James

[color=#707875]Here I am again, with a new banner. >=P Basically, it's the one in my signature right now. But I'll paste it in the thread, anyway. I didn't put my previous banner in the sig, because it was, more or less, only a cropped image with a custom border. This one has a little more done to it. [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/jamesimages/clubhel.jpg[/img][/center] [left] [/left] [left]It's obviously inspired by Revolutions...but I wanted to do something a little different. I didn't really put a lot of thought into it; it was a spur of the moment design. But I did feel the need to do something different to my old banner, for sure.[/color][/left]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']You're downright insane, James. Ducktales on the NES rocks heh. [/quote] [color=#707875]It does rock, and that's my point. I couldn't think of anything on NES that I played, which sucked. So...I had to do some very feeble nitpicking. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]This is really cool news. The screenshots are awesome, too. I thought the original SNES game was [i]okay[/i]. It did feel a bit wooden, for lack of a better term. Paper Mario really had a lot of Nintendo personality, which was great. Fantastic game. The battle system was good, but it certainly wasn't up there with the best I've used. So, I'm looking forward to Paper Mario 2. The sprites look pretty sharp and even with these shots, it looks like it'll retain that fantastic feel and atmosphere. Good stuff.[/color]

[color=#707875]I'm not really a fan of April Fool's pranks. It's like "Oh, here we go again...an April Fool's prank. Ha ha." It just gets very old. lol I would actually have liked to celebrate April Fool's by providing a new OB skin, but it just hasn't been possible. Oh well. We'll see how it goes.[/color]

[color=#707875]I'd also ask you guys to host the buttons on your own services if you can. Buttons uploaded to OtakuBoards don't seem to be working on myOtaku. That might be a problem on my end, but they simply don't seem to be appearing (whereas other images are appearing fine). It might just be the way they're being linked to or something though.[/color]

[color=#707875]Hm, interesting thread. Lessee if I remember the worst games... *goes back in time* [b]NES:[/b] Right now, I can't really think of a crappy game that I have played for NES. The only game that really comes to mind would possibly be Duck Tales. I'm a huge fan of the cartoon series (it's probably my favourite Disney series of all time, actually), but I had a love-hate relationship with the game itself. I can't quite explain why, either. It could be that the game seemed to bear little relationship to the cartoon, in many respects. It wasn't an altogether [i]bad [/i]game, but I think it was a bit slack in some areas. By the way, just as a side note...does anybody remember a NES game called "Silius", by Sunsoft? That was one of my favourite NES titles ever. I barely remember it though, which is why I didn't post in the best NES game thread. But still, I'm wondering if anyone else has played it. [b]SNES:[/b] Wow, again, I'm having trouble remembering any bad SNES games. It could be that I never actually bought games that I didn't enjoy, which is pretty lucky. Either that, or I just have a bad memory. As far as I can remember, I enjoyed everything I bought on the SNES. Oh wait, actually, I think Mario Paint would be something that would almost classify as crappy. Not that it wasn't a cool idea at the time, but you can't really [i]do [/i]anything with your pictures and stuff. You can view them on the TV, but who wants to do that? If there were some way to print them from the SNES, I'd probably have loved Mario Paint. But as a result, the idea of sitting down and making cool Mario art just lost its appeal for me. I still have everything though; I love the SNES mouse. I want a cool grey mouse with purple buttons for my computer. It'd be cool if Nintendo would make a SNES-themed PC mouse. ~_^ [b]N64:[/b] There are two games that come to mind here. One being Donkey Kong 64. As soon as the DK rap started, I had the odd feeling that things just weren't right. lol I think that Donkey Kong 64 certainly had its positive elements. The controls were pretty good and each character was pretty well balanced. The level designs were also mostly [i]okay[/i], though certainly not amazing -- or anywhere near Banjo-Kazooie standards. But as Shinmaru mentioned, it was largely the collection aspect. Different bananas/coins/etc for each different character? Give me a break. The collection aspect is probably the most tedious part of most games, and DK64 made it a core feature of the experience. As a result, DK64 felt tedious and boring for the most part. I simply wasn't compelled to finish it. About halfway through I just switched it off and never put the cartridge in again. The other game that comes to mind is Rampage: World Tour. What was it with this game? It just wouldn't die. The original title in the arcades was okay, for a couple of minutes. But playing it on console got old fast. And the idea that the game was [i]still [/i]being ported, years after its release, was kind of laughable to me. Sure, maybe some old games are ripe for the picking; they are obvious candidates for remakes or ports. But Rampage just never stood up against any games during the 32/64-bit generation. It was the most repetitive game I've ever played, pretty much. Another game I'd put on this list would be Cruisin' USA/World. There's one primary reason for this. The original arcade version was a timely release; it was pretty "advanced" at the time. And admittedly, it was a pretty fun game. But by the time Nintendo 64 was finally released, it seemed very old. It just didn't demonstrate the machine's capabilities and even for a racing game, it was highly repetitive. I had some good times with it in the arcades, but I ended up selling my N64 version. It just wasn't worthwhile. [b]PlayStation:[/b] One game comes to mind immediately; Croc. Croc is one of those games -- it tried to jump on the Mario 64 bandwagon. In some ways, I think it was stylistically very similar to Crash Bandicoot. But it wasn't nearly as good as Crash. The key difference is that while it was similar to Crash in a visual sense (though still not as nice), it was trying to emulate Mario 64's gameplay. And unsuccessfully at that. Yes, it did have [i]some [/i]merits (some relatively nice level designs and such), but it was still a bland game that focused heavily on collecting pointless crystals. Who cares? I certainly didn't. Another PlayStation game that I strongly disliked was Twisted Metal 3. It was pretty awful. It wasn't designed by the original creators and if you've played Twisted Metal 2 (which I absolutely loved -- I think it was the epitome of the franchise), TM3 was just a massive let down. Not only were the levels all pretty boring, but the car physics were ridiculous. If you got bumped by a feather, your car would roll over. "Oops, that breeze is a bit strong...better roll over!" [b]PlayStation 2:[/b] Nothing comes to mind at the moment. I'll have to revisit this one later. [b]Dreamcast:[/b] Sonic Adventure. Bear in mind, Sonic Adventure is [i]also [/i]the primary reason that I bought the Dreamcast in the first place. And the Sonic-related levels are great. But all of the other stuff is terrible. The Knuckles levels are [i]all [/i]badly designed and the Tails levels are marginally worse than the Sonic levels. Then there's Big and Amy. Big's levels are probably the epitome of bad game design. Even the fishing mechanic was gross. And Amy's levels were pretty boring. I must say something at this point; how has Sonic Team garnered a reputation as being so revered among so much of the gaming media? IGN always seems to say "If Sonic Team is behind it, we know it'll be great". What rubbish! Sonic Team was behind the two Sonic Adventure games, which in itself makes me incredibly wary of anything else they produce. If someone can destroy the Sonic franchise that much, I'm automatically a little wary/apprehensive about their other games (even though I know that their successes do outnumber their failures). So, I'm admittedly being a bit harsh there; Sonic Adventure did have some redeeming qualities (Sonic's levels, as mentioned). But even Sonic's levels weren't done as well as they could or should have been done. I came away disappointed as a result. The first [i]true [/i]3D Sonic game, and it fell short. That sucked. [b]Game Boy Advance:[/b] I'd have to agree about Sonic Advance. It was pretty crappy. Nice visuals, but not much else. It wasn't like the old Sonic titles, where you could often run unimpeded for a significant period of time -- or at least, you had some sense of what was coming up. So mostly you could avoid spikes or something if your timing was right. This wasn't the case in Sonic Advance. Sonic Advance seemed to deliberately place pointless obstacles in front of you every five seconds. As soon as you build up a little speed, bang, you're dead. Sonic Advance 2 is a seachange really. It's infinitely better; it truly feels like the classic games, but with gorgeous new visuals. The animation is stunning and the level designs are really fantastic. If you don't own it, you really should buy it. [b]PC:[/b] There are plenty of crappy games on PC. The only one that I bought, which comes to mind, would have to be Fatal Racing. Even at the time (pre 3D video cards...or perhaps just as they were first being introduced), it was a really crappy looking game. The cars handled like shopping carts full of concrete blocks. Yep. It had some good ideas though. It was a racing game, but the tracks had stunt-ish elements to them, with jumps and corkscrews and stuff like that. Unfortunately it just didn't come together well at all. Fatal Racing 2 was a better game, but not [i]much [/i]better. By the way, does anyone remember a game called Megarace? The one with Lance Boyle as the host. lol For some reason, I really enjoyed that game. Again, I barely remember it. But I do remember that it was cool, nonetheless. I got it as a free pack-in with my very first PC. lol [/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff']Now, if a gamer has reached hardcore status, he already knows what a good game is.[/quote][/color][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]It's important to understand that I'm not talking about people who have better or worse taste. Everyone has a different taste in games, and taste in games varies between regions/territories as well.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Let's get back to the original point.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]You said that reading about games means nothing and that it detracts from the gaming scene. But industry analysis and research says the opposite.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]When people within the industry talk about "hardcore" versus "casual", they are [i]usually [/i]talking about "enthusiasts" versus "casual fans".[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]It's no different to people who go and see the odd movie at the cinema, versus people who go out there and buy all the related merchandise and so on. There's an obvious difference between an [i]enthusiast [/i]and a [i]casual fan[/i].[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm not trying to draw any distinctions in terms of whether or not each "group" has better taste. I'm simply pointing out that "hardcore gamers" tend to go about their game purchasing differently to "casual gamers".[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Of course, there is no absolute rule here. But there [i]are [/i]plenty of studies relating to purchasing patterns of different groups.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Anyway, the point is, the games a hardcore gamer plays does not determine whether he is hardcore. Buying smart means you are a smart shopper - not a hardcore gamer. Pertaining to this discussion, your ability to play games and tell good from bad is what makes you hardcore - no magazines or gaming info required.[/color][/font] [/quote][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Well, we're talking about video games specifically here. What makes a "smart shopper?" Smart shopper and hardcore gamer could probably be completely interchangeable terms, if you're talking about the video game industry.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]We are defining the term differently, I think. You're saying that a hardcore gamer is judged by their ability to play games and to make decisions about good and bad.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I would tend to agree with you, for two reasons.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]One, because "hardcore gamers" are [i]usually [/i]people who [i]do [/i]read magazines and consume video game media material. Again, there's plenty of industry support for that point of view. Hardcore gamers are game enthusiasts; many of them (note the use of the term "many" rather than "all"), are the primary buyers of gaming-related media material. And this material does make an impact on buying decisions.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]It's not a question of someone blindly following a magazine review. That's missing the point. It's a question of enthusiasts being knowledgeable about the wider game industry -- so to speak -- and consulting various "professional" sources before making a purchase. What they read may influence their decision; I'm not saying that magazines make the decision [i]for [/i]them.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, let's be realistic here.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Hardcore gamers -- to use your own definition of them -- don't necessarily become "hardcore" in a vacuum. If you look at people like me, or Tony, or Desbreko, or Shinmaru, you'll find that all of us go the extra mile in one way or another. Either we read a review, or we go out there and download trailers, or we simply follow industry news.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And the research about consumer trends [i]does [/i]suggest that [i]most gamers [/i]are actually not doing that. The vast majority of people who make the purchasing decisions about games are in no way following gaming beyond the occasional purchase.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And so, my original point was that the majority of game consumers are not going out there and exploring the information on offer. Therefore -- compared to their "hardcore" counterparts -- we can assume that they are getting somewhat less information about games. That doesn't mean that their taste is necessarily better or worse, it just means that certain games fall under the radar more easily -- even if they are critically acclaimed.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]And the evidence [i]does [/i]suggest that the majority of people who purchase and consume media material related to video games are "hardcore gamers", or, "video game enthusiasts" -- people who tend to do a little bit more research before making a purchasing decision.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]This aspect of the industry is very important, because it dictates the trends to a large degree. It also ensures, to a pretty vast extent, that certain games [i]aren't [/i]going to enjoy highly popular status, regardless of their quality.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Simply put, it's a hardcore gamer's "thing" to know the difference between good and bad games, just as a full-fledged mechanic knows the difference between good and bad parts.[/color][/font] [/quote][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][i]Exactly[/i]. And this is a large part of my point. And how do they know the difference? Often, it's a result of both their own time and financial commitment, as well as their consumption of gaming media content. This may not be the case for you specifically, but without "hardcore gamers" and their devotion to gaming media, the gaming media would pretty much cease to exist.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][quote][color=#0000ff][font=Georgia]I've also been at game stores when a little kid runs in and points to a game. He yells to his mom, "I want this one!" Mom examines the box and responds, "Are you sure you want this? It looks kind of violent." "It was [i]GAME OF THE YEAR![/i], mom." Now, I can't judge if this kid is hardcore or not, but if that's his reasoning for buying a game, then I would wonder if the statistics separate gullible from hardcore.[/quote][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font] [font=Georgia][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][color=#0000ff][font=Georgia][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]The statistics describe exactly what you've mentioned here. What did this kid do? He walked into the store and picked up the package, which prompted him to ask his mother to purchase the game. [/color][/font][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]It's important to note that I'm not referring to this kind of behavior when I talk about media consumption. There's a vast difference between someone picking up a game package and reading "Voted Best Game of the Year by EGM", and someone actually going out and [i]reading [/i]several reviews. [/color][/font][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]What you described here is probably one of the most common methods for game purchasing, whether it's children or adults. I can tell you right now, I know a lot of people in my class at school who will decide to go out and buy a game and then they'll walk along the aisle and pick something that looks like it has great screenshots and an interesting premise.[/color][/font][/size] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [size=2][font=Verdana][color=dimgray]These are not the kind of people that the gaming media relies on. Again, the gaming media would not exist without the "hardcore gamer". [/color][/font][/size] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I think that Tony's first post is really echoing my thoughts on the "hardcore"/"casual" definition perfectly. My original post was more coming from the view of the industry -- whereas Tony's was more from the view of the individual gamer.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]He really hit the nail on the head in his post, I believe. Especially in terms of the role that the gaming media plays. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=#707875]Well, we've had a Web Site Workshop type forum before and the last one wasn't very successful. The current one isn't very successful either, despite the amount of people who make their own personal sites. And that number far outweighs the amount of people who are making games. So, the creation of a forum itself won't necessarily stimulate that discussion -- the discussion has to be there in the first place. If I see the activity in game-making-related threads increasing significantly, I'll strongly consider a forum or sub-forum. But right now it's just not something that the numbers would support.[/color]

[color=#707875]Write in whichever way you feel comfortable. Sometimes the [i]worst [/i]thing you can do is look at a computer screen. So that's the first point. Secondly, I think the key is just to find time and to pace yourself. Don't be in a rush to get it finished. Just work on it, a little bit at a time, whenever you have the chance. You don't have to put it first (put your schoolwork and other stuff first), but always keep it there so you can work on it at odd times. Or you can set aside a certain time each week (maybe a few hours) to write on it. I think that's really the key -- you don't need to focus on it entirely or finish it; it doesn't have to be that black and white. Just chip away at it. If you keep thinking about it and if it keeps nagging at you, it's probably worth completing.[/color]

[quote name='Crimson Spider]Did you know: That of the 30,000 different genes we have, only [u]up to[/u'] 30 can be different, and that these 30 are what makes up who we are? That's a 0.001% difference between people.[/quote] [color=#707875]Absolutely. It is amazing that despite the amount of similarities we have (the genetic differences between two white men and a white man and black woman are pretty much equal, quantitatively speaking), we can [i]still [/i]deny people their appropriate civil rights. It sucks when people talk about equality, but when they themselves do not support it through action.[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=blue'] This comment is bothering me. What does it prove/mean to read about video games? I lost interest in reading about games a year or two ago. I found myself looking way too far ahead and not appreciating the "now" of video gaming. To say the least, anticipating a game that's months away does nothing to further credit the games you have right now.[/quote][/color][/font] [font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][/color][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]I'm not talking about anticipating what is happening months from now, necessarily. [/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm talking about using magazines and other media sources to assist you in making decisions about your purchases. Most gamers who read magazines or online media sites often use these resources to assist them in making purchasing choices. So for many people, it's a very practical matter.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]To give you a broader example, people who don't read any gaming magazines or web sites may have had little to no knowledge that games like Viewtiful Joe were out there. As a result, they probably won't purchase the game due to their lack of exposure to it. Whether they'd have actually liked it or not is really another question altogether. [/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]You'll probably find that many people who purchased Viewtiful Joe did so as a result of reading glowing magazine/web reviews. So, the gaming media is definitely not just some completely theoretical exercise that bears no relation to the actual process of selling games -- quite the contrary.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Georgia][color=blue][quote name='AzureWolf]Reading about games means nothing. If anything, it detracts from the gaming scene, since people waste time [i]reading[/i] about games rather than [i]playing[/i] them.[/color'][/font][/quote] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]Actually, the opposite is true.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I can tell you from experience -- having worked in the gaming media sector for the last three years or so -- that reading about games plays a pivotal role in the purchasing choices that many people make.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]The point that I was making earlier was that games are becoming increasingly mainstream. And generally, these "mainstream gamers" (or casual gamers, or whatever you want to call them), are often not going out there and reading about games in the same way that a game enthusiast would.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]The end result is that these said people are making purchasing decisions with much less information -- they're making purchasing choices based on their familiarity with a franchise (ie: Enter the Matrix), or because they've seen a cool ad on TV, or because they've browsed the back covers of games on store shelves.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]To me, this indicates that potentially lower quality games (again, like Enter the Matrix) are naturally achieving greater sales success based on a variety of marketing, as opposed to substantive, positive game reviews.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, for the vast majority of gamers, the gaming media probably plays a much smaller role in purchasing decisions, because most people these days are not consulting magazines/web sites before buying.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][i]However[/i], marketing research shows that people who [i]do [/i]read magazines and web sites are much more likely to consult these sources before putting their money down on any video game product.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So, the results indicate that consumers of video game media [i]are [/i]more "in touch" with what's out there and their purchasing patterns reflect that fact. These publications don't take people away from the process of playing games at all -- rather, they compliment that process.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969][/color][/size][/font]

[color=#707875]Racism -- like any form of negative discrimination -- is based on ignorance. It's as simple as that. When we talk about discrimination, it should be obvious that we're discussing [b]negative[/b] discrimination. Obviously if someone says "You have a discriminating taste in food", they aren't saying that you're a bigot. lol I think that every nation and society is different. Where I live, I grew up with a lot of kids from other backgrounds. In particular, if you are Australian and if you live in a big city (especially Melbourne), you won't go a single day without interacting with an asian person, for example. And chances are that one of your friends or best friends is asian. I say asian -- as opposed to any other group -- because the number of asian people in Australia is growing rapidly and has been for many years. This is significant because for me, as someone who grew up in this environment, I don't necessarily identify an "Australian" as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, tanned surfer or something. That's the stereotype and while it [i]is [/i]somewhat true (go to Sydney and you'll understand lol), it's also an ageing idea. And it really hasn't kept up with the times. For me, there is absolutely no distinction between racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc etc. In every single case, you're talking about ignorance being the source of the hatred or disapproval. When I look at human history -- particularly the 20th century -- I see one common trend; negative discrimination has decreased, while civil rights have increased. Obviously, there are still plenty of racist/homophobic/religious zealot people out there. But I think that their numbers have decreased over time and it has become less acceptable to hold those ideas as legitimate, because there is a more common understanding about human/civil rights and a generally more intelligent population. And what do we find with the statistics? Things like racism tend to be a lot [i]less [/i]prominent in areas of the world that are more highly educated. So I think you can draw the obvious conclusion that increased education/awareness/intelligence is linked to decreased racism/homophobia/zealotism, and so on. Part of it is ignorance, and part of it is personal experience. I think it's probably fair to say that if you have only negative experiences with one group of people, you will probably have some kind of suspicion of those people for a certain amount of time -- or until something else changes your viewpoint. Of course that's not a reasonable position to hold. You can't take the actions of a few individuals and then paint an entire group of society in that way. The fact that we even group society in these little boxes is really another form of ignorance in my view. It makes things easier to understand and more digestable. So, in the longterm...I don't think racism (or any "ism") will ever entirely disappear. There will always be [i]someone [/i]out there who has a chip on their shoulder about a particular group of human being, for whatever pointless reason. But in general, I think we're always moving in a more tolerant direction. And that is definitely a good thing, not a bad thing. It's amazing how we as human beings (all fundamentally the same, regardless of age/gender/sexuality/race/religion) can treat each other like second class citizens, simply because our personal beliefs/philosophies/hatreds conflict with someone else. The more I think about it, the more foolish and ridiculous it seems. But as wrist cutter said...people are ********. Perhaps that summarizes it best.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think the advice here is pretty good. ~_^ We give members control over their own Guest Books. You are able to delete whichever messages you want. If someone is going around and mass-spamming, though, feel free to send me a PM or something. Members who do that will have their accounts removed.[/color]

[color=#707875]I can also imagine people's posts getting a lot worse if they use a spell checker, because the spell checker might try to substitute the wrong words (in cases where it doesn't recognize Japanese words or other non-dictionary terms, for lack of a better description). And then we'd have complaints about that. I also feel that if members aren't putting the effort into their spelling in the first place, it's pretty unlikely that they'd go to the extra effort to use a spell checker that we provide. I mean, a lot of people are too lazy to even use Private Messages when they're involved in RPGs. And as Justin pointed out, the technical issue is a major one. We can only provide as much as our own technical abilities (and our site's technology) will allow. Beyond that, there isn't much more we can do.[/color]

[color=#707875]I've taken a look at the site and it says "as seen in USA Today 'Hot Sites'". I'm not sure if this is true or not, and it makes me wonder if this site has paid the publisher to display this material. The index for the book also includes a link to purchase it from Amazon. So, that's an important feature. But I really have no idea how legitimate this site is. I even investigated the site's publisher, but there are no indications as to whether or not they're doing something legal or illegal. They do seem to be a legitimate company, but they haven't published any messages in regard to permissions from publishers. And they seem to have a lot of books listed online for display. So, without knowing for sure whether they have the publisher's permission, I can't allow the link to be posted on OtakuBoards. If you want to go ahead with the book club, by all means do so. I would really like to encourage this type of discussion. I know that an Internet resource would make things a lot easier for you, but I think we're going to have to ask interested parties to put in a little effort and visit their local library. That way, interested participants can legitimately borrow a physical copy of the book and comment on it here. I think this would be the best approach.[/color]

[QUOTE=IceWolfEyes] As for Bigfoot/Yeti, until someone shoots one of them and brings the flea-ridden carcass into the limelight, I won't believe they exist. It is likely that an overzealous scientist started the rumor so his theory of evolution would be accepted. [/QUOTE] [color=#707875]It's interesting that people won't believe in Bigfoot/Yeti until they see hard evidence, yet they'll believe all sorts of other things with absolutely [i]no [/i]evidence. I find that interesting. Moreover, Bigfoot/Yeti won't be evidence of evolution -- the expansive, well-documented fossil and geological record is evidence enough. In regard to the overall idea about Loch Ness...I think that it's possible that this story started with something (either legitimate or not) that was blown out of proportion over the years. When you consider the amount of research and investigation that has been involved with the Loch Ness itself -- and without a shred of evidence resulting -- you must realize that this is probably a false story. Afterall, we aren't talking about the hidden depths of the ocean here (which would be another story). We're talking about a body of water that, although large, is not totally beyond human research/observation. Of course, there are potentially millions of species that we aren't yet aware of. If you've ever seen a giant squid...you'll know that these things look like they come from another world. They are truly "sea monsters", but of course, we don't encounter them regularly for obvious reasons. I remember hearing about an underwater volcano north east of Australia, where scientists discovered dozens of entirely new species recently (within the last couple of months). Some of these species are [i]only[/i] found in this one volcano. And they are all truly amazing. Some of them really do look like alien lifeforms or something. So, I think we must be open to the idea that there are creatures out there that we haven't discovered. But by the same token, the Loch Ness thing should just die already. There has been so much research and so much poking and prodding, with nothing to show for it. And now it's become a huge commercial thing. It's getting beyond ridiculous.[/color]

[color=#707875]If I were to be spammy, I'd just say "Yeah! I agree w/ u!" Basically, Four Swords + is something that I'm becoming increasingly interested in, the more I hear about it. I don't really know what else I can add, other than to point out one important thing; the graphics. Originally, the GameCube version was just the same as the GBA edition, including the new sprites. But as you can see if you look at the pictures over time, more and more has been added. And I must say, I am really liking the visuals on this game. It's great to see some of the subtle effects they've added to the backgrounds (I think the grass even looks pretty cool) and the particle effects are very pretty. It'll be really intense to play this game with four people.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I think most of this is just common sense, really. A spar isn't an RPG. By definition, you'd think that an RPG would require a far more lengthy biography than a spar. So, writing a multi-page essay about your character's background is pretty pointless. I think the people who write 'em know that most people won't read them all the way through. But if you [i]do [/i]read them, you'll find that quite often, they are poorly written. And this really hits the fundamental point of quality and not quantity. Who cares if your bio is enormous, if it doesn't maintain a sense of clarity and quality? I've seen writers who can inject an insane amount of depth in a couple of paragraphs of backstory. And more importantly, as has been mentioned, a character's background is also somewhat revealed during a spar or RPG -- not beforehand. There's simply no need for us to hear about how many injections the character had as a child, for example. How is this going to relate to the spar? You'll often find that people who write these huge bios [i]do not [/i]and [i]can not [/i]relate everything in their bio to the spar at hand. A spar is a fight and it doesn't last forever -- it's pretty impossible to link everything in one's history to a single battle, unless the battle itself goes for an extremely long period of time. So again, I'd have thought this would be pretty obvious. Writing a ridiculously long and pointless biography is just as bad as writing a single-sentence biography. Both are often equally without real relevance or substance.[/color]

[color=#707875]I have only one concern about this. And that relates to the entire book being found digitally online. If this is an official publisher's web site and if it's completely legitimate, then this can go ahead. Otherwise, people will need to go out there and purchase the book. I wish to be very, [i]very [/i]careful about displaying content like that online, in the same way that I wouldn't want us to post entire magazines on the 'net.[/color]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel] I'm using the latest version. I figured everyone had this problem, but James told me that wasn't true... so here you go.[/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well, I'm using the very latest Internet Explorer and I'm running on a resolution of 1152x864. I haven't noticed any issues with thread width on my computer, which is why I wasn't aware of the problem until recently. But some people do seem to be experiencing this width issue as a result of the upgrade or something. So hopefully the screenshots and information will help, when it comes to sorting this problem out.[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, again, we're talking about something completely subjective. Honestly, many gamers don't know anything about games -- many of them see a cool ad for GTA and they buy it and that's it. These days, it's fair to say that the majority of gamers don't read the magazines or anything. Most gamers [i]are [/i]"casual gamers". I mean, you didn't enjoy the games you mentioned above, which is fine. Yet Metroid Prime and F-Zero GX in particular are critically acclaimed as being among the best games of the generation. So, the "experts" would disagree. But again, that's not the point. The point is to decide what you like to play. Through my own experience, I've discovered that no matter where your tastes are, you'll probably find that each console will still offer something to you. So in one sense, I think that most of this discussion is all about one's own tastes. There are some objective elements though, definitely. And if I find people making misstatements about the industry, I will usually jump in and do my level best to correct that. But there's really nothing to correct here, as such. I mean, if someone prefers playing with a yo-yo compared to playing a video game, who is to say that they are right or wrong? Most of it is definitely just opinion.[/color]

[color=#707875]Interesting thread. Before I respond, I should mention that I own just about every console under the sun, except for the Virtual Boy and the Xbox. However, unlike the Virtual Boy, I've had plenty of hands-on time with Xbox. I might as well split these consoles down and tell you what I think about them. [b]GameCube[/b] I haven't played my GameCube in several months. Why? A lack of releases that interest me. Games like Wario World or Mario Party 5 just haven't registered on my radar, even though I recognize that they are popular with various audiences. Having said that, GameCube is the console that I would be least likely to dump. This is because for me personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to buy the odd Nintendo masterpiece, as opposed to buying the "pretty good" PS2 game now and then. That's not to say that there aren't masterpieces on PS2 -- we all know that there are. However, I think GameCube offers certain games that no gamer should be missing. Titles like The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil (both remake and Zero), Super Mario Sunshine, et al., are all very worthwhile titles. There are other reasons why I like the GameCube too. And none of them relate to facts and figures or statistics or any of that -- that stuff is a seperate issue. I like the GameCube because I adore the controller. It's an incredibly intelligent design, in my view. I can quite comfortably sit for hours on a GameCube game without ever feeling any kind of strain in my hands. The same just can't be said for Xbox and PS2. People complain about the GameCube's D-Pad, but have these said people ever played for hours with that awful broken-up PS2 D-Pad? Ugh. It's horrible. It's uncomfortable and unnecessary; a bad design. So, while GameCube isn't offering me a constant stream of awesome titles, it's certainly offering more than I can personally afford to buy. And this is the key thing. Why worry about which console is producing more titles, when you probably can't afford to buy all of the ones you want? Obviously, most people have a finite bank balance. And because of that, one has to be somewhat careful about the games they purchase. With this in mind, there's usually more than enough on GameCube to satisfy my interests. [b]PlayStation 2[/b] I've only just complained about the PS2's controller -- something I stand by -- but having said that, the PS2 is still a fantastic console in its own right. On a technical level, the PS2 probably has to fall way behind the GameCube and Xbox. Not only is the controller an ancient design, but Sony has made some bad choices in regard to component manufacturing. PS2, like its predecessor, is infamous for being a pretty dodgy piece of technology. Breakdowns are common, unfortunately. Although those hardware issues play a role, I think the software is obviously the most important aspect here. I bought my PS2 long before the GameCube came out (obviously) and I bought it because I knew that it would cater to my tastes on a pretty broad level. If I want a great RPG, I can usually turn to PS2. If I want a great racing game, I can usually turn to PS2. If I want a great platformer, I can usually turn to PS2. It really does cater for a huge variety of tastes. My PS2 game library is probably of similar size to my GameCube library, as I haven't bought a PS2 game since Armored Core 3. In any case, there are definitely certain games on PS2 that I'm really glad to own. I'm actually really interested in buying SSX 3 (I own the previous two titles in the series, both on PS2), but I'm not quite ready to put the money down at the moment. lol [b]Xbox[/b] As I mentioned above, I don't own an Xbox. And all things considered, the Xbox offers the least of interest to me. Aside from a small number of first and third party titles -- and particularly Xbox Live -- there's very little on Xbox that really warrants a purchase for me right now. However, I think Xbox Live is a major selling point for that console. And there are definitely certain Xbox-only games that I'd love to own. If the price comes down a little more, I think I'll pick it up eventually. [b]PC[/b] I've added PC here for one reason -- buying PC games has stopped me playing console games over the last few months. With my recent purchase of Unreal Tournament 2004, I think the consoles will be gathering even more dust in the coming weeks. Wow, I haven't even included GBA or Dreamcast. Maybe later.[/color]

[color=#707875]As far as I know, Resident Evil 0 actually did pretty well. Although it may not have reached Capcom's projections. Various other franchises look like they'll be farmed out to other consoles though. In particular, Killer 7. The thing is, we really don't know what Nintendo is offering Capcom with RE4. They might be offering to pay for a percentage of the development cost, they might be lowering (or eliminating) licensing fees, or they might be subsidizing the cost of disc production. So it's very hard to tell whether the deal is better for Capcom or not. Either way, I don't think it matters. Capcom has already talked very specifically about their plans for certain franchises, Resident Evil included. And as we know, while RE4 will be a GameCube exclusive, games like Resident Evil Outbreak will be PS2-based. So PS2 gamers aren't missing out entirely, on the RE front.[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, the discussion over which system is doing better overall is probably for another thread. But as mentioned, Capcom has entered into an agreement with Nintendo to make RE4 exclusive to GameCube. This means that you'll need to own a GameCube to purchase the game. That's the whole point of the exclusivity agreement. The GTA situation is different. GTA wasn't exclusive to PS2 for an unlimited amount of time -- as far as I know, there was a specific time frame agreed on by Sony and Rockstar. The situation is quite different with RE4 and GameCube.[/color]

[color=#707875]You'll be waiting a long time, Xiou. RE4 won't be appearing on any other platforms, even in the future. Capcom has been repeatedly asked about this and they continually say that it'll be GameCube exclusive. In fact, I think the game's producer recently said something along the lines of "Never. Never." in response to that question. lol[/color]