Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

How come I'm only the second person who's noticed this: "2nd sequel" technically means third game. "3rd sequel" means fourth game. C'mon, Newgrounds, I expect better grammar Nazism from you.

Anyway, I think that when it comes to sequels in games, there's really no true pattern. It's not like the film industry, where each consecutive sequel is almost guaranteed to be worse than the last. Some franchises only get better with each successive installment (GTA, Prince of Persia, etc.). Some start out with high quality in the first installment or two and then take a massive, nonstop nosedive (Sonic, Mario Party, the 007 license). Others have a sort of mountain range effect caused by Activision trying to trick you into buying fake franchise installments (seriously people: buy even-numbered CoDs only. Nobody can stop this evil practice but us).

Many franchises have pretty stable levels of quality from installment to installment (and "stable" can be either good or bad), often at the expense of significant innovation (classic Nintendo franchises, licensed sports games, Halo, God of War, MGS, the list goes on and on). Others still are just completely unpredictable roller-coaster spikes and dips in quality (such as Devil May Cry, the only example I can think of that actually fits the OP's "rule").

I've barely made any headway into the story missions because I have too much fun just driving around or shooting people or any other number of things. So I guess it's a matter of personal preference. If you're at a loss when the game isn't telling you what to do, then I guess that GTA IV doesn't have a lot of replay value. I'll still be popping it in every now and then well into this generation, though.

But I agree that Rockstar needs to work on adding some variety to the main missions. Luckily, though, the gameplay and controls in this installment are much less painfully stiff than the previous games', so the missions are much more bearable and often quite fun.

At 6/1/08 03:47 PM, sherru wrote: so do you think its the prince from the 3 other games- or a new one?

I know that it's a new one. Check any news source. And the story has nothing to do with the previous games.

Nintendo, over and over again (except GameCube).

At 6/1/08 09:03 AM, ShadowWest2k7 wrote: What the hell is up with Earthbound? It's so over-rated and a game that most of us have NEVER played. Jeez.

If you've never played it, how can you judge it?

Anyways, I'm currently working my way through the game, and I have to say that it's definitely one of my SNES favorites. The story, the dialogue, and the quirky atmosphere that permeates every single little aspect of the entire game are great. The gameplay, however, does not hold up well with time at all. There's a lot of obsolete and annoying parts of the gameplay (you can't even see the health of your enemies). But it's such a funny and unique game that I think it's more than worth it to slog through the many flaws.

At 6/1/08 02:05 AM, beeryayghost wrote: Aladdin. Fuck all of you.

Classic. Also, on a slightly unrelated note, Duck Tales on Game Boy. Awesome games.

My Top 3 (of sorts):

3. Super Mario World 1 and 2
2. EarthBound
1. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

You're not missing out on much...

At 6/1/08 01:38 AM, Phoenix9912 wrote: So i was askin' Do you think theres a ghost?

Don't be silly. Ghosts aren't real. Except for the one that's right behind you. Don't turn around, though, that'll only make it madder.

I hope it tastes better, because I need an excuse to stop drinking Coke (Pepsi sucks). Seriously, that company is evil incarnate, past the point of scathing documentary subject and even beyond the point of James Bond villain. I'm talking about, like, Pol Pot evil.

It's very hit or miss. But more often than not, the jokes hit, so I'd say it's pretty good.

At 5/31/08 07:27 PM, zero5225 wrote: Weed is healthy for you.

You realize that weed has the exact same effect on the lungs as cigarettes, right? The only reason why cigarette-caused lung issues are more prevalent is because weed is (probably) not addictive, so its users don't smoke as often.

Also, I'm not going to debate the merits and disadvantages of marijuana, but any substance that systematically kills your brain cells isn't exactly "healthy" for you. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea where the stuff has been when you buy it. The stuff could be a cesspool of AIDS juice, for all you know.

At 5/31/08 05:23 PM, CopperChaos wrote: Smoking doesn't makes you look cool. It just fucks up with your lungs, and if you think that smoking is cool, you're retarded.

I actually have to disagree with that line of thinking. Look, we all know that smoking is bad for you and potentially lethal, it's disgusting, and that nobody should smoke. That being said, we're all lying to ourselves when we say that it doesn't look cool. Advertisements and film have hardwired it into the pop culture consuming parts of our brains over the past century.

At 5/31/08 05:27 PM, H-A-X-O-R-Z wrote: Bungie has confirmed that there will be more games set in the Halo unvierse.

What a shocker. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't have such a great grasp of the concept of capitalism.

Though actually, Bungie has no real authority to confirm or deny Halo games. They don't own the franchise, Microsoft does.

At 5/31/08 03:20 PM, klopatng wrote: Too easy.

Ow, my brain hurts.

Ugh, the sheer inanity of this whole thread. LastSpartan, I could go on for pages and pages spouting off numerous epithets towards you that would be completely true in between massive paragraphs explaining the stupidity of your arguments. However, I have much better things to do with my time, so instead, I'll just focus on the core of your utter stupidity:

You have absolutely no understanding of the basic concepts of genetics. The genes that code for the specific pigments that determine race...code for the specific pigments that determine race. Nothing else. While there are some single genes that determine multiple phenotypes, there is NO single gene at all that determines an individual's entire intellectual capacity, personality, and behavior, let alone the one that determines race.

Your beliefs about race are completely nonsensical. You think that a white backwoods hillbilly is somehow smarter than a black college professor.

Well, while the next major installment of the franchise probably won't be called "Halo 4," it's most certainly going to have the word "Halo" somewhere in the title, for the sake of product branding.

At 5/30/08 06:30 PM, AshfordPride wrote: "Incredible", says those fatherless sons of IGN.

Yeah, but it's the British IGN, not the real one :)

Also, the review says that roughly half the game is cutscenes...really?

I'd prefer a photograph of a woman attempting to fuck a Shetland pony.

Can someone please explain the symbolism?

At 5/30/08 10:09 PM, TwilightSnow wrote: So there you have it. Reasons why I hate my own country. I plan to move to Japan when i am older, as it seems to be the best of the bunch to me.~

Everybody smokes, the pop culture is twisted to the point of being disturbing, and nobody will speak your language. Also, I believe that a small number of Tokyo businessmen have been known to randomly drop dead on the way home from 20+ hour workdays.

Anyways, I've found a very simple, less drastic solution to all of your problems. Move to New York. I've lived just outside NYC for all my life, and it's basically all the great things about America without any of the shitty stuff. And then there's the city itself, which, quite frankly, is the greatest place on Earth.

Well, at least Little Mac achieved Assist Trophy status. Also, the upcoming boxing game FaceBreaker is supposed to be a sort of spiritual continuation of the Punch Out legacy, and it's being made by the same developer as Fight Night Round 3, which I thought was pretty great. Unfortunately, that means it's being published by (dun dun DUNNN) EA.

At 5/29/08 11:07 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Hint: Mozart didn't write baroque, he wrote classical.

Ha, I was actually about to say that before I read the last line of your post. I really have to work on some self-restraint when it comes to snobbery.

Anyways, I think it depends on just how much you immerse the child in the music, and at how early an age. Overall, I doubt music can have any big effect on them, but non-stop 24-hour death metal might not be the best thing for your toddler, psychologically speaking.

At 5/29/08 10:00 PM, Z-Sector wrote: I'm a Christian, but I thought I'd point out: evolution isn't the betterment of a species, it's simply random mutations. They don't necessarily help the creatures.

No, evolution is the betterment of a species and eventual creation of new species as a result of those mutations. Also, I'd like to point out something that almost nobody on this thread seems to be aware of for some reason. Ever since the dawn of sexually reproducing organisms, mutation has ceased to be the sole means of evolution. In fact, in every single sexually reproducing species, mutation is the leastlikely factor of genetic variation to occur in offspring. Currently, the major factor in the evolution of us and many other species on Earth is genetic recombination as a result of meiosis and fertilization, two processes that occur only in sexually reproducing species.

At 5/29/08 08:02 PM, Jesuslizard wrote: yes... you wouldn't?

I really hope you're kidding. Otherwise, you have much bigger problems than wanting to fuck animals.

At 5/29/08 07:30 PM, Phratt wrote: Okay so most of us know what evolution is right?

You'd be surprised. Though it's pleasantly refreshing on this thread to see a person disagreeing with evolution who actually understands the theory's basic concepts.

Well the there are to simple laws of it, one that I don't think is plausible and the other that applies almost anything so obviously its true.

The problem with what you're saying here is that natural selection, which you claim to be true, can't exist without descent with modification, which you claim to be false. If there are no inherited favorable and disadvantageous traits, then how can any individuals be "fit" or "unfit?" Conversely, descent with modification can't exist without natural selection. If there were no mechanisms to remove disadvantageous traits from the gene pool and keep favorable ones, speciation (the ultimate result of descent with modification) could never occur.

The two concepts are intrinsically bound. You either believe in both, or neither. There's no compromise.

Obviously number one. Look, in a world that just happened to have the right coincidences to produce life, its way too highly improbable for cells to just happen to work together, split and have those cells work together. If that were to happen, it'd take longer the 3 billion years for cells to organize themselves in such fashions by only passing traits.

It seems very hard to fathom, but three billion years is actually an extremely long amount of time. I mean, we went from apes to having complex discussions about the origin of species on a sophisticated "series of tubes" in just a few million years or so. And while the initial mutations that started the process of evolution are coincidence, the fact that they were passed on certainly isn't. Once this advantageous "working together" began, it was only a matter of time before these organisms completely supplanted the older, less fit organisms.

Also, like you said, it is improbable and it would take a large amount of time. These things did happen, though, and it did take a large amount of time. Prokaryotes have been on this Earth for much, much longer than us eukaryotes have.

Now lets say something proves that idea wrong and its completely possible for that to happen, evolution fails again at another adapted feature. Limbs. How the fuck do limbs help a fish survive?
If I was a Fish who NEEDS fins in order to survive in hostile enviroments such as the water, having a mutation of a bump instead of a fin would decrease my speed and most likely kill me. If that doesn't kill me, it will kill my offsping eventually. Even so, for that leg to full grow off of one mutation with bones, neurons, proteins and everything is highly implausible and for multiple mutations for that same bump down the same family line is also highly implausible.

Well, that's because your concept of the evolution of land animals is incorrect here. Limbs neither fully developed, nor did they "replace" the fins until well after the organisms had moved onto land. I doubt that the little additional "bumps" truly hampered the fish's survival ability, and so they were able to reproduce. When those "bumps" did develop to the point where they would be disadvantageous to a fish, the limbed fish out in the deep sea all died out (hence one small part of the reason why we still have limbless fish), and the limbed fish close to the shore, who at this point I would assume had some form of primitive air respiratory system, moved onto the land in order to survive. Of course, I'm oversimplifying things here, but I think you get the point.

For a leg or an arm to develop over a water based oraganism would most likely kill them, seeing as natural selection made them fit to water enviroments. A Fish would have to mutate, arms, legs and simple lungs all at the same time, with a strange instinctial behavior to live on land, if it wanted to survive by amphibious behavior. its improbable, implausible, and impossible for certain things like that to happen.

It's possible, because it's not all at the same time. Far from it, actually. The "lungs" obviously came first to fish living very close to the shore, followed by primitive "limbs." There was no "strange instinctual behavior" aside from the very common instinct of needing to get food and survive. When the limbs of these fish became cumbersome to the point of being disadvantageous, they stepped onto land to seek out new food sources with less competition.

Another thing, Why is it that all animals that have brains, have it in their head? Having a skull protecting my ass, which contained a brain, would be more helpful than having my brain in my head. Not only that but all of life has too much in common with eachother, everything is built off of cells and uses the same tactics but in different variations.

What you're saying here is actually supporting descent with modification, not refuting it. All life is descended from the same common ancestor. As such, we're all made up of cells, and certain things like limb bone structure are very similar in extremely different organisms. In fact, the embryos of humans, chickens, and turtles are practically indistinguishable from each other.

You'd think by now, that cells could mutate into something else, i dunno, maybe an electric string covered by lipids, with electrons signaling chemicals to react floating around it. Not that specifically, im just trying to say that if evolution works the way its supposed to then there must've been COUNTLESS failed attempts at life that just died before they created offspring because of their flaws. Had this been the case, why is it that prokaryotes were the only ones who survived and evolved in eurkaryotes and shit?

I don't really get what this whole part means.

At 5/29/08 07:19 PM, camobch0 wrote: It's a family system if that's what you're asking. The 360 is for real gamers. And the PS3 is just gay.

-1 Faith in Humanity.

I seriously doubt that lack of DVD playing capabilities were the reason for Dreamcast's failure. It was just a sort of wrong place, wrong time situation, I think. Once the PS2 was released, the DC just couldn't keep up.

At 5/29/08 06:47 PM, Jesuslizard wrote: YES BACK ON SUBJECT!
Yeah... but you know what? I would have done the same thing... depending on what the reward was...

So you would kill someone...for money.

At 5/29/08 06:40 PM, SniperWolf1564 wrote: (God I need that picture.)

The one with the annoying kid proudly holding up two copies of NARC? Classic.

At 5/29/08 04:38 PM, Jesuslizard wrote: yes their is. But what I'm saying is that furrys (objects of sex or not) have always been around.
It's imprinted on human dna but only exists fully in certain people.

That is...completely not how genetics work. And to the best of my knowledge, a "furry" is the person attracted to the object, not the object itself.