Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/29/08 12:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: That's why you just make it an excuse to get extra fucked up every thursday.

Next season, maybe I should get a "Lost" drinking game going. Drink every time Jack makes a constipated face or Sawyer gives someone a nickname or Locke has a crisis of faith and says "don't tell me what I can't do!" That should get everyone unconscious by the end of the episode.

At 5/29/08 11:16 AM, Jesuslizard wrote: actually furryism has been around since the neanderthall era.
On cave walls it is not uncomen to find pictures of unknown huminoids with animal like heads.
many Aztec, Myan, and Inca gods have animal like forms they take on, and the same goes for the Egyptions.
Native american cultures beleive in "spirits" that look half animal.

There is a huge difference between using anthropomorphic animal imagery and wanting to have sex with anthropomorphic animal imagery.

At 5/28/08 11:37 PM, Arcbound22 wrote: the wii is the very next generation of gameing.

Thanks for the support, but you completely missed my point. When I said "get into the game," I wasn't talking about the motion controls. I actually said that those aren't quite as revolutionary as they were hyped to be (at least not yet). I was talking about non-gamers getting into video games, which is the important first step in bridging the cultural and generational gap that has plagued the industry and society as a whole (in some ways) for quite some time now.

Have you been living under a rock for the past few weeks, or do you just throw $60 around on good faith alone?

At 1/14/08 05:20 PM, LOLZILLA wrote: I don't know. But I know they should feel like, ehh......a bag of sand.

Dammit. Beat me to the punch.

At 5/29/08 12:02 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: It is hella complex.

Seriously. Thank God for the "Previously on Lost" guy and his silky-smooth voice.

At 5/28/08 11:51 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I've actually heard that the ending is going to be nothing like what the show is now.

That's likely, given how the circumstances of the characters are changing so quickly as of late. The producers have stated, though, that "Lost" will definitely NOT have an "it was all just a dream" ending. I don't know, I think the creators of that show are either wonderful geniuses or idiotic maniacs. It all depends on how they bring everything together.

And I could never watch the show inebriated. There's too much minutiae to take in. Though maybe for some of the trippier episodes...

At 5/28/08 11:46 PM, BigFuzzyKitten wrote: snape kills dumbledore

Soylent Green is people.

*WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR NON-AMERICAN VIEWERS!*

It's all come down to this, NG "Lost" fans (assuming you exist). I think that this past season has been almost nonstop brilliance, and a huge step up from last season, which was very uneven. After a great set-up and week-long break, it's finally time for the big season finale. So, let's hear your predictions:

WILL Locke successfully move the Island? And what the fuck does that even mean?

DOES Ben actually have a plan? Or has he actually been caught off guard for once?

HOW are the Oceanic Six going to finally get off the Island?

WHAT'S up with the C4 on the freighter?

And of course:

WHO'S in the mysterious coffin from Jack's flashforward last season?

The suspense is killing me.

In the hearts and minds of children?

Go ahead, but make it classy. Put some classical music on during the money shot, it'll make it that much more profound.

"One Ring To Rule Them All 2" was kind of circulating around my elementary school, so I went on the Interwebs to check it out, and I stuck with NG ever since.

And yes, I'm so old that I found this site when LegendaryFrog was relevant :(

At 5/28/08 08:16 PM, Jesuslizard wrote: hmmm... sound to me like you should be the emo after all your the one making fun of other people and their beleifs, hobeys, and sexual preferences.
It's weird I never thought of you as one who "troll posts".

I'm neither making fun of anyone, nor am I "troll posting." I'm just stating facts. It's extremely common for kids around (what I'm assuming is) your age to latch onto a minority cultural group in order to obtain a sense of group identity. I suppose that it was a combination of just-this-side-of-ridiculous Star Fox fandom and frequent use of the Intrawebs that has led you to choose "furries" as your group of choice. In addition to this, you can't actually be a furry, because sexual fetishes can't exist without sexual maturity.

I'm not trying to be mean or put down your...uh...beliefs, but there's really no reason I can think of, especially for children, why anyone could possibly be attracted to members of a different species. Homosexuality, I can fully understand from a biological and psychological standpoint. "Furryism"...not so much. If anything, it's probably just Krystal's anthropomorphic shape that has you...confused. I prescribe a moderate dose of real women. Just a thought.

Um...so which of the three Fox characters in Brawl is yall's favorite? I've always been partial to Falco, though they've neutered his Reflector in this installment.

Let's bring a fresh supply of delicious, nutritious intelligence into this thread, eh? Although actually, I've been pretty impressed with most of the responses so far...for the VG forum, that is.

At 5/28/08 12:29 AM, VoodooChild316 wrote: Is the nintendo Wii lame, because i'm really not sure?

In a word: NO.

While, as many people on this thread have pointed out, a disturbing majority of Wii games range from mediocre to unplayable in quality. However, most of the few good games have quickly nudged their way into my favorite games of all time. Brawl, Galaxy, Twilight Princess (saying it's actually a GameCube game is like saying that Prey is actually for N64), etc. These are unmissable experiences for anyone who loves video games, in my opinion.

Now onto the Wii hardware itself. As of now, the motion controls are more a promise than anything. They have yet to be capitalized on to their full potential, but developers are getting there. Plus, virtually every third-party developer out there has expressed interest in developing for the Wii, it's just going to take some time for developers to fiddle around with the controls and find what works, and for the get-rich-quick casual shovelware bug to wear off (which it will, if 1983 has taught us anything). Then, there's all these "channels" and such. I find them to be cute yet slightly frivolous additions for the most part, especially considering how few games actually have Mii integration, but these features are no more arbitrary than, say, Home. On top of all this, there's the Virtual Console, which is, to put it eloquently, fucking awesome. 20+ years of incredible gaming history are just a few waggles and clicks away.

Finally, there's this whole cultural phenomenon thing the Wii is going through. I, personally, unlike almost everyone else on the VG forum, think that this is great. Everyone's always grumbling about how games aren't validated by mainstream pop culture as an entertainment medium that's just as important as movies or music and whatnot. Well...this is finally it. Now that untold millions of people who before would have never dreamed of picking up a controller are starting to get into the game, the path to the future of gaming in general is finally starting to be traveled. The Wii isn't the be all end all of this revolution of sorts (it's too simplistic for that at the moment), but it's the extremely important first step.

People complained when the Wii was first revealed because mere motion controls were far from the "Revolution" Nintendo literally promised. What they failed to realize, though, is that Nintendo is not necessarily trying to revolutionize the what or how of gaming. They're revolutionizing the who.

So...yeah. The Wii's more than okay in my book.

At 5/28/08 07:48 PM, averageroadkill wrote: Realism < Fun

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Though I was actually surprised by how few people on this thread agree with us in that regard.

Rock Band < Guitar Hero

Simply because Guitar Hero is less realistic? That's a pretty shitty reason in and of itself, though I suppose you're going to go on about the "challenge," but, ehem:

Difficulty < Fun

I've barely gotten the chance to see anything all year, so I'll have to reluctantly choose a sort of tie between Cloverfield and Iron Man, both okay movies. I'm counting on The Dark Knight and Quantum of Solace to make '08 a great year for movies, especially after the nonstop crapfest that was the "Summer of Threequels."

At 5/28/08 10:30 AM, millerlucerojames wrote:

on a scale for one to ten yeah she is and which one of you dumass say that assaults plot is messed up?

No she isn't, because she is fictional and not human. And the plot of Assault isn't at all "messed up." In fact, that's the problem. It's not messed up enough. It's extremely dull and generic, which is somewhat surprising given the fun, campy vibe of Star Fox 64 and the at least somewhat intriguing plot of Adventures.

At 5/28/08 01:12 PM, Jesuslizard wrote: dude I am a furry check peoples backgrounds before you start ensulting them

No, no you're not. You're just like any other roughly middle school-aged kid who's happened to choose a particularly strange group to latch onto. If you're so desperate for identity, can't you just be an emo or something?

I completely agree. I think that the only reason why people get defensive against Rock Band is because they either bought Guitar Hero III first hastily and then couldn't buy another large music game, or because, quite frankly, they can't afford it.

That being said, I find the GH controller to be better than the RB controller, not in terms of realism but in terms of comfortability and ease of use. Also, Guitar Hero IV looks pretty great. However, when it comes to these little industry feuds, I feel obligated to side with the developer as opposed to the big scary evil corporation, so I'll have to see what Rock Band 2 has in store for me before I make any decisions for Round 2 of the music game showdown.

Luckily, Harmonix has made it easy for me to prefer them by making Rock Band an incredible game. The first time I played it, I couldn't remember having that much pure fun with a video game in a very long time.

At 5/22/08 05:26 PM, NEVR wrote: Really? I'm surprised that you're envious of our boring little culture when your profile says you live in New York. Fancy swapping homes?

Wow. I guess I kind of take where I've lived all my life for granted. Now that I think of it, NYC is a pretty incredible place.

At 5/28/08 12:00 AM, ConnerBomb wrote: Command is actually pretty decent. Although the voices will drive you crazy and they implement a strategy element to it that sometimes will piss you off. Other than that, it's not bad.

Eh, I'm just not a big enough Star Fox fan to justify buying it, especially when there's other older games I'm more interested in.

At 5/27/08 11:21 PM, Toasty4you wrote: So Newgrounds, what do you think?

You're gay. It's the only logical conclusion.

Stan. I expected Kyle more, but either one is about right.

Seems interesting enough. I've never been involved with the previous writing contests, so perhaps I should start now.

At 5/27/08 09:57 PM, Dragoonwing wrote: Oh when it comes to games as short as this the last thing I think about is plot, I just kill.

Yeah, I think that Epic feels the same way. Eh, to each his own, but when I'm being told I'm given a cinematic experience, I'd like a decent plot.

I actually kind of enjoyed Bill Hatcher, too, except it couldn't quite hold my interest for the entire game. It was a unique and fun platformer that suffered from repetition and some pacing issues. I'd say that a sequel would iron all those things out...but the game was made by Sonic Team, a company that currently has one of the worst track records in the industry when it comes to working a franchise.

At 5/27/08 09:42 PM, Dragoonwing wrote: I kinda liked the story. I haven't played many games where humanity was on its ass so it was fresh experience for me.

...isn't that literally every single game ever? I understand what you're saying, though. Gears does have a sense of desperation and urgency at a very ramped-up level when compared to the vague "the fate of the world's in your hands" shtick of every other game. However, that's atmosphere, and that's only one element of a complete story. Other things like plot, characterization, and (maybe I'm asking a bit too much) theme are completely thrown out the window in Gears, which I found somewhat disappointing given how hyped up the plot was and how riveting the gameplay is.

At 5/1/08 06:34 PM, SniperWolf1564 wrote: I really hate those people on CoD4 who complain about grenade launchers, juggernaut perk, and martyrdom grenades.

I take advantage of what I am available to use in the game, since I care about having fun, not about "True Skill."

My sentiments exactly, although I sometimes find that the fun feels a little shallow even for myself if I use particularly "cheap" tactics, but those only actually exist very rarely, and certainly not in CoD 4. I've more or less stopped playing online due to a combination of GTA IV and annoying little kids whining every time they lose, as if they ever stood to win anything.

On a similar note, I've been kicked multiple times from Gears of War matches...for using the chainsaw. How dare I!

At 5/27/08 09:31 PM, Dragoonwing wrote: I have played the campaign for each Halo game and I have never been so BORED in my life! Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg is more interesting! When I play Gears I get excitement from the persistency of the Locust, in Halo it's the same boring shit over and over and over again for what 3 games now?

At what point in my post did I say that Halo had a good plot? I love Gears, and I have a passive dislike for Halo, but neither game has anything close to a half-decent plot (though Epic appears to be trying to rectify this situation in Gears 2. Let's wait and see how they go about doing that). What you're describing is what I said was the only good element of Gears from a story perspective: the urgent, chilling atmosphere created by the setting and the core concepts.

I haven't really played around with GTA IV's online component yet, but from what I have played of it, I was very underwhelmed. Rockstar gave us plenty of tools for some great multiplayer fun, but every single person online seems to be a very angry and pugnacious chimpanzee. I went into a game of "Cops 'n Crooks," and when my team was the "crooks," they (who by the way didn't speak a single word to each other through headsets) thought it would be a brilliant strategy to sprint in a straight line towards the extraction point without even the slightest thought of strategy. Needless to say, we were all dead in about 3 minutes.

As for Free Mode, I don't really see myself using it unless I'm playing with my friends, because other people are so ludicrously stupid.

At 5/27/08 08:42 PM, Dragoonwing wrote: Gears has something Halo doesn't, epic campaign and storyline.

Something that Halo doesn't have? Yeah, lots of somethings. An "epic" campaign? Maybe. A storyline? Hell no. What Gears has is a great setting and concept that the plot goes absolutely nowhere with. Instead, we just get a bunch of frat-boy one-liners from a group of irritating 'roid freaks.