Kong, Rayman. Some characters weren't so lucky: Bubsy, Gex, Arrow the acroBAT. Never the less they did make it to sequels.
Nowadays the gamers of yesteryear have grown up and desire more ample tastes. Suddenly playing as animals seems less cool than playing as gun totting humans. I think it's good that gamers are comming to terms with there grown up tastes, and game developers who were once going to the zoo to sketch critters just to stay in the competition are now trying harder to get ample franchises going. The problem is this is just like the animal hero problem again. Now too many developers are making games that star humans. That may be a good thing, but people thought animals as heros was a good thing too until something better came along. Don't get me wrong, video games aren't supposed to be real (That's why in racing games, cars don't take damage. Or in shooting games it takes more than one hit to kill) and as humans, we can actually visualize ourselves picking up that sword to combat that dragon or learning that new magic trick wipe out armies. When you play as a human, your escaping your reality into someone elses, when you play as an animal, your escaping reality as you know it and are living the fantasies that made you smile when you were little. Amongst all the Tomb Raiders, Resident Evils, Twisted Metals and Eternal Darkness', we somehow forgot to live out our imaginations. In a game that features talking animals, peppy music and colorful levels, all the laws and rules of reality are thrown away, guarenteeing you see things you don't normally see. Wheras in human based games you play around in environments your familiar with and encouter things you already knew existed. So what's more fun? Animal games or human games? Te answer to that really matters on what you think is more fun. Personally I think they both have there strong points: In human games you are yourself going out on a quest. How would you like it if you were given a strangegun and told that in the forest your used to play in as a child is overun with ninja-zombies and that your the only one who could stop them? Cool! In animals games you get an entirely new world to explore, and always with you are the fond memories and innocence you had when you were a child. Human themed games your world is turned upside down, in animal games someone elses world that you never thought existed is turned upside down. There is one that brings the fans of both kinds of game, that is Shigeru Miyamoto. His games? Mario and Zelda. Mario, you are a human in a strange paralell world, you live off the land, interact with locals and battle creatures that until now you only thought were in your imagination, yet he was still human! In Zelda you play as a young boy/ man/ whatever, you experience all the fun of going out on your own as a kid, combined with the hack 'n' slash monster battles in terrain that you are familiar with. So I think human themed games and animal themed games aren't that far apart from each other, if the designers can make the similaries fun. So go to your online wars, chase scenes in major cities, princcess saving and hopping on rocks in a lava themed level. Rember that there are games out there that apeal to a particular audience, and then there are games like Mario and Zelda that apeal to both audiences. And as a personal thoguht: Enough with the aliens and zombie enemies! Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Thanks for the mammaries: Maturity in games | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (10/17/02 15:34:11)
Awesome Member |
A recent poll shows that women aren't as foregin to video games as we think and that they are vastly becomming a large chunk of the gamming market. With that in mind, you'd think developers would start considering the female output when they're making there games.
I remember way back there was a huge controversy about womens rights in video games. Usually the women only got supporting roles as a sidekick and the women who did get to be in the spotlight were young, attractive, nubile and...well... "well endowed" bimbo's who soon would be found in amateur porn movies on the net more often than in a game. The biggest of these stars (And I do mean biggest) was Lara Croft. Tomb Raider games sucked but as long as Edios gave her enough hype they would continue to rise in popularity. It became apparent that the chief designer of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider that he had no more control over Lara's image... no wonder he left Edios after the first Tomb Raider game. It used to be that developers were insensitive to women... now they're just ignoring them. Acclaim's BMX XXX is an extreme sports game that features female nudity, swearing and dogs fornicating. I've only just scratched the surface here. Needless to say this game is rated 'M' for mature, wich means anyone under 17 shouldn't play this game. If you ask me, anyone with an IQ over 17 shouldn't play this game. Unlike Conker's Bad Fur Day or GTA3 where the mature content was an added gimmick to go along with the well thought out gameplay, BMX XXX is a poor attempt to jumpstart a genre that should long have been put to rest. Frankly, I don't see what's so great about realistic jiggling or artificial skin. IT'S NOT REAL! When it comes to adult hummor in video games it should be added for the value of getting a few chuckles while playing the game... not the entire game. Most retail stores aren't going to sell BMX XXX because of it's incredibly imature content. To respond to this, Acclaim has said that they are being treated unfailry. Your being treated unfarily? How about women? They're the ones who are going to seem like dirty little play things in this game obviously intended for the gentlemen who has yet to find anything worth getting off on in the video game world. Women weren't put on Earth to please men with what's under there shirts, and just when you think people were beginning to realise this, Acclaim makes this "game". So how have Acclaim's press secretaries been handling the accusations? Read this article found on IGN.Cube. "We believe that there is a general, unfair characterization of the interactive entertainment industry and as a result, our product is being held to an entirely different standard than other entertainment media with comparable content, including movies, television and radio," said Greg Fischbach, Co-Chairman and CEO of Acclaim. "According to NPD's August report, more than 60% of all next-generation hardware owners are men over the age of 18, and this combined with the fact that last year's number one-selling game was mature rated, fully supports our belief in the demand for this type of content." What? You think that because last years best selling game was rated 'M' gives you the liberty to make a game featuring dirty debutantes and pimps? What happends if this years number one is an 'E' rated game? Will you be making BMXYZ? Yes GTA3 was the best selling game last year becasue of it's break away from the norm of video game and indepth gameplay and design. GTA3 was fun to play because you never got bored and there were always things to do. In BMX XXX you do extreme stunts as you've always done, only now you get to see womens underwear while you do it. Do you think your making a breakthrough? If a mature game jumped off a bridge would BMX XXX? Hopefully yes. "While we acknowledge that we are setting new benchmarks with BMX XXX, we are disappointed that there are groups who fail to see how this humorous product is truly on par with such widely accepted mainstream entertainment experiences, including movies like American Pie, and TV shows like The Sopranos and Sex and the City," added Fischbach. "As a leading publisher, we fully believe that consumers should have a right to choose their entertainment, and with that right comes the importance of responsible consumerism." I don't like American Pie or The Sopranno's or Sex in the City. Why?: The Sopranno's: A show about mafia affiliates who are family men, who suffer from problems we can all relate to. I don't want to relate to gangsters because mobsters are criminals and the more we give deminish the notion that they are criminals the more people beging to think "You know, the mafia's not so bad..." No one lives life like the women do in Sex in the City. And if people do they probably aren't as happy or successful as the show portrays. Sex is a serious subject, not something to poke fun at. Life changing problems can and do come from sex, and movies like American pie and games like BMX XXX are the reason there are so many unfit parents in the world who have SAT's the morning after. Although I am against the game BMX XXX I do believe in one thing they stand for: We need to stop living through censhorhip. Don't wan't your kids to hear the F-word? Better encase them in a plastic bubble because chances are they'll hear the world nine times before reccess. Don't want your kids to know where babies are comming from? You gotta tell them sooner or later because they're in charge of the Earth when your gone. Don't want them to get too violent? What are you doing to stop the ongoing wars? Face it, the world is a different place than what Walt Disney wants us to believe and it's always going to be like that. You can try to make your kids childlife happy but sooner or later they need to grow up and realise violence goes far beyond Power Rangers. And even though I do think the developers are being unfair to women they really are being more unfair to the gammers. Womens rights activits can say that men degrate women all they want but I know that: A) Women who are strippers have chosen to be strippers. B) Using your physical atributes that you are gifted with is no different than someone who uses there athletic atributes or intelectual atributes. C) If you ever go to a strip clubs who do you think are the ones in charge? The ones on the stage with more money than a doctor will make in a year in there G-string? Or the pathetic, drooling twit wasting his hard-cash on getting a glimpse of female flesh? Acclaim must not think highly of there fans with this game. It takes a lot more than artificial breasts to get me to buy a game, and if you have any decency at all, you'll feel the same way. BMX XXX makes some good points on where we stand as a culture and how we censor everything... but I still say it's a stupid and immature game. Sure, Conker's Bad Fur Day features many of the situations I mentioned above, immature hummor, swearing, sexual content. But at least when Rare made Conker's BFD they knew when and where to add such things to liven up and give the game some kick. Like a good game should be, the gameplay came first and the content second. So if you want to buy BMX XXX, be sure to flush your decency and common sense as a human being down the toilet... trust me, if your buying this game, you won't need it. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Pocket morons: A look at Pokemania | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (10/25/02 14:05:43)
Awesome Member |
Where would Nintendo have been without Pokemon? Possibly they wouldn't have had enough dough to sustain them long enough for the GameCube. Let's face it, in many ways Pokemon was the best thing for Nintendo during the six year run with the N64. It was popular, it was addictive and it was everywhere. No matter what Sony came up with, if the next thing had the word Pokemon associated with it, it sold better. So before you start dissing Pokemon, think about what it did to Nintendo. What did it do? Alot. Gave them money, gained them popularity, gave them momentum during the dark years, drew in more fans. Believe it or not but Pokemon had a lot of good come out of it.
It's not Pokemon you hate, it was the hype you hated. Pokemon on it's own was a fun RPG with a some creative twists. It was the marketers who saw that small yellow critters were marketable that it got out of hand. It took Nintendo a decade to get a Mario bros movie in the works and it took Pokemon one-and-a-half years. The TV show was immenent, tradding cards were thrown in, toys flew off the shelves and before you knew it, something creative turned into an all out craze. And craze was right. How right? Along with the craze kids became crazy. No, not just kids. Pathetic looser adults who collected Pokemon cards, held massive trade shows in bidding wars for the elusive 'Golden Charizard' or whatever. School fights erupted over lost card games. Come to think of it, Nintendo probably made Pokemon to show that people don't have to fight people in RPG's but rather fictional animals fought other fictional animals to show that people don't need to fight and that the violence wasn't real. Ironically, Nintendo made that game to disscourage hand to hand combat among the youth of the world, and it did the exact opposite with a vengance. I heard of one account where an eight year old was stabbed when someone stole his box of Pokemon cards. Parents only bought the damn things because they thought it disscouraged violent shows like Power Rangers. Meanwhile fist fights errupt between angry dads over the last copy of Pokemon silver. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Nintendo didn't want this to happen, but the demand for more Pokemon merchandise rights was too high... and they needed the money. Nintendo was torn between continuing the franchise and letting people get hurt or discontinuing the franchise and cost lot of people there jobs. Im glad the franchise has died down from craze to just plain popular, but at what cost? Parents spending hundreds of dollars on products that may in fact get there children seriously injured or killed. The Japanese children who suffered seasures from watching the Pokemon TV show in the dark. The stabbings, theiving, beatings etc. It took all of these horrible and tragic occurances to have the fad simply 'die down'. What would it have taken to destroy the franchise completely? The events I listed above are just some of the events that will forever give Pokemon a dark image. Wich is too bad because as a game, it's not that bad. But because of all this it has created more ammunition for the anti-video game people to say that playing video games are dangerous. The Pokemon games never had subliminal messages telling you to buy there products. It was the TV shows, tradding cards, toys and movies that caused all the damge, the games were just always there at the root to take the blame for the products made by other companies. Who decided that the traddings cards would be worth more than the treasures found in Egyptian tombs? Certinately not Nintendo. The last thing Nintendo ever wanted to do is hurt people so don't blame Nintendo for the attacks and beatings, blame yourself for falling victim to the hype and for being involved in the attacks. I don't like fads because things like this happen. People get hurt, get poor and loose all sanity. Pokemania had a lot of cons in it and it'll be hard for Nintendo to regain the Pokemon image they wanted to begin with. With the new games comming out, non-hardcore gamers will be sick of the idea of Pokemon and say that the fad is old... well who's fault is that? Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Bad religion: God and games don't mix | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (11/22/02 18:55:30)
Awesome Member |
DISCLAIMER
This is probably one of my most controversial editorials. If anyone is strictly religious I suggest you stay away from this editorial at all costs. Thank you. -Uptown SlimJim (PS. You know im right) Im no holy-roller, I purposely stay up late Saturday nights so I can sleep in on Sunday morning. But that doesn't mean I don't have faith. I beleive that there is a God, I believe that there is life after death but that's it! I don't beleive in dedicating myself to one person for all eternity. I don't believe getting to heaven requires you to do everything by the good book, because let's face it the bible contradicts itself in so many places and the very bible we are told that encourages loving thy fellow man is taught by people who try to convince you that being gay is somehow more disgusting than molesting a child. I don't believe in that but I do believe in some things the bible says, like the ten comandments. Stuff like how you shouldn't steal or commit adultery, just the moral guidlines that makes life better for others. That's what I believe in when it comes to religion. Wensday night I took my little sister to the mall to see the second Harry Potter film (It's a long story, I don't like the books but I like spending time with my sister). Before doing that I thought I'd step into Electronic boutique just to see if I could squeeze in some Metroid Prime before the movie started. When we got to EB guess what I saw standing infront of the store? A woman giving out pamphlets and when I asked what they were for she replied (Im not kidding, true story) "Well they just got a shipment of Harry Potter games today. Im just here to warn the children about the witchcraft that it encourages". I felt like punching her. Sure enough the same group of people were at the movie theatre doing the same thing. I was glad I said allowed "Two tickets for HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS!!! Please." What's wrong with Harry Potter? Granted it's not the greatest peice of literature to date but it's got kids reading again. A couple of years ago you couldn't find that if you tried. Harry Potter has encouraged reading among the youth who until now have speant there days wasting away in front of the TV or listening to Brittany Spears. Witchcraft? Don't make me laugh. During the 1640's, Puritanical societies burned thousands of men and women accused of "witchcraft" and you'd think after have been proven wrong all those years ago the notion there being actual witches and wizards in the world has died down. Then some religious fanatic says that kids are driven more and more to the Potter phenomenon than reading the bible. Kids shouldn't have to learn religion if they don't want to, and you have no right to tell them that they should. And since when do we go to the bible for final council anymore? It's not 500 AD anymore and we aren't a Theocracy like Iran. The bible is not the final word in our government and something like the release of a movie or game shouldn't be threatened by angry mobs just because 'It's not according to God.' Using the bible to address our modern circumstances is like using a Commodore 64 manual to repair your car. I'm not saying people aren't entitled to believe that Harry Potter is wrong. People can believe anything they like. They can believe the Earth is square, Hooters is a family restaurant and Michael Jackson isn't a freak. They can believe any religion they choose, or make one up. But we aren't obliged to endorse those beliefs. In fact, as a society that separates church and state, we have an obligation not to recognize religious direction in setting out our laws. Instead, our social contract calls for the establishment of laws designed to build a society that respects differences, protects individual freedoms and treats every citizen equally and fairly (Regradless if they practice 'witchcraft')Â…the truth is, our civil code is building the kind of society that is true to the same basic vision that all our major religions share. Religion itself has pure motives, it's the people who claim to practice the religions that are the problem. Mankind are experts at taking the pure and corrupting it. Some people have a perverse interpretation of right and wrong. Religion is about a personal search for answers, not for telling you what's bad and what isn't. Like I said before they try to cover there ass by trying to convince us being gay is more wrong than being a pedophile. Harry Potter games may suck but they aren't deadly. Harry Potter is a fictional character brought to life by books published all around the world who brings happiness to children everywhere. For someone who's been called anti-Christ they sure do seem like peas in a pod. Like I said, I believe that there is a higher power and that people can choose to beleive it however and whoever they want, I just choose to beleive and not follow. If I windup in hell for saying such things above, fine. At least I'll know everybody. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Verch Torcitec |
Limitations to imagination: Where the new innovation lies | |||
|
Posts: 18936 (12/14/02 05:44:44)
 Administrator |
Video games and the industry itself have been around for the longest time. And with time comes thousands upon thousands of video games. And also with time comes some limitations. With thousands of games, would you expect them all to be different? Of course, no two games are alike unless they are remakes. But, what I mean is, would you expect them all to be different, in a general sense? No.
There are only a number of defined genres out there, and because of so much diversity and ideas already before-seen, is there any more room to innovate? Maybe developers are reaching their limits. Do I think developers are reaching their limits? Well, yeah, some of them. No, most of them. It's sad to see that most of today's development teams and companies are coming up with so many remakes and rehashes that the industry is made up of floating waterlilies of borrowed and/or stolen ideas. What happened to the companies of the past? Now don't get me wrong, all companies are great in their own way, but some companies stand out from the others in the sense of borrowed ideas. Electronic Arts comes to mind here. How many platformers based on Super Mario 64 are we seeing here?! Two, three? And you know the result? Utter, boring crap. It may have been amazing back in 1996, but not now, when the standards for platformers that bend the genre again as Super Mario 64 did, are at a new high. So, what more could we possibly need? How about adding a twist or a turn here and there? Super Mario Sunshine was a platformer with a twist: Mario must get rid of all graffiti on the island using his FLUDD pack. Like 90% of all available platformers, Super Mario Sunshine is no fetch quest. It's a platformer with a new idea. However, the idea is not as genre-bending as Super Mario 64, because the 3-D implementation within platformers has already been instated, thanks to Super Mario 64. So, in theory, it's the same basic game, but with an added twist. Okay, those were platformers. How about sports? Well, there is certainly no innovation whatsoever in this genre. I honestly don't know why sports games sell so well. Is it because children buy them because they idolize a certain athlete or sports icon? Perhaps. Also, they have the ability to customize their own team, and actually play as a virtual simulation of their favorite team(s) and player(s). Okay, so I answered my own question. I doubt anyone can innovate here, as long as a new sport is introduced, or if the rules bend and change. I believe the last genre-bending game to hit the sports genre was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Now, that game was never-before seen and unprecedented. Never before has a skateboarding game entered the realm of 3-D, and do it so amazingly well, that the series would be a hit for years to come. Sadly, and ironically, the Tony Hawk developers themselves, Neversoft and Activision, seem to have run out of new stuff for us, because in Tony Hawk's sequels to come, all we'd be seeing are add-ons to park editors, new skaters, and new boards with new quests. It's a pity that even such a well-defined game and its game developers have to stoop to rehashes in order to garner sales. Yeah, that's it, most of today's rehashes and remakes are for the purpose of garnering sales. Now that the sports genre has been analyzed, let's move to action/adventure games. Well, this area has the potential for tons of improvement and innovation. Now, I am sorry for sounding awfully Nintendo-oriented here, but The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, is a prime and perfect example of new features and injections into the action/adventure genre. There is Z-Targetting, which gives you the ability to lock onto a target and not lose sight of the enemy, you can assign multiple weapons to several buttons, which drastically cuts down the time for a player to keep rummaging through their arsenal and pull out an essential item. That previous statement stated the basic flaws of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. Not to mention a wonderful 3-D world, but I believe there were adventure games before Zelda: Ocarina of Time which tok place within a 3-D world. So, where's the rehash? I guess what comes to mind are the Dark Cloud series from SCEA. True, they are not real rip-offs, as the story is very different and it's a bit darker than Zelda, but there is no innovation going on here. Everything is old, but just pulled off great and with finesse. And what about Metal Gear Solid? How do new versions and variations in story and added gameplay time to the original (Substance come to mind) sound? How about survival horror? Well, with Resident Evil 4 and possibly 5 coming out, there really is nothing new, except for the fact that you can tag-team players. Maybe multiplayer co-op missions would be a great idea? Oh well, I guess Capcom's main focus is on the storyline. It's nothing bad, but why not add drastically new things while you're at it? First Person Shooters, the genre of many rip-offs and rehashes. What is there? Well, it started off with Doom and Wolfenstein, and now there are countless sequels to both aforementioned games, not to mention tons of rip-offs: Tribes, Half-Life, Medal of Honor, etc. Basically the same thing goes on in each FPS game. Shoot enemy, capture the flag (perform required tasks), return to base, mission completed. Halo and Metroid Prime had very interesting implementations to how a FPS should be viewed: story-wise and gameplay-wise. There is that emphasis on adventure in Metroid Prime, which sets it apart from the others in the genre. Finally RPG's. Now, this is the genre with the most rehashes after made. Why? I can tell you for a fact that over three quarters of RPG's ever made are turn-based. That's boring! Not to mention there are shed-loads of RPG's in Japan, that most Americans have never heard of! Ever heard of Castle Fantasia Seimataisen, Sakura Taisen Project, Torneko's Great Adventure? I doubt it. Unless you're one of those RPG and import buffs, like yours truly. This usually ends up with RPG's not turning out to be great. Hoshigama and Saiyuki just are not new enough to capture my interest. How about all of the sequels that go on here? Final Fanasty XI! Final Fantasy X-2! What is this?! Is Square banking on name recognition again? Because every single Final Fantasy is different. Now, I understand that RPG's place emphasis on the stories, and that's what I enjoy about RPG's: they are interactive storybooks. But, I need some gameplay with that! I know that Final Fantasy X-2 is implementing action features such as jumping for main character Yuna, but is that enough? Perhaps. But sadly, not innovative. Why? Look at Super Mario RPG. As always. I love to try something new. I count Pikmin as an RPG here, because it's a strategy game that requires a lot of thought. What ever happened to Square's nice action-RPG's, like the Chronos and Manas? Come on Square, you should bring them back! I don't care for what system, but I must play my Chronos and Manas! Okay, those were my analyses according to specified game genre. But, how about video games in general? Well, it's too early for a totally new, literal dimension for video games yet. It's too early for virtual reality, because it would cost astounding amounts of money to create and manufacture. Now, where does new innovation lie...? Online gaming! Yes, it's a totally new and unexplored field for video games. There are countless options and decisions one can make with his or her teammates. Not to mention there are tons of innovation going around, because more possibilities have been opened. I myself can think of some ways one can innovate in this area. For example, you can save a file onto a memory card, plug it into a dex-drive, and others can now open your file and take gameplay from there (other clans). Online gaming is a vast world for video games, it's probably the last big frontier before virtual reality becomes available, and you can actually plug yourself into your own game. So, what can we do about this? Take action! Start sending your own ideas and innovations to companies and publications. Make yourself be known. Or when you're older, get a development job in the software field. Nothing will ever happen unless people get up from their seats and take some action. |
|||
|
Verch Torcitec |
Xeno-Confusion: The Xeno-Saga Continues | |||
|
Posts: 18936 (01/20/03 22:17:53)
Administrator |
First of all, anyone who is familiar with Xenogears, released in 1998 for the Playstation should have known that it has been the backbone of controversy, stemming from the fact that it has been based upon and attacked several policies of Christianity. Squaresoft was hesitant in bringing about Xenogears to other markets because they were afraid that they would be caught in such huge turmoil, and be the subject of tons of controversy.
Fast forward to this day. Ever since early 2001, Namco has been hard at work on the next installment of the Xeno series, known as Xenosaga Episode I: Der Wille Zur Macht, to be released on the Playstation 2. The director of Xenosaga, who also directed Xenogears, Tetsuya Takahashi, left Squaresoft just before production in order to seek other ventures. And with him came other Xeno veterans, and thus the development team known as Monolith Soft was spawned. It seems that Takahashi has many things in store for the Xeno series, and hopes to do it some justice. He is planning six episodes, in which all of them will be interconnected into a common timeline, chronicling events in order to tell a tale that spans from early in the timeline until the end of time. And this may have been inspired by the Holy Bible. The story of Xenosaga known thus far is this: in the distant future, mankind makes contact with an extra-terrestrial known as Zohar, whose species has been present since the dawn of the universe. They later become allies and form the Galactic Federation, which consists of 500,000 planetary governments set to combat the evil and potent Gnosis forces. The Gnosis are a mysterious race that no one knows much about, yet are set to fend them off, for the Gnosis are part of an army 100 billion soldiers strong, enough for them to completely seize control of the universe. In order to prevent this, the Federation has secret weapons in store, known as the Anti Gnosis Weapon System (AGWS). The player, on the side of the Federation, takes control of these AGWS, and the main character, a young woman named Shion Uzuki, whose parents were killed in the war. Uzuki will do anything to exact revenge for her parent's deaths. And thus Episode I unveils. But what is the controversy this time? There does not seem to be an encirclement of religion or religious issues this time around, leave that mankind has left the Earth, now dubbed Lost Jerusalem. This time, however, controversy lies on the opposite spectrum. Controversy this time around encompasses violence, mature sexual themes, and the like. Unlike religion savvy Xenogears, in which transliteration (or the rescripting of the story in order to remove culture references) and censorship of religious themes occurred, Xenosaga is being censored for extreme violence and sexual themes. In Xenosaga, during Mech versus human fights, mutilation of body parts may occur, and much to the disturbance of Japanese audiences when this game was released in mid-2002 there, Namco has taken a step forward and toned down the blood and gore for other markets. Along with the brutal violence come the sexual themes and references. In one scene, an android known as MOMO, which is to represent a 12 year old girl modeled after a professor's child killed in war, is involved in a rape scene. All 12 minutes of this computer generated footage has been cut by Namco. Why do this? Why not leave the story be? Well, as most of you know, censorship may sometimes butcher a storyline, but in this case, Namco probably thought it was for the best. In Japan, Xenosaga has been rated for mature audiences only. However, now with all of the controversial sex and violence aspects of the game edited out, Xenosaga received a "T" rating (teenage audiences) from the ESRB. If this had been rated an "M" (for mature audiences), then marketing the game would be difficult. I'm pretty sure Namco had never intended Xenosaga to be relegated to a mature audience, and what a waste it would have been to conceal the beauty of the Xenosaga storyline from more of the general mainstream public, and teenage groups constitute most of that public. Xenosaga and Xenogears are the subject of controversy concerning many different areas, religion, sex, and violence. The Xeno games are wonderful games with very rich and involving storylines, but if it continues to be overshadowed by controversy, it can lead to a dismal future. Such talent cannot go wasted in the video games industry, for the Xeno games are such wonderful video games for their overall storylines and experience. |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
See no evil: Where I stand on Capcom | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (04/06/03 17:02:58)
Awesome Member |
After nearly two years after announcing the Resident evil franchise as a Nintendo GameCube exclusive, a Japanese newspaper has reported that Capcom may be re-thinking the whole strategy. Having Resident evil exclusive to the system has helped derail alligations that the GC is a kids-only system and defienetly given some hefty sales numbers for GC...or has it? That's what this whole rummors talking about, how after the less than lackluster sales for RE0 and RE2 and RE3 for the GC Capcom would take back the series to all systems once RE4 is debuted on GC this year. Good thing? Bad thing? Let's find out.
I don't care how long Capcom has been in the business or how popular they are I just don't like them. I don't like their games that they make and what games I do like from them aren't even original creations (Oracle of ages/seasons anyone?). Im sorry RE fans but enough is enough. It seems like Crapcom (Oops I mean CAPcom) adds a new edition to the fanchise every day. And unlike other series who do this, RE hardly ever adds anything new. Frankly im surprised Nintendo even got the franchise to begin with...not that it didn't seem impossible like something like this would have happened, but that it was announced without any kind of deal set between the two companies. No, GC got the RE games because it's creator and the Nintendo corporation shared similar views on what games should be about. That's it! Hey I agree with some of the things Adrien Brody said at the Oscars, it doesn't mean im going to see his crappy drama flick. Signing on to a deal just because you agree with someones policies is a lot like jumping off a bridge becasue someone else was doing it. Still it's upsetting to see a once big supporter of the GC cause (And in this day and age it's hard to find one that was as dedicated as Capcom) pull out. Regardless how I feel towards Capcom or the heads of Nintendo it's still a sad occurance. But it's time to look past that and start looking for who to blame. Is it Nintendo's fault for releasing all their biggest franchises in the timeline of one year, thus emptying consumers wallets so they don't have enough money for less-known third party titles...not to mention the hype distracts us from the otherwise decent third party support? Or was it the fault of Capcom for making a game that nobody wanted to play, especially not even being 9 months sicne we played the last RE game on GC and were expecting two more unpolished ones in the following months to come? Im going to support Nintendo here, it's not their fault third parties couldn't create their own hype, plus Nintendo'd in the middle of fighting a war for first place, they needed to pull out their biggest guns. I put the blame squarely on Capcom, how naive of them to think they can release 4 games of the same franchise in the course of half a year and still expect people to be flaunting cash over all of them. And wasn't Capcom expecting too much? I mean they ported RE3 and RE2 onto GC with no graphical upgrades like the last two and expected to make more cash off of them then they did on the Ps1? How hard is it to copy the codding from one game disk to another? Not hard enough that you should be expecting to fall into a bed of money once they hit the stores. Im convinced that Capcom knows nothing about finance. If they did they wouldn't be turning their attention towards Xbox like the newspaper suggests they are, considering that Xbox games accounted for only 1.5% of Capcom's sales in the past year. Despite the hard to ignore evidence from the newspaper, Capcom has reported on their website that they have no plans to go back on their original statement from September 2001 and that RE0 and RE4 will be a GameCube exclusive...their statement hardly tounches everything mentioned in the paper and personally I wondered why Capcom decides to support Nintendo for the reasons it claims to. Still it's difficult to say what will become of this. I don't think the billion dollar (anual) Capcom franchise will remain GC exclusive for much longer. Still one can always hope...and I can always not care. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Cut it out: Directors cut better left on the floor | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (07/09/03 20:09:10)
Awesome Member |
Releasing a directors cut is one of the most popular and common reasons to rerelease a game onto a different system. And it's surefire proof that people will buy anything.
Normally what the director of a video game cuts out of game are levels, puzzles, missions or characters that have nothing to do with the overall story of the game or its final outcome. What the director takes out is the pointless trash that's just taking up space. In other words--the pointless dribble is taken out. Now some directors cuts actually feature bonuses not featured in the original project due to time and or space. It's not just the same game with minor tweaks, it's given new elements or graphical upgrades to give it some extra shine; the original game not only gets a paint job it offers something that makes it better than it was before. Some examples of directors cut that were good are: Master Quest for the GameCube, originally Ocarina of Time for the N64. That game not only features new routes and puzzles in addition to the original game but also features movie clips of upcomming GC games. Another example would be Conker: Live & Uncut for the Xbox wich not only features better graphics than the N64 game but also shows the material that was deemed too offensive by the ESERB uncensored. Then there's the sorry excuses for directors cuts. Like..Oh I don't know... Sonic Adventure DX: Directors cut for the GC. Having played this game originally on the Dreamcast I had hoped that the games directors would have done something to improve all the faults of the original for the GC incarnation...you know, kinda like what most directors cuts games do. Did they? F*ck no! It's all there, the poorly synched voice acting, the horrid, horrid camera angles, the annoying sound effects they took out for the sequel, the slowdown. It's all there! Only this time it's more noticable because A. Standards in platformer, or any games for that matter, have increased dramatically since 1998. and B. All of those mistakes are more noticeable and less forgiving on the much more powerful GameCube. This takes gamming a step back. Sonic Adventure 2 was a better game because all the problems from the first one were improved upon, and even though SA1 (Unlike SA2) gave you the option of only playing Sonic's levels, the Sonic levels in SA2 are much more fun than SA1's because Sega improved on all the mistakes they made in the first game. Kinda like what they should have done with this directors cut. This sounds an awful lot like a review more than an editorial. That's because im so outragged by this game I can only get it out using my editorials. Yes it's so bad I can't even grade it. All I can do is let out my anger. Directors cuts are about improving on a mistake so a different market of gamers don't have to suffer the way the original market did upon playing the original game. It's given to the new system in a new packaging hopping to get a second chance at what they never had, so why is it that the directors aren't trying to redeem themselves fully? I's not that hard to copy the codding from one game medium to another so all the work they'd really have to do is tweak the codding a little tighter. Im completely turned-off by the thought of directors cuts thanks to SA  X. If calling junk is the best way they can make an old game sound more appealing I'll take some of the other reasons to remake a game anyday. Reasons like improved graphics and cinematics. Of course if those were improved for the game it wouldn't be a directors cut, it would be a directors love their creation reborn to imrpove on what they alredy believed to have been perfected.Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
|
Uptown slimJim |
Kong-fused: Why is DK shaking his groove thang? | |||
|
Posts: 1654 (08/15/03 21:41:32)
Awesome Member |
Mario may be Nintendo's main man and Link their number one son, but the Donkey Kong name and franchise has been around longer than both of them (The oldest Nintendo trademark character if im not mistaken) and with just as wide of a fanbase. With much thanks to Rare, Donkey Kong single handedly won Nintendo the 16 bit console race and paved the way in the video game industry for rendered graphics. Since his ressurection and rebirth in 1994, Donkey Kong has created a new image, deetering his arcade roots and the world has come to love the big ape's wacky gameplay...everyone except Nintendo that is.
Now I for one admire Nintendo's bold tactics of placing all their bets on a long shot and for taking their own path to the top, but with the announcement of Donkey Konga, I can't help but wonder if Nintendo's taking there independance too far. For those unaware, the tentavely titled "Donkey Konga" is a music based game where DK and his buddies dance to the music they make. If you're a big fan of the DKC games this, no doubt, came to you as a big surprise. Unlike the Rareware departure or reluctant take on online gamming, this Nintendo decision doesn't anger me. Frankly im shocked, confused and dissapointed. I mean this isn't the first time Nintendo has played God with their franchises: Remember how high-strung we got when we found out that Wind waker was cell-shaded or how Metroid Prime would be a FPS? The only difference is that Zelda and Prime, though looking different, played exactly the same as we had hoped and stayed true to the series--Whereas Donkey Konga takes the series and changes not the look of the game, but the entire genre. To be honest I can't see DK in a music game. Here's a character who has earned the reputation as a platformer and we're giving him a game where the only time he'll be jumping is when he's jump, jivin' and wailin'. If Nintendo were going to make a game where you make music, why didn't they use characters that can move from genre to genre and not cause a panic, like Pokemon, wich (Next to Mario) is the only franchise I can think of where you can put them in almost any kind of environment and it'll look good. Not DK though, DK's all about action: No princess to save, no ancient power to awaken, no mysteries to solve, DK's all about making it from one end of the level to the other without dying. Why do you want to get to the other side of the level? So you can go to the next one! I liked the internet-spawned rummor that the next DK game was going to be a side-scroller perfectly incarnated in 3D. I had all these thoughts of what the game would be like: DK would have a mighty punch that would break stuff down, barrels would have items inside of them, secret bonus rooms would have to discovered by luck and all of it bigger and brighter than the DKC games combined. I would have preffered that to Donkey Konga, or at least gotten something like that before Donkey Konga. One thing I can't shake is why Nintendo would want to give the franchise to Namco? First they give DK (And StarFox) to Rare, now they give them to Namco...why doesn't Nintendo want these franchises? Anyways, back to my point: Rareware was responsible for one of the most important Donkey Kong stereotypes: Graphics. Under Rare's watch all DK games were geared with eye candy graphics. Now... have you seen videos of the StarFox game Namco's working on? Im having nightmares of the original Smash bros Donkey Kong already. It's hard not for me to feel upset about the direction my favorite franchise is taking, of all the things Nintendo could have done why did they decide to do this? This game has been inspired by the Dreamcast music game Samba De Amigo...what's this? Nintendo taking ideas from Sega? What are they, Rare? This is what burns me up the most, not that Nintendo gave a wrong genre to a classic mascot but that they didn't come up with an idea themselves. They just copied the idea to the point (In both games the main character is a monkey). Im trying to look at the positives, that Nintendo's recent gaming gambles have paid off (Cell-shaded Zelda, Metroid FPS, Mario with water pack) but it's hard when I think of how much of a hassle it'll be have an extra accessory the game will likely need that won't be needed for any other game. Im guessing Donkey Konga, like Link's quest and Mario bros 2, will be the odd-ball of the series, after wich all will go back to the ways they once were. Im just upset that the odd-ball will be the first (and likely the only) DK game we get on the GameCube. Chances are I could be wrong, I'll have to wait until E3 to see...and who knows, it might actually be fun...but now I can't help but wonder what could have been. Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic |
|||
