James

[font=arial]I think with a game like this, the reviews are going to be all over the place. I rather liked IGN's review, mostly because Matt has been pretty skeptical about Twilight Princess at E3 (and he was actually quite anti-Wii until he actually knew more about it) and the review gets to all the main points without waffling too much. I suppose the only thing that annoyed me about it was his comments about voice acting - but certainly, he has the right to his opinion. I do somewhat agree with him about the MIDI element though, especially since Nintendo did at one point talk about fully-orchestrated music...I'm not quite sure what happened there, but it's certainly disappointing. 1UP's review was quite straight forward and it touched on the negative points, but there was nothing terribly interesting about it to me...it was just an example of a generally positive review. I think it probably comes down to what each reviewer finds important. For some, the visuals are going to be a huge let down that will hurt the experience - for others, this will not be a problem at all. I'm not sure what camp I'm going to sit in. I'm used to Xbox 360 visuals, so Zelda might disappoint me and that might be annoying. On the other hand, if I like the controls enough, I might be satisfied to overlook texturing problems and so on. Right now it's a totally open question. It's one that I'm not willing to make a judgement about until I've played the game for several hours (I don't think I could form a full impression with a few minutes in front of a kiosk in the middle of a store).[/font]

[quote]But James, here's the really awesome part: I was right all along. And I've had the hands-on experience no more than five hours ago to prove it. [/quote] [font=arial]I think you just need to go back and read some of your previous comments. The absolute rubbish that was spouted only a few pages ago about development cycles and such was clearly coming from someone with an axe to grind - this is not simply me mis-reading your comments, others who have posted in this thread have echoed the same sentiment. That's good enough for me.[/font] [quote]James, I never knew you had a sense of humor.[/quote] [font=arial]The fact that you don't understand the irony of this very comment just isn't amusing anymore, lol. That you claim to be objective - after the constant twisting and turning you've been doing in recent posts - is actually laughable. That you then claim I'm not objective because I'm pulling you up on your self-contradictory style of debate is bordering on offensive.[/font] [quote]Oh, yeah, because even though I'm not convinced that Wii is truly a revolution[/quote] [font=arial]Don't kid yourself. If it were simply that you were saying you weren't convinced Wii isn't a revolution, that would be completely fine. But you have systematically attacked nearly every aspect of the platform in recent times and many of these attacks have been based on completely erroneous information. That is most certainly [i]not[/i] open-minded. The reason I dislike debating on such grounds is because engaging in a debate on false premises isn't going to get anyone anywhere - it literally just comes down to who can type the most. And in those cases, points are ignored and we get majorly off the topic. As I have said repeatedly until I'm almost blue in the face...my only issue has ever been erroneous claims and viscious "attacks" on points that people are not even making. That kind of stuff just doesn't make for a reasonable debate - and clearly we are starting to slide down that slope again here. So this is where it'll end, unless something truly constructive can be said. At the end of the day it becomes more about arguing for the sake of it than actually having a substantial discussion. And that isn't something I'm interested in at all; I certainly don't want the thread to be dominated with those types of posts. If what I've said here still isn't driving the point home, then there isn't much more I can really do. lol[/font]

[quote]Explain, please. Do explain how it's still so obviously me just following something to justify my views, when I'd voiced those predictions ages ago, long before many of the hands-on previews, only to have my predictions ultimately confirmed in reviews that don't just get wowed by TP and give it a 10/10 without so much as a second thought. Not to mention having those predictions confirmed by my own first-hand experience playing the retail launch edition of WiiTP. Man, it's not me following something to justify my views; it's my first-hand experience and reasoning skills justifying the 8.8 review. [/quote] [font=arial]Your "predictions" were simply emotional gripes related to the fact that Twilight Princess was a conversion and that GameCube owners were having to wait. It was all very transparent and the wealth of online impressions and reviews have thusfar quashed it absolutely. Of course, some reviews will be negative and some will be positive - every review is different. But plucking one review out of the air (on a site that has had questionable reviews in the past) doesn't really cut it, lol. In any case, I'm simply not going to argue it with you. If I do, it will go around in circles and you will end up doing exactly what you did last time - let's not go there. I just don't have the energy for that cylical garbage these days. [/font] [quote]1UP? Man, they were lovey-dovey even months before launch, and it's not like they were much skeptical at all before that, so don't even try to portray them as some sort of convert.[/quote] [font=arial]1UP/EGM have generally been relatively harsh on both Nintendo and Microsoft at times - probably more often than they have been with Sony (Microsoft in particular as of late). I even remember whole articles being written online about that during the last few years. But more importantly, as I said - and will not repeat a million times - it's important to look at a spread of reviews and impressions. That's what I tend to do. Generally I think this provides a more accurate reflection of media interest. And just as a final point...my argument has never been that everyone should give this game a 10/10 right off the bat. I've never suggested that this game's greatness shouldn't be in question. Ever. What I have simply said is that it is inappropriate to a) dismiss something off-hand without having in-depth knowledge of it and b) to make a pre-judgement on an issue and then selectively insert information (whether relevant or irrelevant) which supports that conclusion. That's a case of putting the cart before the horse and it doesn't make for good discussion generally. That last paragraph really underlines my entire philosophy on the subject. I would rather make that general statement than go into a convoluted discussion that regularly strays from the core points.[/font] [quote]And I can't wait to see what happens when you play what I just suffered through.[/quote] [font=arial]Even that comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of everything I've been saying thusfar. There's just no point responding at all in that situation, lol. If I play Zelda on Wii and I don't like it, believe me, I will say so. I never give something a pass if it doesn't interest me or if I feel something about it isn't right. The main difference is that I try to keep an open mind until I have enough information about something, as opposed to making a purchasing decision and [i]then[/i] justifying it through selective use of information (some of which being totally inaccurate).[/font] [quote]I remember reading something where Nintendo said that Twilight Princess was the last traditional Zelda game. I'm 99% sure it wasn't a rumor or anything, one of the creators or directors or someone said it, so I look forward to the completely Wii-designed Zelda that will come out sooner or later. [/quote] [font=arial]Yes, that about sums it up. Twilight Princess is designed to be "the definitive traditional Zelda". The [i]"new"[/i] Zelda will debut on Wii sometime in the future. I actually hope that the next Wii-centric Zelda is quite different to what we've seen before.[/font]

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf] This isn't a matter of following whatever justifies my views. This is a matter of highlighting the level-headed, responsible, and [i]fair[/i] reviews out there, like the ones at Gamespot.[/QUOTE] [font=arial]Haha. That statement speaks for itself. But as I said, it's really a matter of looking at a spread of reviews. I think 1UP has actually been one of the sites to hold Wii more "accountable", so their glowing review of Twilight Princess is actually a little unexpected in that regard. In any case, as I said, I will be posting my view of the game once I buy it and play it for a few hours. I'm sure I will like it - it is Zelda afterall - but whether I'm happy with the changes and the controls is another issue entirely. If I'm not happy with it, you can bet it'll collect dust while I play other launch titles.[/font]

[font=arial]At the end of the day though, you're going to follow whatever justifies your position. There are many, many reviews out there - not just Gamespot's. Afterall, Gamespot was the site that down-rated Super Mario Sunshine for having low quality FMV...which obviously has nothing to do with the game itself.[/font] [quote name='1UP/EGM']That's a lot to live up to, and surprisingly -- amazingly -- Twilight Princess succeeds admirably, and in every respect. On top of that, it's an exceptional game in its own right: gracefully improving on the best elements of its predecessors, carefully trimming their shortcomings, and throwing in plenty of new ideas to keep things interesting. [/quote] [quote name='1UP/EGM']And thanks to precision and ease of use of the control interface, you can plant an arrow right between those eyes from that distance, too. The game's move to the Wii was a worrying change for many who feared it threatened to compromise a solidly crafted adventure for the sake of proving that the Wii can too play host to this kind of game. But those worries were ultimately needless: Twilight Princess is great on Wii. The remote-swinging sword attacks create a streamlined interface that allows for the most impressive swordplay the series has yet seen. While the Wii's button layout is a bit unwieldy, the core mechanics are as solid as ever. [/quote][font=arial] [quote=1UP/EGM]Twilight Princess is something you rarely see: a 60-hour adventure in which every moment is memorable. But then, maybe that's no surprise -- it represents the full resources and effort of the world's most powerful first-party developer, and thanks to all those delays, it's even enjoyed an extra year of polish and refinement. The question to ask therefore isn't "Is it any good?" but rather "Just how good is it?" The answer? Truly fantastic. It's not a reinvention of the genre like Ocarina was -- but it's much better, because it takes all its predecessors' raw ideas, perfects them, and creates an experience that's at once new and familiar. It's rare to find a launch game that truly justifies the purchase of a new console, but this is precisely that. If Wii Sports is a game for everyone, Twilight Princess is for everyone who loves games. [/quote] So, yeah...I think what really matters is how many glowing reviews there are, versus the negatives. Gamespot are known for pointing out red herrings now and then - they may very well be right in this case, but you know...there's a lot of gaming sites out there. I'll have to read more reviews on more sites ultimately. In any case, I'll have the game on December 7th, so I will be letting everyone know what I think of it...whether that opinion is positive or negative.[/font]

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']I bought Nightfall at release, but with my net connection out for two weeks my new paragon is still only level 7. We should meet up and storm the newbie island together.[/color][/quote] [font=arial]Sounds good. I haven't played for a week or so, but my character is somewhere around Level 10 I think. Hopefully I'll see you on there soon![/font]

[font=arial]For now I would recommend posting in [u][url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38186"]this thread[/url][/u], especially given the apparently speculative nature of this subject. When there's some solid information about a live action film, you may want to start an actual thread for it. It will be up to the moderators whether or not that thread would be in Anime Lounge or Music, Movies & TV.[/font] [COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1]Underlined the link for you. -Clurr[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[font=arial]Money itself is neutral...I don't think it has any inherent good or bad element. As with many other things, it entirely depends on [i]how[/i] the money is used. So it really comes down to the individual and how they choose to take advantage of the tools available to them - whether that's money or something else.[/font]

[QUOTE=Th3BlackParad3]OMG OMG!!! WE NEED A RAMEN FORUM!!!!!!!! WE NNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD IT!!!!! i love ramen!!! id also like a spell checker- im the worst speller in the world! ( is speller a word? i dont kno! xD) xD GO RAMEN![/QUOTE] [font=arial]I think Baron was joking. :animestun As Sara said, we do read all suggestions and take them all seriously. It's definitely worth pointing out that we have tried many different approaches in the past - afterall, OB has existed for several years now. Some things just haven't worked for us. So what we have today is largely what suits our community the best - but our community does gradually change and we always need to be on the look out for new ideas.[/font]

[QUOTE=Shinje][color=crimson] Didn't OB remove this feature because people who were getting pwned in their debates were deleting their threads? In that case, is there an option the Admins can select that would allow members to edit thread titles, but not delete the thread? I know members can still edit their post, so would it be a big leap to allow them to edit the title too? That would come in handy for any spelling mistake on behalf of the OP. Instead of leaving it up to a mod, the OP can correct his/her mistakes.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=arial]The problem is that, as far as our software is concerned, "editing" includes "deleting". If we allow members to edit threads, they can also delete them (in the same way that they can delete posts). When a member deletes their own post, however, the post is only given what we call a "soft delete". This means that no members can see the post, but [i]Moderators[/i] can view the post even after it's been removed. We can then hard delete it (completely remove it) or we can restore it and make it visible again. I'm not yet certain if this can be done with threads or not. I would have to investigate that first.[/font]

[QUOTE=White][FONT=Tahoma][spoiler]Well, he didn't take the one off of his mouth/jaw, which is why he died. The whole Amanda not letting him live thing was the favt that the only door in the room was welded shut. Actually I thought the whole first three traps that Jeff had to do was really neat. In the first Ice Shower one, he's "running away" from the witness who ran away from the scene of the crime. He was "judging" the judge, deciding whether or not to free him. And the twisting crucifix has still got me stumped.[/spoiler][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=arial][spoiler]Oh yeah, that's right. I remember Jigsaw saying that she didn't even give him a chance - Jigsaw's traps might be deadly but technically there's always a way out. His justification/logic is another issue though! Haha. I also agree with you about Jeff. It does present an interesting question - if faced with the people who were involved with a family member's death, what would you do? I'm sure for most of us it wouldn't be an easy question. I like that Saw III at least goes into some depth on that point and it raises a legitimate question (especially considering that so many people seem to favour "eye for an eye" punishment).[/spoiler][/font]

[font=arial]I understand your concern, but all we really do is ask people to copy and paste their post and create a new thread with a rating. Unfortunately members can not edit thread titles. This means that they can not include a rating after the thread is posted. At the same time, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have Moderators slapping ratings on everything all the time - it would take a while and would end up being a waste of their time (when they could actually be moderating content). In the future we will have a way to prevent this problem through software, but at the moment I don't think we can do anything on a technical level (other than give members the ability to edit threads, which I am not prepared to do). Depending on the size of the forum though, it might be possible to trial the idea of Moderators just editing threads. So we'll see how that goes. But believe me, I understand your concern - I have the same issue with the current system.[/font]

[b]1. What religion are you CURRENTLY following? If you don't have one, then why?[/b] [font=arial]I'm non-religious, so I don't have a religion at all. Nor am I athiest, nor am I agnostic.[/font] [b] 2. Why do you follow that religion? Parents, personal reasons, etc?[/b] [font=arial]I don't follow a religion because I don't think that [i]any[/i] religion is a factual representation of Earth's creation. I do not believe that mankind has that answer yet and I believe that all religions are the invention of man, rather than the invention of God. I also feel that our concepts of God are decidedly man-made. I think there are valid reasons why we create our gods and our religions, but for me personally...there's too much doubt in my mind for me to comfortably follow a religion. I would be intellectually dishonest if I did so. Having said that, there are certainly religious people in my family and my parents never pushed me one way or the other. They always had the attitude that I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind.[/font] [b] 3. Do you ever feel that people often critisize you because of these beliefs?[/b] [font=arial]People don't generally criticise me because of my beliefs (primarily, I guess, because I don't have any spiritual beliefs to criticise). However, people [i]do[/i] occasionally criticise my opinion on the grounds of religion (gay marriage, for example). Religion is often a motivation for such disagreements and there is often a significant amount of zeal behind those said disagreements. So in that sense, yes, beliefs/religion play a role in people's criticisms...but I have rarely been criticised specifically for my "beliefs".[/font] [b] 4. This one may spark a little bit of arguing: Do you believe that your religion is the one true religion? If so provide evidence.[/b] [font=arial]My philosophy is very simple. The answer is: I don't know. I don't know whether or not there is a God, I don't know how the Universe came to be and I probably never will know in my lifetime. Having said that, my response is not to insert something that I [i]know[/i] is essentially a man-made answer - it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole. I would rather have no answer than the wrong answer. So perhaps I will find out when I die, or perhaps I will never find out. Either way, I will at least know in myself that I am always attempting to do what I feel is right and I am being honest with myself.[/font]

[font=arial]I went to see this movie a few nights ago and while it was all pretty expected, I actually don't think it was the best movie in the series. But I think that's largely because I analyze the movies too much - Jigsaw's entire justification is ridiculous and I felt that the ending of Saw III really left something to be desired. It was definitely the most gruesome movie of the three, but I don't know if that's a good thing. It was all gore, no horror. I know some people are frightened by gore, but I was mostly just thinking this movie was equivalent to one of those TV shows that display operations - in other words, it was gross, but not frightening. The first and second movies were a bit more horrific in my opinion...probably because Jigsaw himself was more of a mystery and the core motivation made a bit more sense. In Saw III it ended up becoming very convoluted, to the point where it almost seems pointless. I suppose for pure gore value (and seeing the inventiveness behind the various torture devices), it was interesting. But it's all very predictable - moreso, I thought, than the prior movies. Then again, I've never been a huge fan of the Saw films, so I suppose my comments should be taken with a grain of salt by the hardcore fans. :catgirl: [b]Edit:[/b] [spoiler]The "intestines pool" was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen on film, lol. Although I also thought it was a kind of clever trap.[/spoiler] And to correct an earlier comment about the room with chains, [spoiler]the victim actually [i]did[/i] take all the chains off, I think. The bomb blew up anyway. One of the whole points of the film was that Amanda (I forget her name, I think that was it) isn't like Jigsaw - she's not teaching a lesson and providing a chance to escape, she's simply murdering people.[/spoiler][/font]

[font=arial]I've just taken on a second profession and I'm still going on the first island. I've had the chance to play a fair bit today, so I'm clearing out a lot of quests. Anyone can feel free to join me if you see me online. :catgirl: [/font]

[font=arial]Yes, let's cut [i]to[/i] the chase: online petitions rarely work and even if they were a worthwhile venture, this thread would still constitute as spam. It's basically an advertisement with no discussion value. Please don't post this crap on my site. Thanks.[/font]

[quote]Episodic content is similar to shareware (by the way I'm defining it) because you already have the full game at your fingertips (or would, if they weren't hosted online - you've still payed for a full game though), but you have to pay a little bit extra once you hit that point. [/quote] [font=arial]Shareware itself came in a few different forms anyway. Some games were [i]entirely[/i] free or had "free versions". And then there were other games that were essentially extended demos of a finalized retail product. I see the distinction you are making though and from your point of view it makes sense. I think that the challenges with episodic content are very similar to what we had with shareware...only perhaps we're talking about a more dangerous scenario. I suppose for me, the ultimate nightmare scenario is that you play for an hour, reach a cliffhanger and then are told "1000 Wii Points to Continue to Chapter 2" or whatever. In other words, you're not getting a full game with multiple episodes...instead you're getting a standard-length game and you're essentially paying more because of the payment method. I suspect that such systems won't survive though, because most people just aren't going to be willing to spend that kind of money. Micro-transactions will no doubt be a novelty for a while, but unless developers include true value in them, I don't think they have much of a stable future. But then again, this is where competition comes in - companies who offer real value will hopefully be rewarded by consumers.[/font]

[font=arial]I definitely have concerns about "episodic content". The idea is great in theory, but it really depends how it's approached in each case. Some companies are including hours of gameplay for a low price, whereas others are offering a few token elements for an astronomical fee. Basically I agree with Tony. This is a new area for console gaming (and to some extent, PC gaming); this generation is a test bed, more or less. In a free market, developers will respond to what consumers pay for. If a large amount of people are prepared to pay for cheats, that's what developers will produce for us. I think there are some amazing possibilities with microtransactions, but few companies seem to be taking advantage of them.[/font]

[font=arial]Well, I'm late to the party (as is often the case these days), but I finally purchased Guild Wars: Nightfall. I was lucky because despite my lateness, I still managed to snag a Collector's Edition version. At first I was a bit hesitant to go ahead with Nightfall, because I've barely played Factions. But having said that, I didn't want to miss the Collector's Edition and I figure I can always go back and play through Factions when I want to - the ability to seamlessly move between games is really good in that sense. I have to say though, even early on, I'm enjoying Nightfall much more than Factions. The Hero system is something I've been asking for for a long time now - I'm sure some of you will remember the amount of times I used to whine that we couldn't command NPCs to resurrect us in battle...especially when the healer would go off and do something illogical (like fighting a group of enemies on their own instead of resurrecting the human players immediately). It's nice to have some serious control over allies now. It's also nice to have NPCs who are significantly more effective than henchmen in general. I'm assuming some of you guys have already finished Nightfall. I've chosen a Paragon for the game and I'm wondering if anyone has any general tips about Paragons. Also, what is your favourite profession in Nightfall (out of the new professions, that is)?[/font]

[font=arial]Here's another great quote:[/font] [quote=GameLife]"The other thing I'm trying to get across when I tell you of my gameplay marathon is that it was spent not entangled in the Wii controller but indeed in luxurious comfort. In a day full of revelations, surprises, and 'holy ****' moments, this was the biggest one of all for me: Go sit in front of your TV. After five minutes or so, look where your hands are. Likely they're just sprawled out at either side of your torso. Where they're likely not is sitting parallel to each other in the middle of your lap, where they'd be if you had a game controller. This isn't an unnatural position per se, but neither could it be called a rest position. Of course it works -- I've been doing it for twenty-odd years and have no problem with it, per se. But the Wii controller is split in two halves. And you don't need to constantly be pointing the Wii remote half at the TV screen, because it doesn't control the camera and this isn't a first-person shooter. You only need point the remote at the TV when required by the game -- when you're going to shoot your slingshot, or for other purposes (which will be revealed when the final embargo date is up). Get where I'm going with this? By hour two or so, my remote hand was resting on my right leg, twisted inwards. But my left hand was out of my lap entirely, just hanging over the arm of the chair as if I was holding a Dustbuster and cleaning the rug. And I was playing the game, actively, perfectly. Had the only innovation of the Wii controller been to split the game pad up into two independent halves, it would have been worth it for that alone. You can't understand this with a five-minute trade show demo. You have to be at home, in your natural environment. You also attack enemies by shaking the remote. You don't need to aim -- it's just a substitute for what pressing a button would do in the GameCube version. It doesn't really affect the gameplay one way or another. I say this even though the aforementioned Trinen was attempting to convince me that after this, he couldn't go back to hitting a button again. I can't put myself in that column, but I can say that: No, your arm will not get tired No, your wrist will not hurt No, you won't have to stop every hour for a break Shut up All it takes is a little tiny nudge of the controller and you'll swing your sword. Within about a minute it becomes second nature. It also frees up one of the buttons on the controller. The way the game was before, with "sword slash" assigned to the A or B button, it meant that the only way you could use your inventory items would be to assign them to the D-pad. This was how it was set up at E3, and it was kind of uncomfortable. But now, you use your items (the bow, the boomerang, etc) with the B trigger, and do all your context-sensitive stuff (rolling, pushing) with the A button. Actually, I guess it does affect gameplay a bit -- since you have your hands on both buttons and the "shake" all at once, it means you can execute all kinds of varying maneuvers faster and more efficiently than on the GameCube controller. If you're part of that contingent who planned on buying a Wii, but getting the GameCube version of Zelda anyway just because you believe that the motion controls would ruin it, let me tell you something. Once, I was wondering, honestly, whether or not you were right. I was worried that the Wii version of the game would be rendered gimmicky and unsuitable for long-term play sessions. But now I've played it, and not only has every lingering speck of doubt been scrubbed clean, I was actually shocked at how well it worked."[/quote] [font=arial]I'm so pleased with all the impressions I've been reading. The writer here is right though - you have to try this game in a natural environment...not at a trade show. I'm very happy to hear these comments about control. I also never considered the fact that using motion to slash the sword and using buttons for other functions actually makes combat and movement faster and simpler with Wii. This is definitely the first Wii game I'm buying.[/font]

[quote]Sure, safe sex and proper condom use should be promoted because not everyone is going to agree to the idea of holding off sex until marriage, but that does not make abstenince programs the devil in a prada shirt. [/quote] [font=arial]I think the problem is that some people equate abstinence programs with abstinence [i]only[/i] programs. Obviously these programs don't work simply because you're always going to have people who want to have sex before marriage. So while it's fine to say "just don't do it", parents and educators also have a responsibility to arm people with the appropriate knowledge in case they [i]do[/i] do it. This has nothing to do with endorsing sex at a young age, it simply recognises the idea of limiting any damage that may come from it. I would say that a lot of teen pregnancies occur when teenagers are simply ill-informed about contraceptive measures and so on - regardless of abstinence programs. So, I think everyone would agree that in a sex education course, the teachers should probably say "obviously the best way to avoid any problems is simply to wait before you have sex". That should then be followed by "if you do have sex, however, here's what you need to know in order to limit the chance of an STD or pregnancy". As with most things in life, it's about balance. [/font]

[font=arial]I think the problem they face is that the Wii version is a semi-recent development. They don't want to just dump years of development work on GameCube...that would make the entire process somewhat pointless. Selling the game for both systems makes a lot of sense, both financially for Nintendo as well as for game players themselves. As far as online ordering goes...I'm surprised. But I suppose it's also a release date thing too. The fact that there's a delay in North America may mean that they won't need to go that route there. Either way, I would ideally like to be able to have the Wii version but use the GameCube controller if I want. I don't think that's an option though, and [i]that[/i] is disappointing. [b]Edit:[/b] Has anyone seen the latest impressions from IGN Wii? These impressions are based on the final version of the game. [url="http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/744/744044p1.html"]Here's the article[/url]. Here are a few choice quotes:[/font] [quote=IGN Wii]Twilight Princess may have started as a GameCube title, but it finished a Wii one. There remains this faction of gamers that refuses to accept the possibility. You know who you are. You continue to argue that because the controls were originally designed for the GameCube pad there is no hope for the Wii build. You say that your arms will get tired using the Wii remote. You speak of mirrored worlds and right-handed Link. And you know what? It's all crap. If you have the means to buy Twilight Princess for Wii and you still get it for GameCube, you are a fool. And I state that without meaning to suggest that the GCN iteration is flawed - it isn't. It's an amazing swan song for Nintendo's older system, so if you've got no other option you're still golden. But that said, it's not as good as the Wii incarnation. In fact, were it up to me and not Nintendo (and in my dreams, it is), I'd have scrapped the GCN build altogether, forcing everyone to exclusively buy the Wii version. Honestly, Nintendo gave you five good years with GameCube; it's time to move on. [/quote] [quote name='IGN Wii']The remote-enhanced control comes to mind. Using the pointer with Zelda felt unintuitive when Nintendo unveiled the mechanic last May, but it has come a long way since then. Now, slashing Link's sword with the remote feels very good and using the device to aim and target with weapons like the Hero's Bow and Gale Boomerang absolutely demolishes the traditional configuration. There really is no comparison - and there's no going back. Also, Zelda on Wii makes full use of the remote's internal speaker and this is, believe it or not, a very welcomed feature. I've always been skeptical of this speaker, mind you, because I simply don't think it outputs the best audio quality.[/quote] [font=arial]I will definitely be buying Zelda for Wii on launch. I've pre-ordered Wii and already paid for most of it, so I'll be able to pick up a few games when it comes out. These latest impressions are absolutely glowing, so I'm very happy with that. Has anyone got links to other impressions out there?[/font]

[font=arial]This thread's really gone off topic...lol As for the North Korea thread...morality of WMD and the North Korean discussion are close enough to each other that they can comfortably co-exist in the same thread. We don't need seperate threads for every split of the hair. As long as people don't stray too far from the central focus, it's all fine.[/font]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]I saw the interviews with her man. I hardly think she was talking in terms of irony. She was applauding nature for finally getting back at the man who'd embarrassed them (and her) for so long, not being ironic. But I suppose that's just my opinion on it all..[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [font=arial]Maybe part of it is just the way she comes across. I definitely can't excuse her for that, haha. Admittedly she comes across like a total dragon. But she's a very smart woman...unfortunately she's often too smart for her own good (which was half the trouble I guess).[/font]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Embarrassment? She was implying that [i]he deserved to die[/i] for 'what he'd done to the animal kingdom' over the years. She was being an utter witch about it. Honestly, I don't care if she's the most embarrassed woman in the world because of Steve Irwin, to imply someone had it coming, and say it in such a cruel way, is hardly pointing out that it had become impossible to critique him. It was just being mean, and her comments were hardly called for.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [font=arial]No, that's not what she was saying. Part of her point was that his death was ironic, because she felt that he had been cruel to animals in the past - as I keep stating, this is a point I don't agree with. But she also had a secondary point, which was related to the inability of anyone to make a negative comment on his life now that he has died. This is the reason why media influence can be so negative, especially with something like South Park. You have a diluted message out there that says "they're making fun of Steve Irwin's death on South Park". To [i]anyone[/i], that sounds horrible and nobody would excuse it. Look a little closer and you notice that it's a satire - it's using that example to make a general comment about the issue of discussing someone after they've died. The exact same thing happened with Germaine Greer. As I said - and will repeat - I don't agree with all of her comments. I certainly don't agree that Steve Irwin was cruel to animals. [i]However[/i], Greer was also pointing out that many people have suddenly changed their tune as a result of his death. Remember when he dangled his baby in front of a crocodile? The man might be dead, but that won't stop me from being honest about mistakes and embarassments. Does this mean I don't recognize his contribution to Australia or its wildlife? Of course not. I think he was a great man and on the whole, he's someone to be admired. But the point I'm making is that we have to dig through the spin. Unfortunately too many people skim over the surface and we get these very sudden shock-horror reactions when perhaps they aren't always warranted.[/font]