What would you have rather had....new gameplay or amazing graphics?

Well ya just saying its not as huge as the transfer from N64 to GC. I mean this happens especially when you look at cartoony games. Look at "Blue Dragon" for the 360, its cartoony and has little difference to me than something like "Super Smash Bros Brawl" in terms of graphics... between the N64 and GC it was like night and day, here it isn't that abstract.
 
[quote name='daroga']No one's arguing that they aren't the best looking games. The issue is the jump from, say Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox to Gears of War on the 360 isn't as great as the jump from the PS1 to the Xbox, etc.

And an ellipsis is for showing a break in quoted material or when a sentence trails off without finishing. A single period will help divide your sentences just fine.[/QUOTE]

I'll use a ...if I want to...Who the f' are you?
 
That's all subjective...The jump from this gen to that gen...What about the online component...360 has Live fully integrated to where it is almost an afterthought of what gaming was like before it...Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo, and have had every system from them ever made, console to handheld...I just wish the Wii had the graphical power of a 360...But it will be an enjoyable system to have for the next 5 years
 
NES -> SNES - pretty nice advancement in 2D graphics
SNES -> N64/PS1 - 2D -> 3D
N64/PS1 -> XB/PS2/GC - pretty nice advancement in 3D graphics
XB/PS2/GC -> Wii -> PS3/360 - not much for Wii and high-definition/more detailed 3D graphics for PS3/360

The only games that are currently "ugly" in my opinion are NES (early 2D) and N64/PS1 (early 3D). Good 2D and good 3D have pretty solid longevity.

And I don't understand why 4 games out of the first 30-40 available on the Wii (through January) being minigame collections makes everyone think the Wii is going to be nothing but minigames.

And the answer to the OP's question is more of a value proposition. Do I think amazing graphics are worth twice as much as more immersive gameplay? Sure don't. Strictly from a graphical standpoint, I'm pretty sure I'd get a hell of a lot more value out of a $100 Xbox/PS2 than the four-to-six times more expensive 360/PS3.
 
[quote name='botticus']NES -> SNES - pretty nice advancement in 2D graphics
SNES -> N64/PS1 - 2D -> 3D
N64/PS1 -> XB/PS2/GC - pretty nice advancement in 3D graphics
XB/PS2/GC -> Wii -> PS3/360 - not much for Wii and high-definition/more detailed 3D graphics for PS3/360

The only games that are currently "ugly" in my opinion are NES (early 2D) and N64/PS1 (early 3D). Good 2D and good 3D have pretty solid longevity.

And I don't understand why 4 games out of the first 30-40 available on the Wii (through January) being minigame collections makes everyone think the Wii is going to be nothing but minigames.[/QUOTE]

Agreed...But you can't deny that you wonder how you were playing Atari/Intellivision back in the day, and thinking "Whoa" This shit is sweet
 
[quote name='dserafin1986']Agreed...But you can't deny that you wonder how you were playing Atari/Intellivision back in the day, and thinking "Whoa" This shit is sweet[/quote]Well, that was NES for me, but definitely. The thing is, I haven't had that same reaction to new systems since then. There have been awesome games, but I haven't been awed by the capabilities of the system because they've just been incremental improvements. But, I think that's just me, I'm just never overly impressed with graphics. Hell, I started RE4 and I was like "Oh, yeah, that looks nice," but that was about it. If it's fun and looks nice, awesome; if it's fun and looks mediocre, awesome.
 
[quote name='dserafin1986']That's all subjective...The jump from this gen to that gen...What about the online component...360 has Live fully integrated to where it is almost an afterthought of what gaming was like before it...Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo, and have had every system from them ever made, console to handheld...I just wish the Wii had the graphical power of a 360...But it will be an enjoyable system to have for the next 5 years[/quote]
Now you're branching out. We're only talking about graphics. The extra Bells & Whistles (online play, etc.) are making rather significant advancements.

I'd rather have HD on the Wii too, but I don't want to pay $400-$600 for a game console, so I'm content to put that off for now.
 
i have this argument with one of my friends all the time.

all he babbles on about is "but look at the graphics!!!"

i try to explain that a polished turd is still a turd, but he just doesn't get it.
 
[quote name='rickonker']All the Wii fanboys always make it sound like you can only have good graphics or good gameplay, pick one. Obviously most people would pick gameplay in that case, but why the fuck can't you have both? This is the problem I believe I, the OP, and some others have.[/QUOTE]

Price is one limitation. I'd never paid more than $199.99 for a console, so the 360 and PS3 are out of the question for me.

If the wii was any more than the $250, I wouldn't have bought it either, and almost passed on it.

Now if they can have good graphics and good gameplay at $200-250 I'd be all over it. :D

But given how little time I have to play games (and waning interest in recent years) it doesn't make sense to shell out more than that for a console to me, even though I can afford a 360 or PS3. It's just not a good value when I could spend that money elsewhere.
 
[quote name='botticus']
The only games that are currently "ugly" in my opinion are NES (early 2D) and N64/PS1 (early 3D). Good 2D and good 3D have pretty solid longevity.
[/QUOTE]

I agree 100% with that, and it really gets at the point that graphics only matter to certain degree.

It's a bit tough to play some NES and N64/PS1 games as they just look terrible, but I have no problems breaking out SNES/Genesis games or PS2/X-box/GC games and can see myself going back to my favorites for years to come as the graphics hold up and still look good today.

A game like Okami isn't going to be any less stylish and visually impressive to me in 2016 than it is today in 2006.
 
God, this argument just pisses me right the fuck off. I have fond memories of TEXT ADVENTURE GAMES for chrissakes you damn kids (getoffmylawn!) From time to time I still play Jungle Jim, A-Maze-ing, and Football on my TI-99 4A. Yes, football, the game that old schoolers will remember involved calling the plays and letting the action unfold without any control from you (like NFL Head Coach?), and often resulted in the AI for your team backpedalling to get away from the rush further and further until you can run -98 yards the other way for a safety.

The SSI Gold Box "Curse of the Azure Bonds" game and other D&D old school adventure/tactics games are still my favorites.

The point here is that old-schoolers like myself were regularly capable of "enhancing" the limitations of the graphics of games by superimposing our imaginations onto it, ultimately giving us a more personal connection to the games we loved playing, either through the game's inherent gameplay or our own ability to squeeze blood from a turnip via the power of our heightened capacity for inventing fun. This is why my friends and I still love a good round of Track N Field or Double Dragon.

What we get into now is the argument of the newest generations arguing, simply, "but I shouldn't HAVE to fill in the blanks with my imagination! The technology for effective realism(Slash)immersion(Slash)environment exists, and I expect them to use it." I can't discount that argument entirely, but for myself I can look past it, if not ignore it completely because that's my background.

I can enjoy a good game without good graphics just like I can enjoy a good leftover turkey sandwich without the tangy zip of Miracle Whip. But some people can't, and I just have to recognize that and move on.
 
[quote name='Salmonday']God, this argument just pisses me right the fuck off. I have fond memories of TEXT ADVENTURE GAMES for chrissakes you damn kids (getoffmylawn!) From time to time I still play Jungle Jim, A-Maze-ing, and Football on my TI-99 4A. Yes, football, the game that old schoolers will remember involved calling the plays and letting the action unfold without any control from you (like NFL Head Coach?), and often resulted in the AI for your team backpedalling to get away from the rush further and further until you can run -98 yards the other way for a safety.

The SSI Gold Box "Curse of the Azure Bonds" game and other D&D old school adventure/tactics games are still my favorites.

The point here is that old-schoolers like myself were regularly capable of "enhancing" the limitations of the graphics of games by superimposing our imaginations onto it, ultimately giving us a more personal connection to the games we loved playing, either through the game's inherent gameplay or our own ability to squeeze blood from a turnip via the power of our heightened capacity for inventing fun. This is why my friends and I still love a good round of Track N Field or Double Dragon.

What we get into now is the argument of the newest generations arguing, simply, "but I shouldn't HAVE to fill in the blanks with my imagination! The technology for effective realism(Slash)immersion(Slash)environment exists, and I expect them to use it." I can't discount that argument entirely, but for myself I can look past it, if not ignore it completely because that's my background.

I can enjoy a good game without good graphics just like I can enjoy a good leftover turkey sandwich without the tangy zip of Miracle Whip. But some people can't, and I just have to recognize that and move on.[/QUOTE]


Miracle Whip sucks! Regular mayonaisse ftw.

This thread is now about Miracle whip vs. mayonaisse.
 
[quote name='peloquin17']i have this argument with one of my friends all the time.

all he babbles on about is "but look at the graphics!!!"

i try to explain that a polished turd is still a turd, but he just doesn't get it.[/QUOTE]


There are going to be turds on the wii too. I would rather play the polished turd.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There are going to be turds on the wii too. I would rather play the polished turd.[/QUOTE]

It's good to know you only play and like shitty games then.
 
when a systems selling point is the graphics, thats what the devs are going to shoot for. I think a game is more then what can be shown on its box.

When the devs are pushed to have hd graphics they will cut conners to make that game fit in a 50$ suit. I would rather they spend Time on the animation, and gameplay too, and not use high def chop shop textures, but painted textures to give the game sexy dzn to boot. Gears of war, is nice, but i bet i will get more game time out of ssmb.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's good to know you only play and like shitty games then.[/quote]

Atleast there was one good game at the Wii launch. The rest were last gen looking dumps.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There are going to be turds on the wii too. I would rather play the polished turd.[/QUOTE]


I just want to play good games, polished or not, and stay away from the turds regardless of level of polish.
 
For me gameplay still rules all, that's why I can't put down Capcom Classic Collection vol. 2 or Sega Genesis collection. Then again, I really love 2-D graphics still.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I just want to play good games, polished or not, and stay away from the turds regardless of level of polish.[/quote]

Then you'll want to stay away from:

230024b.jpg
230053b.jpg
230036b.jpg

230029b.jpg
230002b.jpg
230022b.jpg

230030b.jpg
230026b.jpg
230027b.jpg

230039b.jpg
230045b.jpg
230042b.jpg

230034b.jpg
230035b.jpg
230043b.jpg

230052b.jpg
230054b.jpg
230028b.jpg


I love how in other topics people are like, Zelda & Madden are doing phenomenal... um... yeah... well when you line up concists of 85% garbage or games done much better on other systems... and not only because of the graphics. I'm not saying I HATE the Wii, I'm just saying Nintendo Fanboys shut the F*ck up.... Stop acting like lack of graphical cababilities means the game is going to be better... and stop acting like great looking High Res games usually suck...

If you were to put the 360 line up of this pass month against the Wii's, I'd still vote for 360. The only launch game worth putting your hard earned $50 bills down for was Zelda.... the rest were mini-game tech demos.
 
Oh man, opinions on games differ! Red Steel and Excite Truck are very enjoyable; CoD3 would be a great game if it had an ounce of multiplayer. But thanks for listing all the GameCube ports, mooky ;) Hell, Billy and Mandy uses the classic controller, they didn't even pretend to try there.
 
Well using the classic controller isn't exactly a bad thing. For example, I prefer the classic controller so much more for a game like DBZ: Budokai Tenkaichi 2. Also, opinions differ pretty wildly on games like M:UA, Tony Hawk, Red Steel, and Excite Truck (only one of which isn't exclusive btw). None of them are great games, but they're not piles of crap. A lot of the games are more then "tech demos" (as seems to be the new fanboy buzz word).

And yes, anyone who puts a year's worth of 360 games against Zelda and the rest of the Wii launch is an idiot if they say that the 360 has a weaker line-up then the Wii right now. Given a year, maybe not though.
 
New gameplay of course, graphics are important and I would have loved to see a better looking zelda (it can always look better) but gameplay is the most important factor to me. Nintendo makes games that I know that I will enjoy playing.
 
"Mooky" is kind of clueless. He/she thinks everyone thinks bad graphics = good gameplay even when theres a big bold thread title of "What would you RATHER HAD"(should be have).

I find it funny when you get people that want to be different so much that even if their argument is irrelevant they still throw it out there. You'll see what I mean if you go to the Nintendo Forums...there are always a few of them...
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Bullshit[/QUOTE]

Mooky, just stop. It's not funny anymore and you're just making yourself look like more of an ass.
 
Mooky, you can't compare a launch lineup with a year-old lineup.

If you put the Wii and the PS3 lineups next to each other, I'd take the Wii's.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Then you'll want to stay away from:

230024b.jpg
230053b.jpg
230036b.jpg

230029b.jpg
230002b.jpg
230022b.jpg

230030b.jpg
230026b.jpg
230027b.jpg

230039b.jpg
230045b.jpg
230042b.jpg

230034b.jpg
230035b.jpg
230043b.jpg

230052b.jpg
230054b.jpg
230028b.jpg


I love how in other topics people are like, Zelda & Madden are doing phenomenal... um... yeah... well when you line up concists of 85% garbage or games done much better on other systems... and not only because of the graphics. I'm not saying I HATE the Wii, I'm just saying Nintendo Fanboys shut the F*ck up.... Stop acting like lack of graphical cababilities means the game is going to be better... and stop acting like great looking High Res games usually suck...

If you were to put the 360 line up of this pass month against the Wii's, I'd still vote for 360. The only launch game worth putting your hard earned $50 bills down for was Zelda.... the rest were mini-game tech demos.[/quote]

I agree. I love Zelda, but I must say I had more fun at the 360 launch with PDZ, Kameo, Condemned, and PGR3. The launch was rather sad for the Wii. If it wouldn't have been for Zelda....what would it have been for? There is nothing else. Hopefully Super Swing Golf and Elebits will be enjoyable.
 
The graphics debate seems to come down to if you can appreciate the technical limitations on art.



Of course that isn't as detailed or vibrant as something like this:



But each taken at their own merits, and within the limitations of their tools, they are both beautiful and impressive.

Gameplay on the other hand is universal amongst all systems. Hitting a button on one system, can easily be translated to hitting a button on another system. Due to this level playing field, great stand out gameplay is really what makes a game rise above the rest.

Did Mario 64 blow anyones mind with it's graphics? Probably not, but it's gameplay was so ahead of it's time, it single handidly paved the way for all future 3-d Platformers.
 
[quote name='Spades22']You'll see what I mean if you go to the Nintendo Forums...there are always a few of them...[/quote]
I can't handle that place. It seems like it would be a largely rational place to discuss Nintendo and their products, but man oh man, that place is a nightmare for the most part. Just tons of Negative Nancies digging for a reason to bitch and moan...and they dig away until they find something. Then they bitch. Then they dig some more. Repeat process. Rarely any recognition for the positivity of the games, the consoles, etc.

Occasionally it's a fun board but, yeah, it'd be better if the crybabies could be wiped off.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's good to know you only play and like shitty games then.[/QUOTE]

The point is that people assume that every game for the wii apparently is going to be great gameplay wise and that is false. Every system is going to have "turds" and if you are going to play one it might as well be the "polished" version.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']The point is that people assume that every game for the wii apparently is going to be great gameplay wise and that is false. Every system is going to have "turds" and if you are going to play one it might as well be the "polished" version.[/QUOTE]

No one has said that at all. People are just saying less looking great games on the Wii will still be a blast to play, and aren't hampered by the graphics in their opinion.

No one is saying the Wii won't have turds, hell, the launch line up is full of them. Zelda is the only game I bought and I don't even have desire to play the rest of them.

I don't play the turds, polished or not. I have relatively little time for games these days, so I limit myself to games that I consider to be AAA 9/10 or above titles. I don't really care what the graphics are in these games, as all 3 systems offer graphics that are more than adequate to me, so it just comes down to which games I have fun with. Looking nice is must a very minor added benefit.
 
Wii developers are forced NOT to rely on graphical prowess, and so there is more potential for innovative gameplay. But there are still crappy games for Wi, as there are with any system.

You know what embarasses me, though? Games with screenshots that look like pretty photographs but play like crap. Games with horrendous framerates, their covers littered with girls in bikinis and soldiers and guns and explosions. I'm not fucking fourteen. What, so to be a "hardcore" gamer I have to like military multiplayer games?

On that basis alone I respect Nintendo for forcing developers to try something DIFFERENT.
 
[quote name='hohez']Did Mario 64 blow anyones mind with it's graphics? Probably not, but it's gameplay was so ahead of it's time, it single handidly paved the way for all future 3-d Platformers.[/quote]

Um, yeah... yes it did. It was the first game for a console that had water ripple effects (Jumping into Paintings), Polygon stretching effects (Intro Mario face screen), real time chrome mirroring effects (Metal Mario) and some of the best fire effects to date (Bowser).

Not to mention, a lot of people thought the shading technique wa revolutionary. All that, and it had awesome gameplay. It was the best looking game for a pretty long time... better than even a lot of PC games. The N64 was the PS3 of its time graphically, and its first gen games ended up being some of the best games throughout the life of the system.

Graphics sell the game, gameplay is what makes you keep playing. Of course I'd rather have better gameplay over graphics, hell, I have a DVD cover project for the Sega Saturn running, some of the crappiest graphics ever get churned out of that system... Panzer Dragoon SAGA looks like garbage, but its still one of the best games of all time... Imagine if it was made on the N64, jeezus! Match made in heaven right there.

But a Wiimote doesnt equal better gameplay as we're all quickly finding out. I love the design and look and feel of Red Steel, when I was watching the videos I thought that game was a slamdunk... but then I played it... and the Wiimote was the best/worst thing in the game. I couldnt get comfortable with that game, I'm left handed, but there wasnt an option for left handed controls so I had to switch hands to keep from the awkward feeling of using the wrong hand... then... at random times, my character would completely turn around instantly in the middle of a firefight. Not to mention the zoom in feature feels completely busted.

What I've found with some of the Wii games, was that you would have to conture your moving style to get your character on the screen to move acuratly. Like when using the sword, raising the sword the slash, made the sword strike... and the jiggle movement on the right nunchuck would pick up weapons, push over tables, open doors and reload your weapon.... well when you've killed 5 people in front of a door and you move into the door to kill the people on the otherside, you'd have to watch where you stood, or you'd try to reload and you'd pick up a crappy weapon instead...

I just think that people need to learn how to code better for the motion sensing... cause so far it either feels "tacked on" or its used for nothing but mini-game games... and when you're a company trying to prove that the Wiimote isnt a gimmick, you dont green light a plethora of mini-games to come through on launch day.
 
Of course not, Mooky... just because you have a good design, or a great graphics processor, or a great controller, it DOESN'T automatically mean a great game. And using Red Steel as an example? Some people gave it decent reviews on the novelty of the thing, but in truth it's just another crappy FPS.

The potential of the system is what matters. That's why I'm still excited about the PS3 even after its disasterous launch - in a year many bugs will be ironed out, and the REALLY good games will start to arrive and take true advantage of the system.
 
[quote name='himsahealer']I agree. I love Zelda, but I must say I had more fun at the 360 launch with PDZ, Kameo, Condemned, and PGR3. The launch was rather sad for the Wii. If it wouldn't have been for Zelda....what would it have been for? There is nothing else. Hopefully Super Swing Golf and Elebits will be enjoyable.[/quote]

Rayman, Trauma Center, Madden, and DBZ would like to have a word with you.
 
[quote name='evanft']Rayman, Trauma Center, Madden, and DBZ would like to have a word with you.[/quote]

Having rented 2 of the games, and owning one, let me say that I'd like to have a word with them.

I bought rayman for my girlfriend, and I dont really care for the style or look of the game, but I'm pretty flexible and it wasnt my game anyways... but the back of the box says 50-60 mini games, but after 3-4 hours of gameplay, I've played the same 10 minigames over and over again with either different music or difficulty... even counting the 1st person shooter parts as seperate minigames (different boards), its still like 14 minigames.

Trauma center brought nothing really new to the table from its DS beginnings but maybe some new bone setting controls. Still the same old crappy story, and same tools of the trade. I've only played 3 hours of this, so it may have more to it. I was really hoping for some 3D concepts like cleaning arteries with an angioplasty or moving to the sides of the lungs to get cancer clusters on the other sides or something.

DBZ 2 is like playing a fighting game with a keyboard and mouse, it just doesnt work.

I never played Madden, and I'm sure its fun, but I seriously doubt Madden Wii is taking Maddenites from the PS3.
 
[quote name='evanft']Rayman, Trauma Center, Madden, and DBZ would like to have a word with you.[/quote]

I played Rayman, but I expect more then goofy, short mini games out of my $50.

I own Trauma Center. I loved it on DS, but this is just pretty much a port from the DS. I expect a little more out of a brand new console then a port from a handheld to a console.

I never will buy another EA product unless it's Spore or the Half-Life 2 Pack that's coming to 360 and PS3. Madden isn't fun to me.

I have never been into DBZ. It's a little too kiddy for me.
 
[quote name='bluesyncopate']Wii developers are forced NOT to rely on graphical prowess, and so there is more potential for innovative gameplay. But there are still crappy games for Wi, as there are with any system.

You know what embarasses me, though? Games with screenshots that look like pretty photographs but play like crap. Games with horrendous framerates, their covers littered with girls in bikinis and soldiers and guns and explosions. I'm not fucking fourteen. What, so to be a "hardcore" gamer I have to like military multiplayer games?

On that basis alone I respect Nintendo for forcing developers to try something DIFFERENT.[/quote]

I would rather have a military online multiplayer game....then a Pokemon online multiplayer game. ;)
 
[quote name='himsahealer']I would rather have a military online multiplayer game....then a Pokemon online multiplayer game. ;)[/QUOTE]

When are we going to get real online games?

When Reggie said an online game was coming, but it was Pokemon, it was like getting free viagra...in prison.

I totally walked into an insult right there, let's see if somebody catches it.
 
[quote name='himsahealer']I would rather have a military online multiplayer game....then a Pokemon online multiplayer game. ;)[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the people who bought 12 million copies of Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire worldwide (or the 3 million+ Japanese that bought Diamond/Pearl in around two months). Online Pokemon is a huge selling point for quite a few gamers, much more so then another online military FPS/RTS.
 
[quote name='furyk']Tell that to the people who bought 12 million copies of Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire worldwide (or the 3 million+ Japanese that bought Diamond/Pearl in around two months). Online Pokemon is a huge selling point for quite a few gamers, much more so then another online military FPS/RTS.[/quote]

I seriously played the Pokemon Red and Blue when I was in like 5th grade. I am now 19. When is this series going to stop? I don't mind things that have a kiddy vibe, but these games have never been good since the Gameboy and N64 days.
 
[quote name='rickonker']When are we going to get real online games?

When Reggie said an online game was coming, but it was Pokemon, it was like getting free viagra...in prison.

I totally walked into an insult right there, let's see if somebody catches it.[/quote]

This is what I want. I want a *real* online game, not some Pokemon battle crap.

Animal Crossing would be nice.

MP3 with online would be nice, but the devs said it's not going to happen. :(

Hell a new Geist with online play would be great.

But no....we get Pokemon....
 
I'm playing the original Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation right now for the first time and I'm having a blast, so, I couldn't care any less what the graphics look like as long as the games are FUN.
 
When comparing DS to PSP, I took the PSP because the DS has just to hiddeous looking for the graphics to make up for it. But in the case of the Wii, I think there is the right balance of visuals and gameplay that make it a great system.


To be far I should also mention I sold my XBOX 360 a week after I got it way back in May, and none of my friends have it or PS3 so I can't really compare their visuals to that of the Wii.
 
[quote name='himsahealer']I seriously played the Pokemon Red and Blue when I was in like 5th grade. I am now 19. When is this series going to stop? I don't mind things that have a kiddy vibe, but these games have never been good since the Gameboy and N64 days.[/QUOTE]

Again, the 13 million copies of R/S/E sold say otherwise. Furthermore, if a game series sells well, why should it stop? While I agree the series has seen it's best days (Pokemon Puzzle League and Pokemon Snap) good to great games still continue to come out. Pokemon Rangers is a lot of fun and Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is as deep and long a game as any that has been released this year.
 
[quote name='Nomar1245']When comparing DS to PSP, I took the PSP because the DS has just to hiddeous looking for the graphics to make up for it.[/quote]
"hideous looking"? LOL...I must be behind the times...I decided to buy the DS over the PSP mostly because I didn't care for any of the games available for the PSP but I thought the DS's graphics were great...but then again I hadn't played a handheld since the GBA about four years ago.:lol:
 
[quote name='himsahealer']I seriously played the Pokemon Red and Blue when I was in like 5th grade. I am now 19. When is this series going to stop? I don't mind things that have a kiddy vibe, but these games have never been good since the Gameboy and N64 days.[/quote]

So did all breeding stop after you popped out? Are there not 5th graders now who are playing and into the same type of stuff you were playing in 5th grade?

As Furyk said, "Again, the 13 million copies of R/S/E sold say otherwise"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top