Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't see how you'd ever be able to tap a 3D digital figure, but okay, w/e.

At 11/20/06 11:03 AM, bifgis wrote: She is so smoking hot.

You're attracted to a cartoon of a fake person.....

Wow...

Is the game any good?? I've been waiting since 2003 for it to come out so it better not fucking suck.

This is gonna break your heart man but...She's only polygons!

Are you telling me that you like a video game chick......

Wait until they introduce Virtual Reality suits.

That'll be the day.

At 11/20/06 11:03 PM, bifgis wrote: Wait until they introduce Virtual Reality suits.

That'll be the day.

Try the late eighties.

At 11/20/06 11:40 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote: 1. This is one of the vicious aspects of the Wii. Over three years the graphics produced by the PC, and perhaps the 360 if it can handle it but which is doubtful, will reach the photorealism standard for the nearby future. No one wants to play the insignificant low-res games released on the Wii, except those who cannot afford anything else.

You're forgetting that without an HD tv, the PS3 and XBox 360 are totally useless and no better than their predecessors. I have an HD tv and will be getting a PS3 along with my Wii, but the majority of the population does not. Even the Wii outputs better than a regular tv.

Also, you're completely avoiding the PS3 which has greater capabilities than the 360 so you're obviously a Microsoft fanboy.

2. Not true, it really is possible to achieve this in a time span of three to four years. Every adequate person in the industry who ever developed a game before will agree on my words.

Yes, games must be so incredibly easy to make for the PS3 and XBox 360. That's exactly why there is only 1 good game at launch for the PS3 (Resistance) and the 360 hasn't been that impressive as far as games go. Oblivion, Gears of War, and a few other have been great, but Nintendo already has 3 solid titles that everyone has loved playing (Zelda, Excite Truck, and Rayman) at launch. Not to mention Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are coming out.

Yeah, the Wii's graphics do pale in comparison but most of the reviews I've read have said that the Wii is by far the most fun to play even though it doesn't look as pretty. And in my opinion, gaming is about having fun.

At 11/20/06 11:25 AM, Chromius wrote: You bastage, at least provide images where her face isn't so obscured.

I think I still prefer her in Ocarina of Time.

Yeah I like her in Ocarina of Time also but damn you gotta admit :D

At 11/20/06 11:09 PM, Xtesh wrote:

At 11/20/06 11:03 PM, bifgis wrote: Wait until they introduce Virtual Reality suits.

That'll be the day.

Try the late eighties.

I mean a photorealistic one. With Full stimulation *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* know what I mean? know what I mean?

At 11/20/06 11:52 AM, bifgis wrote:

At 11/20/06 11:40 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote:

No one wants to play the insignificant low-res games released on the Wii, except those who cannot afford anything else.

2. Not true, it really is possible to achieve this in a time span of three to four years. Every adequate person in the industry who ever developed a game before will agree on my words.

Umm, I could afford all three of the consoles but chose to only buy the wii.

Even if you really could afford every console with the paradoxal next-gen predicate, you are still chosing the recycled Gamecube with the pretentious, gimmicky controller.

Nintendo is not the Nintendo it was in the late 80's or in the early or late 90's. They certainly did produce succesful handhelds and suchlike, but in terms of originality and introducing innovating new concepts for their games they fail to impress anno 2006. The majority of the talent working on their own independent games seems to have left their headquarters. I am not implying that their latest games will not be special and fun to play for thirty, fourty or perhaps fourty-three minutes but I am however implying that these games are lacking when compared to the old Nintendo games from the time when the "Official Nintendo Quality Seal" was meaningful instead of self-contradictory.

2. If it is done, it would be rushed, and make for very expensive games.

The past has proven again and again that it evidently is possible, do you even know how long they worked on developing your precious new Zelda game.

I would love to continue our little discussion here but I am quite occupied today and I refuse to sacrifice my day any further on quoting Wii gamers on some random website and distract them from trying out their brand-new gimmicky console!

2 Words. Sexy Impa.

At 11/21/06 09:23 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Even if you really could afford every console with the paradoxal next-gen predicate, you are still chosing the recycled Gamecube with the pretentious, gimmicky controller.

That gimmicky controller will make games way more fun. Interactivity increases and you can't say you wouldn't want to play next-gen duck hunt on the Wii. And really, the reason the gamecube failed was because of the lack of third party support. However, Nintenddo seems to have made up some ground in the department. Also, I don't think it's worth $400-$600 for just a graphics upgrade.

Nintendo is not the Nintendo it was in the late 80's or in the early or late 90's. They certainly did produce succesful handhelds and suchlike, but in terms of originality and introducing innovating new concepts for their games they fail to impress anno 2006.

Hahaha..you said originality and innovating which is exactly what Nintendo is doing. They're being revived. What innovation has your precious XBox 360 introduced aside from making it look a little prettier than an XBox? I suppose online play is good but you had the same thing with the XBox.

The majority of the talent working on their own independent games seems to have left their headquarters. I am not implying that their latest games will not be special and fun to play for thirty, fourty or perhaps fourty-three minutes but I am however implying that these games are lacking when compared to the old Nintendo games from the time when the "Official Nintendo Quality Seal" was meaningful instead of self-contradictory.

Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess has 40+ hours of gameplay and I'll enjoy every second of it. Same for all of the other games I bought (Rayman, Red Steel even if it does hurt my arms, Madden which is way more fun on the Wii, and Excite Truck).

The past has proven again and again that it evidently is possible, do you even know how long they worked on developing your precious new Zelda game.

Four years I believe. That's somewhat of a rarity because they kept adding on and on to it. They then figured they might as well release it for the Wii since it was close and they had to add all the new Wii features.

I would love to continue our little discussion here but I am quite occupied today and I refuse to sacrifice my day any further on quoting Wii gamers on some random website and distract them from trying out their brand-new gimmicky console!

I somehow feel that you'll be back.

I know those stores have more Wiis in the backroom but I have to figure out a plan to get in there. Does anyone know how to get past all the cameras and security guards?

I know what ya mean mate. I want to finger her asshole and eat her cunt.

At 11/21/06 10:29 AM, Some-Stupid-Idiot wrote: I know those stores have more Wiis in the backroom but I have to figure out a plan to get in there. Does anyone know how to get past all the cameras and security guards?

Put on all black. Get some inja gear (Tabi boots, grappling hook, ect) Do a Jackie Chan over the gate and use majic ninja powers to into the back room.

Don't forget the gay clowns.

Damn Europe. I bet Game (The store) has them already, teasing us, making us wanna rip the doors off their hinges by knowing down the walls around it.

I want to see to compare sexiness.

Actually I'm not that sad, but I want to play Zelda for the game, not how hot the babe is.

So shes hot.......No need to make a post bout it.......

At 11/21/06 10:02 AM, Jerkapotomus wrote: Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess has 50+ hours of gameplay and I'll enjoy every second of it. Same for all of the other games I bought (Rayman, Red Steel even if it does hurt my arms, Madden which is way more fun on the Wii, and Excite Truck).

I fixed it for you!

At 11/20/06 11:25 AM, Chromius wrote: You bastage, at least provide images where her face isn't so obscured.

I think I still prefer her in Ocarina of Time.

move down more.

Screenshots? I demand picture proof

o yea you are right princess zelda is really cute but nota that hot like you say, i already see it in the house of my cousin he pay $500 for a wii(the price in mexico in dollars) and $100 for the game(/same money convertion) soo im not planning to buy a wii in a while(i see it on internet around $250 dollars) but this is not the pace tu disscus that.

theres other chars more sexy like mmmmm let me think mmmmmm...inphy from N-3

At 11/22/06 03:31 PM, Suffering wrote: Screenshots? I demand picture proof

I agree.

At 11/20/06 11:15 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Kind of pathetic, especially if you know that the technology behind that console is already five years old. No Zelda or Metroid Prime game will ever change that. Just a reminder for everyone who plans on buying a Wii.

I have to say this for the good of mankind: GRAPHICS WHORE!

At 11/20/06 11:24 PM, Jerkapotomus wrote: Also, you're completely avoiding the PS3 which has greater capabilities than the 360 so you're obviously a Microsoft fanboy.

I have not been deliberately avoiding the excistance of the PS3, and the dodgy line-up of pseudo-next-gen games. Resistance : Fall of Man is a classic example of a Sony game with a dated engine and artificial intelligence that simply belongs on the PS2. Everything displayed is slightly sharper, thereby insinuating that it has the exclusivity to become a launch title of a technically more advanced console that (unsuccessfully) copied numerous praised features from other superior consoles (the "Wii-mote" motion sensor, the 360 removable harddrive etc etc), the overrated PS3. Sony was apparantly too incompetent (once again) to figure out how they could both implement the rumble function / motion sensor within the PS3 controller, these sort of unignorable trivialities really drag the reputation of Sony and the PS3 to an even lower level.

As for the PS3 hardware capability, this message was constructed on a PC three times more powerful than the capacity of all three "next-gen" systems gathered in one. Imagine what the PS3 represents next to my computer. Absolutely nothing.

Yes, games must be so incredibly easy to make for the PS3 and XBox 360. That's exactly why there is only 1 good game at launch for the PS3

One good game, where is it then?

your all so gay.

seriously i like the 360 but can see the fun in the wii and ps3 too but why sit around and bitch about it just play your damn games and have fun. that's what a video game is supposed to be about.

At 11/25/06 01:02 PM, madmonkey27 wrote: your all so gay.

seriously i like the 360 but can see the fun in the wii and ps3 too but why sit around and bitch about it just play your damn games and have fun. that's what a video game is supposed to be about.

Can you crawl back from where you came and not embarrass yourself any further by posting in this topic? Thank you.

At 11/25/06 01:13 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Can you crawl back from where you came and not embarrass yourself any further by posting in this topic? Thank you.

i'm just stating my opinion

and yes i would hit that

At 11/21/06 10:02 AM, Jerkapotomus wrote:

At 11/21/06 09:23 AM, UltimateCyprien wrote:

I would love to continue our little discussion here but I am quite occupied today and I refuse to sacrifice my day any further on quoting Wii gamers on some random website and distract them from trying out their brand-new gimmicky console!

I somehow feel that you'll be back.

Yup... He's back with a vengeance! Looking forward to more debate. I think it's got a little off topic, that's fine with me. But I just want to say again that I think Zelda is smoking hot.

At 11/20/06 10:47 PM, Mellvarr wrote:

Pixels are nothing more than photons being reflected in varying frequencies to our eyes and interpreted by our brain as an image. As is real life and everything else we can see. Therefore, pixels and reality are the same to our eyes and the physics of the universe and are only persieved to be different by our consiousness. Our subconsious and hormones find the pixels to be the same as reality as well. For all you know, we are in the Matrix and what you believe to be reality is really just highly defined pixels.

Thanks for saying it for everyone that was either too busy being a jackass, a fanboy, or was just too lazy to say it.